Kafuuka

I agree with you Malaikat, it's not fair. It is however also not fair that some people got away with abuse. It was also unfair towards me that back in the RPCs days one infamous dude got himself banned in the time between me completing his quest and him finding the time to reward me. He apologized for that later and nowadays I have relatively much WPs so it doesn't affect me as much as someone who never got WPs. That being the case, it is currently about very very old WPs afaik, I haven't seen any undetailed WPs in the logs recently. We all suspect that WPs for days will be introduced soon, so if WPs are being removed now, those affected will probably still end up with more WPs after the changes. Their "punishment" will consist of only getting what they deserve and not more. Maybe that is also one of the reasons this is happening now instead of several months ago. Mind you, even in real life it often takes multiple years before a trial even starts. Also, now that WPs are being inspected and the council is probably reading this, I'd like to ask to think of the 25 last rewarded limit. More and more WPs in the logs are being given by person X to person Y for quest A by person Z. It takes the charm out of WPs a bit. eg. a WP rewarded by MB just sounds way more awesome.

[quote name='Ivorak' timestamp='1291680094' post='74704'] [list] [*]nonparticipation in a dispute or war [*]disinterest: tolerance attributable to a lack of involvement [*]pH value of 7 [/list] Now obviously you're not referring to the last, and I doubt the first. [/quote] Actually, political neutrality means 'not a participant in war' at the very least and is the primary (but not the only) concern here. Furthermore since the legend speakers and archivists are, or at least were, supposed to collect stories that happened. Not being active in a dispute doesn't even interfere with their jobs. Remember, it is the legend Speakers, not the Legend Creators. Nothing wrong with one of them becoming a legend, neither is anything wrong with one not becoming a legend; it is not the alliance's purpose. In se every alliance is an opportunity to make the game more interesting. The Legend Speakers, Archivists and Newspaper are geared towards spreading the news and could be a source of inspiration or a catalyst, however the last role seems reserved to newspapers imo. They're also the only ones I expect to report quickly, with less attention to completeness or prozaic style. [quote name='Fyrd Argentus' timestamp='1291728070' post='74745'] Sorry, are you reading my post or Curiose's? She and I seem to be on different planets here.... I am just sitting back in stunned amazement at her rampages. And searching for those personal communications I supposedly ignored. And I stand by my position that you can't write about something if you have no passion for it. That's rather different from going to war. The Envoy system was one hope of allowing passionate writing while maintaining over-all guild neutrality, but that's not working either, as Curiosa got herself kicked out of Necrovion. [/quote] As a writing guild, your failure to communicate internally is hilarious . I agree that having people write about things they lack interest in, is a bad strategy. However, if nobody is interested in reporting on the opponent or if there is a disproportion in talent/motivation/time then the end result is further from the idea of neutrality. Assuming an envoy's job is to negotiate with nations, both Curiosa and Jester should be able to ignore the past and reach an agreement on who will be reporting on Necrovion, once again assuming it is not the job of the envoy to report on every story.

[quote name='Fyrd Argentus' timestamp='1291660498' post='74667'] To withhold a wp to be awarded AFTER the quest has been run, just because of who actual won, would be very bad form indeed. [/quote] Has this ever happened?

[quote name='Fyrd Argentus' timestamp='1291646677' post='74646'] The adventure log is dead, the newspaper is dead, Magic Duel is in survival mode and hurting.[/quote] That one sentence says it all. The newspaper is dead. Your idea is good for a newspaper. Alas, the legend speakers are not the newspaper. Disconnect your tabloids from the legend speakers and half of your complaints are gone. The other half you'll need to be able to instigate a rival tabloids; a balance to ensure overall neutrality. From personal experience, I've had the neutrality debate often enough to say it never ends. The Legend Speakers are supposed to be strictly neutral and thus anything of this style will keep causing the debate to be actual. Creating something independent and declaring it not neutral is a lot easier in the long run.

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' timestamp='1291559217' post='74507'] If the wp reason is correct should not be judged, yet, i am only concerned if there is a reason or not. [/quote] For all the people preemptively giving reasons... it's not time for that yet. I can't remember having seen a single WP without reasons ever since i got the details feature. Which is good, no? And if I'm right, that also means it's useless to consider only recent WPs. In any case it is not punishment, but seizing of ill acquired goods. Although to me it seems a bit sad that a quester can get penalized for something the creator should have bothered to spend half a minute on.

[quote name='Yoshi' timestamp='1291410868' post='74265'] Kaf, your theory is wrong in that, Person B should have confronted Person A first, and then they would have received a satisfactory answer. If Person B wasn't satisfied and had a doubt about it, THEN they should post it. Also, what was the point of posting the other non-relevant Wish Points and their details? [/quote] Read the premise again... The idea is to give a comprehensive overview of WPs? eg. I personally consider the reasons for the WP by lib40 better than the average reason in that list.

Suppose, theoretically, that person A did something wrong. If person B asks person A 'look, i see something that i think might be wrong but i am not certain about it,' do you honestly believe that A would reply 'why you're absolutely right, I cheated and you full of doubt about what I did have brought it to light'? Second, the 'details' feature is somewhere in the shop. Since it's been made into a topic and requested I think it's only logical that someone with access lists them here. Mighty Pirate Lib39 749 N/A No Details 30/11/10 21:07:38 On behalf of Yrth, for his great work in quest creation over the past months. Good work MP. Yoshi Lib40 738 N/A No Details 28/11/10 01:07:59 Carving of Handy Pockets on Pumpkin Z's shoe family quest. Shadowseeker yrthilian 731 Wish 20 Yes Details 09/11/10 21:59:45 For my teaching principals quest. yrthilian Lib40 727 N/A Yes Details 30/10/10 19:32:59 For a special project (used to created an item) Sephirah Caelum yrthilian 724 N/A No Details 26/10/10 17:52:08 Supreme dedication and excellent roleplaying to discover the identity and locational source of ********* yrthilian Nimisha 719 N/A Yes Details 17/10/10 15:03:03 This is to create a special item for a quest currently running Leorius yrthilian 716 N/A No Details 09/10/10 13:17:39 for a very good paper submitted to my teaching of principals quest part 2 Sharazhad yrthilian 706 Wish 19 Yes Details 08/09/10 10:42:26 for submitting the best paper to my teaching of principals quest part 1 *Burns* yrthilian 692 N/A No Details 04/08/10 09:48:16 Correctly gained all letters and placed them in the question(s) required before answering with the correct answer and description to back it up - sasha lilias quest *Clock Master* yrthilian 691 Wish 20 Yes Details 04/08/10 09:47:20 Correctly gained all letters and placed them in the question(s) required before answering with the correct answer and description to back it up - sasha lilias quest Nimrodel yrthilian 672 Wish 6 Yes Details 18/07/10 13:45:11 Winner of the travellers soul quest with an ashtonishing 211 points by sasha lilias Mourn yrthilian 666 Wish 2 Yes Details 26/06/10 20:40:19 For the good response on the forum experiment. GTG topic. A player that can give constructive criticism. Mighty Pirate yrthilian 642 Wish 28 Yes Details 15/05/10 09:14:46 Placing first in CCG in may Wolper yrthilian 641 N/A No Details 15/05/10 09:14:22 Placing first in CCG in may Pazur yrthilian 640 N/A No Details 15/05/10 09:13:46 Placing first in CCG in may stavaroiu yrthilian 620 Wish 28 Yes Details 14/04/10 11:50:03 For placing first in the MP5 rank of the MD CCG run by myself and cutler Elthen Airis yrthilian 619 Wish 6 Yes Details 14/04/10 11:49:33 For placing first in the MP4 rank of the MD CCG run by myself and cutler Manum yrthilian 618 N/A No Details 14/04/10 11:48:42 For placing first in the MP3 rank of the MD CCG run by myself and cutler there's more but i'm bored now...

[quote name='Tarquinus' timestamp='1291092302' post='73749'] I have to say: I reject this line of thinking absolutely. You say MD is less "special" but you admit you weren't around to know what it was like before, and you provide no evidence at all, for example by citing similarities in other games, to support your opinion. And Kafuuka seems to be attacking a "straw hat man", to use his words, by claiming that WP for days (which I can only assume is his basis for saying this) will soon make Wish Points "common", and thus MD is "regressing toward the mean". [/quote] There is an entire thread on people debating the consequences of WP for days in the quantities we currently expect them to be delivered. If I remember correctly, several people would get more AD WP than the current bottom of the WP top has. As far as WP are concerned that is a regression towards the mean. I am not saying this is a bad thing per se. I am not saying MD overall is becoming less special. I say that it is easier to spot the things that we do not like. It is easier to pick up arms against a change we dislike and it is easier for me to think of examples of MD being automated more. eg. I think Rendril's job is to support automatization and that the council has mostly executive tasks. If I am asked to give examples of personal touch, I'd refer to the recent new tree in the game and Mur's current burst of activity on esoteric topics in the forum. In general I just don't spend as much time on agreeing with people. 'I think so too' doesn't make for interesting debates and +rep is virtually the same gesture. Whenever I tell someone something bad, I won't preface it with an extensive list of everything that's good.. it would consume too much time or worse, be incredibly short and even more insulting.

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1291052058' post='73703'] Ah, then its merely another "mur i dont like what you did" topic basicly? Mur/council will do stuff that we may not like and also do things we do like, but i would hope that it would be for the best intrests of MD. I dont really see that we should draw upon this point, since this spell is pretty useless unless you want to abuse it. And i would assume since the council (hopefully) play (assuming these guys arnt some faceless suits helping mur) then surely they will also try and do stuff for the better? [/quote] Any change will be met with friction. I always considered debate an essential part of MD and thus it is only logical that changes to MD are discussed in the forum and naturally those who like the change the least will be most prone to start the discussion. Perhaps this negative discussion bias is impeding MD development, yet I'd like to believe Mur is capable of distilling the useful information. MD's current development [b]seems[/b] to be focused on automation and regression to the mean. RPCs are gone and clickies have become available to anyone with enough WPs. WPs will soon become common. One privilege has been taken now and several privileges have been taken before. On the other hand we have kings, the woodcutters and the lair keepers. Afaik, all three of those are still waiting until all features related to their tasks/privileges are implemented. Thus on one side of the scale we have little to no new special things and on the other hand we have a reduction of some special features and a vulgarization of others. With an emphasis on automation, it seems unlikely that many truly unique features will be added. Such is a contradiction in terminis anyway; a personal touch cannot be automated - unless we assume Mur will manage to create the first true AI. For many of us, this personal touch is what sets MD apart from other games. Whenever [b]we consider[/b] it to be threatened, we will speak up. On this particular issue: afaik it's the council's decision, not Mur's. If the particular spell is only useful for abuse, perhaps we should ask why Mur implemented in the first place? Certainly, Mur can make mistakes, but removing an entire spell because one person abused it and without it having met its original purpose, seems very wasteful to me.

[quote name='VonUngernSternberg' timestamp='1291037741' post='73688'] Thanks Mighty Pirate! I think the quest was really fun. The 6th riddle especially. I lost more than a day thinking why those numbers were prime...when they were not even numbers... [/quote] If the numbers are not numbers, how the heck did they all end up being primes?

1. Learn Language X and read Book Y in the original form Why not: I'm already fluent in Dutch and English and proficient in French. I've forgotten most about Latin and Greek. Why yes: clearly I am capable of learning languages. Why: Translations are inferior; some languages allow or at least make certain thought patterns easier. 2. Write a book (create something new) Why not: too busy, too chaotic to make something coherent of such size, too many stories that have been told by others better. Why yes: my friends claim I have a good literary style (they might be lying though) Why: I want to. 3. Refrain from commenting on other people's wishes listed above or below. Why not: Curiose scares me. Go visit a doctor! Why yes: all I should do is stop reading them. Why: It feels appropriate to preserve sanctity.

[quote name='Grido' timestamp='1290874010' post='73417'] the top...err...4/5 people who get nominated the most will be put forward to the vote please state objections to this, apologies for the *cough* up [/quote] Some of us were trying to help and only nominate people who were not nominated already. No good deed goes unpunished...

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' timestamp='1290833550' post='73375'] Now question still remains, but i would like, in case you comment your vote, to focus on "valuable" .. valuable for who? for that person? for its image and effect on the others around? valuable just so in general? It makes yes/no more interesting don't you think. [/quote] This question is completely tied to the question who determines whether a death is worthy, fitting, noble etc. Personally I think only three answers can be considered - in order of importance: a. The person who dies b. Some kind of deity c. The people who realize they profited from the death As a side note, I believe that everybody should have the right to die. Currently people do not have the right to live, but according to laws have a [b]duty[/b] to stay alive as long as possible.

[quote name='Shadowseeker' timestamp='1290782545' post='73312'] Questions made public previously in the forums might be accepted, but will earn negative points, according to who asks them, and how. <...> Send me the set of questions, no more than 5, but at least one, to me via PM or forum PM. The questions sent in and recognised will be displayed in a topic seperate from this. [/quote] Will each question be treated separately or is it the sum that counts?

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1290667483' post='73149'] My suggestion was to have people "vote" for who they want initially then take the top 5. Then revote. Also its not really fair saying the first X people can be considered and all others arent eligible, thats just mean. [/quote] If you need to reduce choices, then have nominations be seconded or similar (eg restrict this requirement to those the organizers don't "get"). Floating ballot voting is going to be a huge hassle for the ones organizing.

[quote name='Pipstickz' timestamp='1290636733' post='73115'] Discuss/suggest, but don't make this into an argument about Necrovion rebellion, please; it's about rebel system as a whole. Thanks. [/quote] If you don't want me to discuss the Necrovion rebellion, then don't mention you are actively participating in it. For one you couldn't have accomplished everything (this is not a typo), because you didn't bother to talk to all of the characters who are related to Necrovion yet. Why do you think there is a shu item for the king? As for the % indicator: 1. If people are afraid to join a rebellion because there aren't many who did and are opportunists when things are in favor of the rebellion, this could be remedied by lagging the % indicator by a week. I don't know if it really is an issue though, real rebellions have trouble finding members until it is clear that they will win; nobody likes to join the losing team. 2. If there are multiple rebellion groups who don't feel like cooperating, a single % indicator is misleading.

Adventuring Award (quester) VonUngernSternberg (he solved the emo topaz quest!!! And I realize using three exclamation marks is a sign of craziness, but crazy is what it is) [quote name='Fyrd Argentus' timestamp='1290637581' post='73120'] Prime Quest (best quest) "What number am I?" (Cutler's work is what pulled me into Magic Duel) [/quote] Isn't that one from last year? It seems ages ago to me. *edit* ok, borderline last year: Rewarded by Cutler on 06/11/09 - What number am I WP Quest

[quote name='Pipstickz' timestamp='1290390912' post='72747'] My problem with the Most Influential award is that sometimes influence isn't easily seen, because there are many things done in MD behind closed doors, as I understand it, and knowing that, then one could assume that there is some measure of effort to keep such actions unknown, and so how can we accurately judge what we don't even know about? [/quote] This applies to many of the awards. eg. Best fighter: unless you have very active alts on each and every mp level, you can only judge your own mp level. Oh you could exclude it to best mp5 level fighter, but then don't count on the lower level people voting based upon knowledge. Best bug researcher. Helper of the year: if you didn't experience problems, you didn't request help and your only base for judgement is either hearsay or activity in the paper cabin, ie not the best helper, but the most active or most liked helper. Most addicted should actually be measured in terms of time online/time that could be spent online. Someone with a job naturally has less time to spend online than a student, but might be spending most of their free time online and thus is more addicted imo. Golden protector: once again little info if you don't have a protector, and actually difficult to compare if you only ever had one. Evil villain: an efficient villain will remain anonymous. Best quote: if a Bob falls in an everpuddle and no Ledahs are there to see it, does it make a sound? etc etc

1. Awiiya said debating is a common activity. I would go further and claim that debating is a core activity of MD. It might have been a long time since the MD university or one of Mur's 'lectures' but I still consider those activities one of the things that makes MD different. 2. Every award is subjective. Do we really want to debate on how subjective it is to assign a measure of subjectivity to subjective awards? Plus if the in game vote system is used, people can be required to give reasons for this award.

[quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1290282207' post='72685'] Also a newb, or a new alt has nothing to lose by cheating (considering the account is not yet developed). People owning an item usually have much more to lose by abusing the system. [/quote] On various occasions Mur has said that he is less likely to show mercy to very new players and that punishments for deeds of alts might be extended to the 'main'. Homing items are interesting if used correctly, however they are more prone to abuse than usable items without pigeon genetics. You say you have not witnessed any cases yet, whereas I have long ago seen the effect of people being granted the power to make 'money' out of nothing. Back when coins were first introduced, one RPC proposed to 'trade' his spell document for a certain amount of coins. For those who don't know how spell docs and RPCs operated, RPCs were able to give people copies of their spell document and did so to reward people for quests. I do not consider 'give me five coins' a quest, but an abuse of a given privilege.

[quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1290274901' post='72662'] I would like to suggest a feature that allows me to transfer an usable item to somebody else for period of time or limited number of uses (so for example nobody crosses me over when I transfer Lorerootian Pass papers to someone for one-time use) [/quote] I highly doubt you'll ever be able to edit the pass papers themselves and making a tool that allows you to make items returning, is nice for those who have such a tool, but allows them to cross over others. What would stop you from making every item you trade come back to you even if that is not what the other party agreed upon? It seems to me you are dumping the problem of breach of trust onto the other party instead of actually solving it.

There's the archives, the MD university, the MD newspaper... everything that was discussed there is freely available and thus sets a precedent for spoilers and research. They're also inactive long enough to declare them legally dead by now, which shows how difficult it is to maintain this kind of projects. I'd like it if someone revived one or made a new one either way, but I do think the past is a stern warning concerning feasability. I also personally highly doubt it is possible to spoil everything there is in MD or that spoilers about the inner workings about principles are even going to be understood by people to lazy to research them themselves. I don't believe you can explain advanced things without your pupil first understanding the absolute basics. This is pure conjecture on my part, but seems plausible to me.

I don't get it. Best rookie is <100 AD. Fossil is ~ > 700 AD. => The intermediate award either should be [100 AD; 700 AD]; OR [100AD; 365AD]; OR ( >=100 AD and registered after 1 november 2009 ) . Either everybody of any age is eligible for one of the age related rewards or everybody is eligible for a rookie award (at least) once. The purpose of [200AD; 400AD] is beyond me. I personally favor [100AD; infinity[ and registered after november 2009. Might be annoying to verify though. eg. I'd like to be able to nominate Curiose as a good newcomer. I'm almost certain she is above 100AD by now and registered after november 2009. I'm also positive I thought she was a good newcomer by the time she was, say, 50 AD. Why should I be forced to choose (or blanco) best rookie between people I probably never heard about, and not be able to vote for someone I think merits such a title?

In the same spirit, here is Kyphis implicitly claiming to be mur [quote name='Kyphis the Bard' timestamp='1290113850' post='72492'] Firstly: If he is one of Fenrirs alts, Mur is the only one who can say. Useing his alt checker. Secondly: I am personally certain that this is an alt of Fenrir, since on the first time interacting with Seighart he IMMEDIATELY struck me as Fenrir, and I didn't know about any of the other pieces of evidence. It was just extremely obvious. I then wrote it on his PL, to which I got a PM CONFIRMING he was Fenrir, but that he didn't want people to know, so I politely removed it. [/quote] in other words: only mur knows kyphis knows => kyphis is mur! I believe this is the first piece of evidence for the 'everybody is mur's alt' conspiracy. Shocking!

[quote name='Grido' timestamp='1289955054' post='72279'] Rookie could get extended to <365 (I think someone else commented this), you do ofc then have the issue of are they still rookies? If you want one for some intermediary period, then suggest a name for it? I believe it's like this way currently because rookies get rewarded for progressing well at a young age, and veterans for sticking around and still playing for so long, the middle don't come under either of those too...fittingly (imo), so some other..err...description or such would have to be thought [/quote] Annoyingly enough the only name I could think of was 'best middle aged person' which is not a good name, albeit moderately funny. I think the rookie issue was raised last year, at least it sounds like something I mentioned before and the argument that 365 makes them no longer rookies seems familiar too... even though they were rookies at some point during the time. "Brightest noon"? Considering rookies are rising and veterans are setting... seems a bit forced though. [quote] On suggestions to remove; Least Convincing Alts Most Annoying --both were removed last year btw, but were in first year [/quote] I pleaded towards a removal last year because there wouldn't be enough new candidates. I know someone new I'd nominate for least convincing alt and I suppose I know someone who will get their first nomination for most annoying this year, albeit not from me.