Kyphis the Bard

Here are a couple examples of my perspective of this topic: A1 wants item X on account A2, their alt B has item X as well, and is willing to help A1, but wants to keep item X B gives item X to player A1 and gets a new item X from A2 This is abuse. Even though at no point does the item from A2 go to A1, B would never have given the item if A2 was not going to replace it. Fundamentally, it should be considered as the same item. A1 wants item X1 on account A2, their alt B has item X1 as well, and wants items X2 from player A1, but also wants to keep X1 B trades item X1 to A1 in exchange for item X2 from A1, and X1 from A2 This is also abuse. Again, at no point does the item on A2 go to A1, and A1 has even payed B for item X1, but A2 paying part of the cost is still resulting in an abuse - you can't use items from one of your accounts to buy items for another. A1 wants item X1 on account A2, their alt B has item X1 as well, and wants items X2 from player A1 B trades item X1 to A1 in exchange for item X2 from A1 A2 retains their copy of item X1 This is not abuse. In this case, the only exchange is a proper trade, with no alts involved. A2 might not need item X1, but no effort to move the item to A1 has been made - a completely discreet copy has been acquired. A1 wants item X1 on account A2, their alt B has item X1 as well, and wants items X2 from player A1, but also wants to keep item X1 A2 can make use of item X3, which B has and is willing to trade B trades item X1 to A1 in exchange for item X2 from A1 A2 trades their copy of X1 for item X3 from B This is not abuse. While B is ending up with a copy of X1 at the end, this is not as a result of a single trade, but two discreet trades. This is a touch messier, because the existence of the second trade is a deciding factor in whether or not the first trade happens. However, the second trade is a discreet trade, with all goods payed for as part of the trade. It is not unknown for someone to make a trade with one person, selling something they want, because they know someone else will pay them more than the price they payed for the same item. This is, in essence, the same as a supermarket making a markup in price. The other scenario's are fairly clear cut, but this last one is the one that requires monitoring - paying a significant value item, such as a Morph, on the second trade would very rarely be accused of abuse, while paying a low value, such as a flower or single silver coin, would almost always be abuse.

Yeah, the console/pc versions are completely incompatible. Sadly....

Never have I ever drunk tea.

Teach it contemplative meditation, existential crisis, and ineffective metamorphosis.

I was explicitly told not to change things. The Archivists task was to identify unsuitable items, not to adjust the meaning of the items. I would have preferred for the Archivists to take a more intensive role in checking spelling and grammar, but Mur instructed us not to do that unless it was extreme (and even in that case, we just isolated the entry for Mur to review himself, as he instructed us to)

Is the list for the blue items done? I've finished fixing the first list, but have yet to see a second.

The point of the above is actually that someone could sign up, then simply spend the majority of the time logged out and unable to be found. A better scoring mechanic would be to score points for time spent online without the watch, but I don't know how you would implement that.

As an additional confirmation of how long someone has the broken gold watch, the item transfer logs in the MDA should provide fairly accurate information. Question - Can you pass the watch back to the same person who gave it to you? Question - How will you confirm whether or not the competitors Without the watch are online?

Yeah, I've been getting it as well, but only for the new day announcements when I first login.

Genuinely had no idea about this "bug"

An interesting concept would be to have the process of "locking down" a resource consume Volition from the players that do so, since they are in effect applying viscosity to the resource. It would also mean that players who travel the most - which is typically the same people who deplete resources - have the greatest ability to lockdown resources. I would also suggest allowing people to still gather when a resource was locked down, but at the cost of significantly longer cooldown timers on tools (say 10x, for example)

Here's one that should cause some coding grief: Ability to shield a worshiper such that they do not gain any effects (positive or negative) from being attacked for a duration equal to: [60seconds]x([heatsaccrificed]/[50,000]). This would not impact fights that they chose to start. As a punishment effect, an inability to start any fights and any defences run at 0% ve instead of the amount they were bound at.

Results with speeches are also on the Archives.

Results posted on the Archives. A shame that only 4 of the winners were able to be present at the chosen time slot, I look forward to seeing all the other winners speeches on the forums and updating the Archives post as appropriate in the future.

I can't make any of those times - even on the weekends, I can only get on from 22:00ST until 12:00ST the following day.

Merry Christmas, lashtal.

To save time, I will choose the Imp, and if Witty steals it from me (T_T) then I will nab the Prot nomulti stone.

I'd encourage you to PM Eagle Eye to verify whatever method you are useing is what you are supposed to, so he can confirm that the image puzzles are set to the correct difficulty.

I dont understand everyone's obsession with iPhones... So it takes pictures - no matter how good the camera is, its still shooting through thick plastic intended to protect the camera, not enhance the image, so there is a natural limit on its ability So it can access the internet - because of software bloat, the volume of most things outside simple text is resulting in a rapid consumption of the available bandwidth frequencies, so that data prices are increasing rapidly to discourage constant internet usage. It's just another bill really - and its not uncommon for people to spend two or three times as much on data usage than calls, now that everyone is used to free data on websites like facebook and it is being phased out. So it can play games - never as well as a dedicated platform for them though, and often at a higher price than such games should be. I much rather my simple Nokia. It makes calls, it sends texts. If I really need it to, I can even get on the net with it - and since it doesn't support images, it only loads text so my data usage is never exceeded. It might not take pictures or have many games, but that's what I have cameras and consoles for. What it does have is a two week battery life and a near indestructible design.

I don't know if its mechanically better (I don't have - or want - access to the code, so have no way of telling), but I do think this new way is better for the end user. More control, ability to have far more than just two tags and switch between them at will, ability to prove dedication to a role, etc Still bugs to be ironed out, obviously, but I do like this new approach better.

Ann 3125 asks us to discuss on the forum any case where we think multiple tags are applicable but not yet applied. I figure I might as well get the ball rollin': Before becoming an MDA Land Leader I spent three years working to earn my role tag as Chronicler. While I am not overly likely to use the tag while I have the MDA Land Leader tag, I would still like to have it registered to my account, so that I can make that choice. Information is as follows:

I agree with everything Chewett said bar one point - there should be a minimum, and I do think three is a good number for that minimum. If a category is so specialized that three or more candidates cannot be presented, then it seems to me like that category is created just to award a specific player. The exception to this would be general categories that should have lots of candidates, but have simply failed to - for example, if the "Best Newbie" award only had one candidate, totally give them the award.

Haha, the quiz is 50/50 completely right and completely wrong. Very entertaining.

Not yet, no. New discussion.

Item Decay and Heat