Malaikat Maut

[quote name='awiiya' date='30 March 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1269985150' post='57191'] I think a better question than "who built the wall" (which gets quickly into the trap of Lore) is "why is it built?" or "what does it represent?" Awi [/quote] I'm not ranting at you, Awiiya, and perhaps I've not paid enough attention to the debates here - but I don't understand the aversion to discussions of Lore. It adds depth and fosters a sense of intrigue in the realm. People are going to speculate and infer conclusions regardless, so you may as well allow them to get other players involved as well. In addition to questions of who built the wall and for what purpose, another consideration is the fact that only few can pass it. What force keeps people out and why? [quote name='Amoran Kalamanira Kol' date='30 March 2010 - 09:42 PM' timestamp='1269999752' post='57201'] Leave Steve out of this! [/quote] What kind of rapper name is Steve anyway?

Just picked up hardbound copies of Stephen Lawhead's "Dragon King Trilogy". I had read them in middle school and recently had a sudden revelation that I loved them and need to read them again. I'm three quarters of the way through the first book, "In the Hall of the Dragon King" and it's even more fantastic than I remembered.

It could be unrelated to the wall's construction, but note the statue that rests at the Howling Gate. That figure appears elsewhere...

[quote name='Kamisha' date='24 March 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1269461328' post='56855'] Well actually CRT (crystal ray tube) monitors still do have pixels the pixels are activated by the electrons emitted by a cathode hitting the screen on different pixels on the screen which are activated by the kinetic energy of the electron. [/quote] Just to be pedantic...It's cathode ray tube. And those electrons are fired by an electron gun which "activate" phosphors and not pixels. It's impossible for a CRT to have "dead pixels" in the same convention that the language is used to define nonfunctional liquid crystals on an LCD.

[quote name='Fenrir Greycloth' date='23 March 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1269377508' post='56801'] Electricity is still running through your monitor, and the pixels are constantly being surged with currents. [/quote] It sounds like the monitor is a CRT, in which case there would be no "pixels". Also, leaving electronics powered on is generally considered to be fine as they experience substantially less wear and tear than mechanical components, such as a motor. In fact, it may actually prolong the life because electronic devices tend to generate heat. Powering them off allows them to cool which could lead to condensation when they heat again. I agree with your prognoses though, Fenrir. Amoran, If you've tried that monitor on another computer with similar results, the only other thing I would have you try is to put a different monitor on your computer. If it shows a display than the monitor is definitely bad, and at this point they aren't worth fixing. I don't know that the parts are even worth anything, and I wouldn't recommend messing with the insides of a CRT monitor. They have huge capacitors which can hold a charge for a long time after being unplugged. The lethality of the charge is debatable...but still not worth the risk in my opinion.

I still feel that we're making some assumptions here, which is generally a no-no in logical debate. Presuppositions should be declared and accepted by all parties before they are considered as valid. [quote name='Kafuuka' date='01 March 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1267460564' post='55573'] [i]1. A is "winning" because B cannot counteract said point whether it being perfectly valid, or just something that is beyond B's understanding/knowledge.[/i] Exactly.[/quote] We're assuming that since B did not answer that he could not answer. Perhaps the argument didn't warrant a response. For instance, what if it were so blatantly ridiculous that to dignify it with a rebuttal would be to suffer some moral loss of character? You've likely heard the quote: "Never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." [quote][i]2. This would depend on the arguments used, wherein B could have used a more valid argument, while A's arguments were more just BS. Either could be "winning".[/i] Well, if A's arguments were BS, then they could be refuted by B and thus changing the example. Of course it is impossible for two mutually exclusive theses to be supported by valid arguments and valid premises and we expect that in the future enough arguments will be refuted until only one side is left standing.[/quote] Here I agree with Yoshi (or he agrees with me) that either could be winning. A could have offered one statement which was refuted followed by another that could not be. However, B could have debunked both arguments with a single claim. There isn't enough detail to draw a solid conclusion. [quote][i]3. A is "winning" because even though B is able to refute one argument, he is back to 1. because it might be beyond B's understanding/knowledge.[/i] Aye. [/quote] Here we again assume that the arguments leveled by A were independent. It could very well be the case that his first was a straw man upon which the second relied. If B were to refute the first, both would crumble. [quote][i]4. Neither is winning and they are both at a stalemate. B might be ahead by a bit because the way I see it, if he was able to shoot down the arguments of A, then B is being more successful. How long that will last however is deemed uncertain.[/i] I agree that it's a stalemate, and that it certainly [b]feels[/b] like B is doing better, yet merely refuting the opponent is not enough. Otherwise the straw hat man strategy would be a valid one. It certainly works often, but it is not a correct means.[/quote] I don't know about this, though it seems to be the most clear cut example. Making a refutation isn't the same as making a claim. Sure, B has been able to deny the advances of A to this point, but he hasn't necessarily declared his own position in the debate. I don't know that you can win a debate without ever drawing a contrary conclusion. Basically, I don't know that falsifying claims without proving any of your own makes you the winner of a debate. [quote][i]5. This would be the better outcome to 4 (in B's case anyways), and B would be "winning" at this point due to B shutting down A's arguments, and making a claim/argument of his own to which A has to respond to.[/i] This is the one case in which B 'wins'. One problem with this is that if A has enough time to bury B with silly arguments, it might become impossible for B who has less time/people, to refute all of A's arguments. [/quote] This scenario cleans up the error in the previous (4th) example. At least B has now made a claim and therefore declared his own position. Granted that A was given the opportunity to form a rebuttal and could not do so, I would agree that B has won in this case.

I've never studied formal debate, but I don't believe you can determine who is winning simply by the number of arguments supporting a particular side. We're missing too much information, as you've said nothing about the logical soundness and validity of the statements being made. For instance, it's entirely possible that any number of the arguments contain logical fallacies. I believe that we would need more detail as to the logic being applied.

[quote name='SageWoman' date='21 February 2010 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1266763994' post='54898'] "A bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush." [/quote] *shrugs* A word in the land is worth two in the forum. A Shade in the sand is worth two in the dust.

[quote name='Indyra' date='21 February 2010 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1266740105' post='54877'] Did anyone ever considered that this type of contest is a big disadvantage for the players who aren't native speakers of English ? i bet that many of us wright beautiful poems that when translated into English loose their charm...i wonder what to do ...post mine in in my native language ? but then again ...how could you judge it ? [/quote] MD is varied enough that there is something for everyone. I've learned to focus on quests that I excel at, and would encourage others to similarly find quests that effectively complement their skill set, language included. Some people don't write poetry at all, others aren't good at math...not every quest will be winnable by every person that it's open to.

[quote name='Orlando Gardiner' date='19 February 2010 - 08:19 AM' timestamp='1266585596' post='54761'] GGG is unlikely to dissapear. trough three main reasons: - it almost the only place (except for sanctuaries) to find people without being ripped, almost the most sociable place in whole md.[/quote] If those players were dispersed, they would find other places to gather, and perhaps places more conducive to constructive game play. [quote]- people will always want easy wins and being better the easy way, as chewett already said. Close GGG, and people will find eachother elsewhere and restart a new form of easy grinding.[/quote] As painful as it may be, I believe the only remedy for a great deal of current issues is to implement a stat cap which scales with mind power. It would promote balance and set exciting and attainable goals (as opposed to being overwhelming) for new players. There are few games with open ended stats and abilities and for good reason.

[quote name='Jester' date='18 February 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1266526329' post='54699'] I said people cannot REVIVE MD, do you guys read the posts you quote? Revive implies bringing the dead back to life. Revitalize implies restore strength. The people in MD can revitalize MD, and it is important. Something as simple as helping a new player or as complex as the Tainted scenario with Granos and Ailith help out the community. Do they REVIVE it? No. But they make MD more fun, which is what is important. [/quote] Since it appears as this entire argument is merely over semantics, just so that everyone is clear... [quote name=Merriam-Webster] Main Entry: re·vive Pronunciation: \ri-ˈvīv\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): re·vived; re·viv·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French revivre, from Latin revivere to live again, from re- + vivere to live — more at quick Date: 15th century intransitive verb : to return to consciousness or life : [b]become active or flourishing again[/b] transitive verb 1 : to restore to consciousness or life 2 : [b]to restore from a depressed, inactive, or unused state[/b] : bring back 3 : to renew in the mind or memory[/quote] Granos, I'll take the dictionary, but I'd rather not drown in a fire if that's alright with you.

[quote name='Jester' date='18 February 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1266520726' post='54689'] I would expect more wisdom from an EX-Sentinel, but this would be better discussed in another thread. [/quote] If that's a threat - spare me. If it were honesty then have me removed and save me the trouble. As of Server time: Feb 18 21:28 I still have my horns, though I possess little desire to employ my skills under one such as yourself. Create a thread if you feel inclined, and I'll be happy to join you there though you may not be.

[quote name='Jester' date='17 February 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1266448726' post='54652'] A player trying to revive MD is like trying to revive a person who is drowning by throwing a bucket of water at their face. EDIT: To expand on that, I didn't mean players shouldn't try to make the game more fun. I simply meant that MD wouldn't be MD without Mur, and only Mur could "revive" the game. [/quote] I'd expect more wisdom from a king...and less somber from a clown. This game [b]IS[/b] its community of players. They create their own excitement through creative quests and roleplay, and, while Mur and the AL provide a focused outlet, neither are entirely necessary for the society to peaceably operate. Player involvement and player motivation are lacking as much if not more so than the same from Mur.

I love the PAL idea, and it seems like a fantastic compromise which allows Mur to maintain creative control while relinquishing some influence to the players. I know many have already expressed this but the AL, along with MD's rich history and dynamic - player influenced - future, is what attracted me to the game. I'm willing to wager that it's also what makes/made players feel involved and willing to stick around.

[quote name='Grido' date='11 February 2010 - 06:17 AM' timestamp='1265887028' post='54275'] templates of rituals is a nono, there is a reason why you have to remake them, the creatures "forget" the rituals, so you have to teach them it again if i had more than 3 mins till i had to sign off, i'd use the search function to find the other threads about this....*cough* [/quote] I kind of like the idea of a graphic interface, even if it doesn't affect gameplay. Rituals could be built by dragging and dropping creatures into certain slots and each ability and target could be given an icon for selection rather than a text dropbox. It would be a little more interactive and aesthetic.

Not 200 words, but specially written for this contest. Once a goddess named for love’s embrace, Whose auburn tresses framed her gentle face. Twice a royal, crowned in barren land, Left to toil the ground and tend the sand. I left my love a pain too great to bear. My sterling dove, what fate becomes the fair? What deadly tone reviled in loneliness? The melody, my child, is only this: The sound of hollow halls and trifled time Unbound by solid walls and stifled eyes. It would my deepest sorrow all amend, Were we to be tomorrow whole again. With hands entwined as lace but souls unfurled, to stand in stately grace before the world. But I left my love, a pain too great to bear, and it remains too late to find her there.

Thanks all, and keep them coming. Grido, "Grieve Not" is fantastic. Nothing from these fine poets yet... Alfred, Lord Tennyson - A Farewell [quote]Flow down, cold rivulet, to the sea, Thy tribute wave deliver: No more by thee my steps shall be, For ever and for ever. Flow, softly flow, by lawn and lea, A rivulet then a river: Nowhere by thee my steps shall be For ever and for ever. But here will sigh thine alder tree And here thine aspen shiver; And here by thee will hum the bee, For ever and for ever. A thousand suns will stream on thee, A thousand moons will quiver; But not by thee my steps shall be, For ever and for ever.[/quote] Edgar Allan Poe - Lenore [quote]Ah, broken is the golden bowl! the spirit flown forever! Let the bell toll! -a saintly soul floats on the Stygian river - And, Guy De Vere, hast thou no tear? -weep now or never more! See! on yon drear and rigid bier low lies thy love, Lenore! Come! let the burial rite be read -the funeral song be sung! - An anthem for the queenliest dead that ever died so young - A dirge for her, the doubly dead in that she died so young. "Wretches! ye loved her for her wealth and hated her for her pride, And when she fell in feeble health, ye blessed her -that she died! How shall the ritual, then, be read? -the requiem how be sung By you -by yours, the evil eye, -by yours, the slanderous tongue That did to death the innocence that died, and died so young?" Peccavimus; but rave not thus! and let a Sabbath song Go up to God so solemnly the dead may feel no wrong! The sweet Lenore hath "gone before," with Hope, that flew beside, Leaving thee wild for the dear child that should have been thy bride - For her, the fair and debonnaire, that now so lowly lies, The life upon her yellow hair but not within her eyes - The life still there, upon her hair -the death upon her eyes. Avaunt! tonight my heart is light. No dirge will I upraise, But waft the angel on her flight with a paean of old days! Let no bell toll! -lest her sweet soul, amid its hallowed mirth, Should catch the note, as it doth float up from the damned Earth. To friends above, from fiends below, the indignant ghost is riven - From Hell unto a high estate far up within the Heaven - From grief and groan to a golden throne beside the King of Heaven."[/quote] William Shakepear - Let me not to the marriage of true minds [quote] Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove: Oh, no! it is an ever-fixéd mark, That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come' Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved.[/quote]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - Dr. Carl Sagan

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei “If you think you can, you can. And if you think you can't, you're right.” - Mary Kay Ash "Even the wisest mind has something yet to learn." - George Santayana

I ask you to please post poetry or prose that you find to be inspiring, despairing, breathtaking, or simply worthy of being read so that others may enjoy them also. Here are a few of my favorites: E.E. Cummings - being to timelessness as it's to time, [quote] being to timelessness as it's to time, love did no more begin than love will end: where nothing is to breathe to stroll to swim love is the air the ocean and the land (do lovers suffer?all divinities proudly descending put on deathful flesh: are lovers glad?only their smallest joy's a universe emerging from a wish) love is the voice under all silences, the hope which has no opposite in fear: the strength so strong mere force is feebleness: the truth more first than sun more last than star - -do lovers love?why then to heaven with hell. whatever sages say and fools,all's well [/quote] John McCrae - In Flanders Fields [quote] In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.[/quote] Lord Byron - When We Two Parted [quote] When we two parted In silence and tears, Half broken-hearted, To sever for years, Pale grew thy cheek and cold, Colder thy kiss; Truly that hour foretold Sorrow to this. The dew of the morning Sank chill on my brow— It felt like the warning Of what I feel now. Thy vows are all broken, And light is thy fame: I hear thy name spoken, And share in its shame. They name thee before me, A knell to mine ear; A shudder comes o'er me— Why wert thou so dear? They know not I knew thee, Who knew thee too well:— Long, long shall I rue thee Too deeply to tell. In secret we met— In silence I grieve That thy heart could forget, Thy spirit deceive. If I should meet thee After long years, How should I greet thee?— With silence and tears.[/quote] W.H. Auden - Funeral Blues [quote] Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone, Silence the pianos and with muffled drum Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come. Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead Scribbling on the sky the message He is Dead. Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves, Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves. He was my North, my South, my East and West, My working week and my Sunday rest, My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song; I thought that love would last forever: I was wrong. The stars are not wanted now; put out every one, Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun, Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods; For nothing now can ever come to any good.[/quote]

[quote]It is what you assume I mean by “designer” that is the issue here, not that I think there is one. You haven’t actually specified it, but by observer designer etc you seem to mean some sort of godly intelligent being. I don’t. The wind makes designs in the sand everyday…for example. [/quote] I believe the words design and designer imply sentience. Random patterns in the sand can hardly be called a design and are given purpose or meaning only through the gratification of an intelligent observer. As I implied above, I don’t believe that the processes or even existence of nature are purposeful in the absence of life. The universe serves no function other than to host and sustain our purposes (assuming we are the only intelligent life forms in it). [quote]You can put the system of systems into another clock...but you will have the same situation. Hence the infinite system of systems. (You say I’m making an assumption a greater or lesser system exists, that there is only the human system, but I already gave you an example…here’s another...we are in the world perpetuating it, it is part of the solar system the solar system is part of something else and so on and so forth vice versa affecting each other).[/quote] Our universe is finite, although expanding. It contains a finite (and relatively small) amount of particles such that the number of physical systems is certainly limited, the largest of which are galaxy clusters. In any case and as previously stated, I don’t feel that an infinite chain is sufficient to establish purpose. This is my opinion and I’m looking to have it changed. Perhaps we can look at it this way. To make things simple, let’s assume that 0 is the grand purpose for the infinity of systems which form an asymptote that approaches 0. The systems will never truly intersect or contain 0, so the purpose is illusionary. I also already stated that in a finite system the end or final system must have a purpose or the others which compose it are similarly meaningless. [quote]A reductionist might say: “But what is the point of the systems? Isn’t that what would give the sort of purpose he is describing?” Well in my first post I already answered that.[/quote] It just seems like a circular argument to me. If our purpose is to grant purpose to others which have no real purpose the entire thing seems meaningless when viewed from a high enough vantage point.

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='12 January 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1263330927' post='52578']To use your analogy: The clock itself, has hands so that someone can see what time it is but only when considered from the point of view of a pre-set idea of what a clock is. [/quote] [quote name='Totenkopf' date='13 January 2010 - 08:19 AM' timestamp='1263388780' post='52645']Your clock-hands question is forcing an already weak analogy - us 6 billion buggers are not, in fact, "a clock", hence, we do not need to have "hands" showing a three-headed alien on a casual Sunday Mars fly-by "the time", as it were. [/quote] Unfortunately, any analogy would be imperfect due to our reliance on language and its inefficiency or inability to approach infinites and abstracts. [quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='12 January 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1263330927' post='52578'] It's designer, creator, and observer is nothing more than a part of a greater system the clock is part of. Their relationship is mutually beneficial and only two cogs in a bigger system.[/quote] But you’ve just made the assumption that we have a designer, in which case I concede that fact alone is sufficient to grant us a greater purpose. I would like to assume that no greater system than humanity exists, and, in my clock analogy, humanity would have aspired to the pinnacle of its achievements: a harmonious yet complex world society. The murder rate is 0 and employment is 100%. I would make the claim that the universe, being the largest and ultimately final system yet unaware and inanimate, is purposeful insofar as that it sustains sentient life. So again, in the absence of a designer…is existence meaningful? Are there logical ways to support that it is? [quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='12 January 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1263330927' post='52578']In the same way, without having to go further, I think one must accept that the purpose is what you are, part of a system of systems. If there is some end finite purpose, we must accept it is too far away to see, or perhaps the systems are infinate. If I use the clock, then the prupose of this world and how it functions is in order to perpetuate it's existance for the system above it and so on and so forth...in a sense, this is the nature of faith and hope. That being said, without hands what you remove is the indicator of function for the system above, not the purpose of the clock, for essentially it would still tell time with a very simple addition. You see I said addition rather than repair there? Remove one of the cogs however and you have a totally different problem...then the system either somehow manages to fix itself or must be repaired in order to continue it's function in the larger system else it dies. (I the greater system am thankful for my muscles, my muscles may or may not be aware of how wonderful they truely are simply in virtue of their existance)[/quote] [quote name='phantasm' date='12 January 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1263333839' post='52584']i love the analogy malaikat. The difference, and the flaw...is that the clock parts don't produce new clock parts. We as a civilization breed new generations. I am an extremely devout Lutheran, but I don't look at the purpose to be set twards the "designer". I look as the purpose to be set for the next generation of clogs and gears, as you put it. "In 100 years from now it won't matter what kind of car I drove, what kind of suit I wore, or what kind of food I ate. What will matter is the difference I made in the life's of those who will see the future." One of my favorite quotes. So as you can see I think the meaning of life is the preservation of life for the next.[/quote] I had originally thought these arguments to be different, however, I realize that they are the same. Phantasm, it’s easier to spot in your post as it sounds as though you acknowledge and accept that existence is futile in the immediate. However, you neglect to consider the logical implications on subsequent generations. If our purpose is solely to breed a generation of individuals who have no purpose other than to do the same, I would say that the meaning of our existence is not only illusionary but also elusive. What’s the point of perpetuating a species that serves no purpose other than its perpetuation? Also, for the sake of being thorough, I would like to be Biblical for a moment. In addition to the logical argument covered above, there is also a scriptural (Abrahamic) argument based on God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”. However, that command was delivered only twice, both in the Old Testament, both to very specific individuals, and under even more specific circumstances. It was delivered once to Adam and Eve shortly after creation, and again to Noah and his sons almost immediately after the flood. It’s impossible to argue the command is valid outside of those instances without also accepting the entirety of Old Testament law as delivered to the tribes of Israel, and even then it’d be kinda spotty. Z makes the same claim, although more abstract, to a seemingly infinite chain of systems each granted purpose by the system preceding it. First, it’s an assumption that those greater systems would exist in the first place, but even so if the chain is finite than the final system’s futility will invalidate the purpose of all of those before it and if the systems are infinite than the purpose is certainly illusionary as it will never truly be actualized…

[quote name='Udgard' date='12 January 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1263286057' post='52548'] So men craft because we came in contact with the inner woman in us? [b]Only[/b] men are crafting, no woman... does that mean MD women have lost contact with their inner woman? O_o [/quote] I'll remind you that they are playing a role playing game...