Brulant

Here are Wikipedia's citations. On something as big as Republics, I think you can take most of what Wikipedia has to say as correct. As a quick forum definition, it should suffice, even if you wouldn't use it as a paper source. [log Citations][list] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-0"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu"]Montesquieu[/url], [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_the_Laws"]The Spirit of the Laws[/url][/i] (1748), Bk. II, ch. 1. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Britannica_1-0"]^[/url][/b] "Republic". [i]Encyclopædia Britannica[/i]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-WordNet_2-0"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic"]"republic"[/url], [i]WordNet 3.0[/i] (Dictionary.com), retrieved 20 March 2009 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-M-W_3-0"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic"]"Republic"[/url]. [i]Merriam-Webster[/i]. Retrieved August 14, 2010. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-4"]^[/url][/b] See Aristotle's [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)"]Politics[/url][/i] [url="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D1265b"]1265b[/url]: "In fact some people assert that the best constitution must be a combination of all the forms of constitution, and therefore praise the constitution of Sparta （for some people say that it consists of oligarchy, monarchy and democracy, meaning that the kingship is monarchy and the rule of the ephors oligarchy, but that an element of democracy is introduced by the rule of the ephors because the ephors come from the common people; while others pronounce the ephorate a tyranny but find an element of democracy in the public mess-tables and in the other regulations of daily life）." Aristotle is considered the crucial surviving source for understanding Polybius and Cicero's comparisons to Greek regimes. In[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics"]Nicomachean Ethics[/url][/i] 1160a34 he says [i]politeia[/i] can mean the same thing as "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timocracy"]timocracy[/url]". In the [i]Politics[/i] 1293b22 he says [i]politeia[/i] can mean what is today often translated as a "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_regime"]mixed regime[/url]". [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-5"]^[/url][/b] Montesquieu, [i]Spirit of the Laws[/i], Bk. II, ch. 2–3. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-6"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html"]Constitution of the United States.[/url] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-7"]^[/url][/b] Rubinstein, Nicolai. "Machiavelli and Florentine Republican Experience." in [i]Machiavelli and Republicanism[/i] Cambridge University Press, 1993. [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-2"][sup][i][b]c[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-3"][sup][i][b]d[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-4"][sup][i][b]e[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Ideas2099_8-5"][sup][i][b]f[/b][/i][/sup][/url] "Republic" New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. pg. 2099 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-9"]^[/url][/b] Lewis, Charlton T.; Charles Short (1879). [url="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dres"]"res, II.K"[/url]. [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Latin_Dictionary"]A Latin Dictionary[/url][/i]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved August 14, 2010. [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Haakonssen_10-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Haakonssen_10-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." [i]A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy.[/i] Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995. [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-William_R._Everdell_2000_11-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-William_R._Everdell_2000_11-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-12"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bloom"]Bloom, Allan[/url]. [i]The Republic.[/i] Bsic Books, 1991. pg. 439-440 [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Kingsxxiii_13-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Kingsxxiii_13-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000. pg. xxiii [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Monarchy_14-0"]^[/url][/b] "Monarchy" [i]New Dictionary of the History of Ideas.[/i] Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-15"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Finer"]Finer, Samuel[/url]. [i]The History of Government from the Earliest Times.[/i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press"]Oxford University Press[/url], 1999. pg. 950. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-16"]^[/url][/b] Nippel, Wilfried. "Ancient and Modern Republicanism." [i]The Invention of the Modern Republic[/i] ed. Biancamaria Fontana. Cambridge University Press, 1994 pg. 6 [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Rahe_17-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Rahe_17-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] Paul A. Rahe, Republics, Ancient and Modern, three volumes, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-18"]^[/url][/b] Reno, Jeffrey. "republic." [i]International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences[/i] pg. 184 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Pocock_19-0"]^[/url][/b] Pocock, J.G.A. [i]The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition[/i] (1975; new ed. 2003) [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-20"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://p2.www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074639/Vaisali"]http://p2.www.britan...9074639/Vaisali[/url] Vaisali,[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica"]Encyclopædia Britannica[/url]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-21"]^[/url][/b] Bindloss, Joe; Sarina Singh (2007). [url="http://books.google.com/?id=T7ZHUhSEleYC&pg=PA556&dq=Vaishali#v=onepage&q=Vaishali"][i]India: Lonely planet Guide[/i][/url].[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonely_Planet"]Lonely Planet[/url]. p. 556. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1741043085"]1741043085[/url]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-22"]^[/url][/b] Hoiberg, Dale; Indu Ramchandani (2000). [url="http://books.google.com/?id=DPP7O3nb3g0C&pg=PA208&dq=Vaishali#v=onepage&q=Vaishali"][i]Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5[/i][/url]. Popular Prakashan. p. 208. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0852297602"]0852297602[/url]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-23"]^[/url][/b] Kulke, Hermann; Dietmar Rothermund (2004). [url="http://books.google.com/?id=TPVq3ykHyH4C&pg=PA57&dq=Vaishali&q=Vaishali"][i]A history of India[/i][/url]. Routledge. p. 57. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0415329191"]0415329191[/url]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-24"]^[/url][/b] Sharma, RS. [i]Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India.[/i] Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1999 pg. xxix [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-25"]^[/url][/b] Radhey Shyam Chaurasia [i]History Of Ancient India Earliest Times To 1200 A.D.[/i] Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, 2002 pg. 296 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-26"]^[/url][/b] Alterkar, AS. [i]State and Government in Ancient India.[/i] Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2002 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-27"]^[/url][/b] Martin Bernal, [i]Black Athena Writes Back[/i] (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), 359. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-28"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/15"]Aksum[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO"]UNESCO[/url] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-29"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://upress.kent.edu/Nieman/Concepts_of_Democracy.htm"]Concepts of Democracy and Democratization in Africa Revisited. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Kent State University Symposium on Democracy. by Apollos O. Nwauwa[/url] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-30"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iceland-free-speech-20110403,0,5332545.story"]http://www.latimes.c...0,5332545.story[/url] [*]^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Finer_1999._pg._950-955_31-0"][sup][i][b]a[/b][/i][/sup][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-Finer_1999._pg._950-955_31-1"][sup][i][b]b[/b][/i][/sup][/url] Finer, Samuel. [i]The History of Government from the Earliest Times.[/i] Oxford University Press, 1999. pg. 950-955. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-32"]^[/url][/b] William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-33"]^[/url][/b] Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge. Law in Medieval Russia, IDC Publishers, 2009 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-34"]^[/url][/b] Finer, Samuel. [i]The History of Government from the Earliest Times.[/i]Oxford University Press, 1999. pg. 955-956. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-35"]^[/url][/b] Finer, Samuel. [i]The History of Government from the Earliest Times.[/i]Oxford University Press, 1999. pg. 1020. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-36"]^[/url][/b] "Republicanism." [i]Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment[/i] pg. 435 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-37"]^[/url][/b] "Introduction." [i]Republicanism: a Shared European Heritage.[/i] By Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner. Cambridge University Press, 2002 pg. 1 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-38"]^[/url][/b] "Republicanism." [i]Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment[/i] pg. 431 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-39"]^[/url][/b] "Latin American Republicanism" New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-40"]^[/url][/b] Anderson, Lisa. "Absolutism and the Resilience of Monarchy in the Middle East." [i]Political Science Quarterly[/i], Vol. 106, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 1–15 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-41"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis"]Bernard Lewis[/url]. "The Concept of an Islamic Republic" [i]Die Welt des Islams,[/i] New Series, Vol. 4, Issue 1 (1955), pp. 1–9 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-42"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OED"]OED[/url], [i]s. v.[/i] [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-43"]^[/url][/b] "Presidential Systems" [i]Governments of the World: A Global Guide to Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities.[/i] Ed. C. Neal Tate. Vol. 4. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. p7-11. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-44"]^[/url][/b] Article VII, Constitution of the United States [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-45"]^[/url][/b] Article II, Para 2, Constitution of the United States [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-46"]^[/url][/b] The novelist and essayist [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.G.Wells"]H.G.Wells[/url] regularly used the term crowned republic to describe the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom"]United Kingdom[/url], for instance in his work [i]A Short History of the World.[/i] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred,_Lord_Tennyson"]Alfred, Lord Tennyson[/url] in his poem[i][url="http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tennyson/alfred/idylls/chapter13.html"]Idylls of the King[/url][/i]. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-47"]^[/url][/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montfort_Dunn"]Dunn, John[/url]. "The Identity of the Bourgeois Liberal Republic." The Invention of the Modern Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-49"]^[/url][/b] "[url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/"]Republicanism[/url]" [i]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[/i] Jun 19, 2006 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-50"]^[/url][/b] McCormick, John P. "Machiavelli against Republicanism: On the Cambridge School's 'Guicciardinian Moments'" [i]Political Theory[/i], Vol. 31, No. 5 (Oct., 2003), pp. 615–643 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-51"]^[/url][/b] Pocock, J.G.A [i]The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition[/i] Princeton: 1975;2003 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-52"]^[/url][/b] Philip Pettit, [i]Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government[/i], NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0198290837"]ISBN 0-19-829083-7[/url]; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-53"]^[/url][/b] William R. Everdell. [i]The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans.[/i] University of Chicago Press, 2000. pg. 6 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-54"]^[/url][/b] GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-55"]^[/url][/b] W. Paul Adams "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric Before 1776."[i]Political Science Quarterly[/i], Vol. 85, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 397–421 [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-56"]^[/url][/b] Bailyn, Bernard. [i]The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution[/i]. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967. [*][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_ref-57"]^[/url][/b] Kramnick, Isaac. [i]Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America.[/i]Ithaca: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_Press"]Cornell University Press[/url], 1990. [/list] [/log] Or, you know, there's always the dictionary. [quote] republic |riˈpəblik| noun a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. [/quote]

I think it's probably wise to wait until the rest of this announcement pans out, and then see what we can do from there. Maybe after Mur comes back from being sick/on vacation. [quote] [color="#CCCCCC"][font=Georgia,]Ann. 2096 - [2011-11-18 18:46:01 - Stage 11][/font][/color] [b]King Firsanthalas resigns[/b] Due to yet untold reasons King Firsanthalas resigns from his position as King of Loreroot. A forum topic about this was opened. Like the other resigned Kings, Firsanthalas agreed to finish some of the remaining kingship related activities and leave LR in good standing. Currently all kings are resigned or unable to rule (jester). I will not open any new elections season for now. [size=4][b]More details about why and what will happen next will be given in a few days. (currently there is no set plan but elections is clearly not the solution).[/b][/size] [/quote]

Thursday is December 1st all over the world… Wednesday is the 30th. If you mean 2:00 ST Nov 30 then the event is in 7 hours. If you mean 2:00 ST Thursday then the event is in 31 hours.

You're MP4, Zori. Were you victorious when you defended, or did you merely win? When you're MP3, you only have two battle outcomes. When you're MP4 and up, there are four outcomes. [quote][list] [*][b]~~VICTORIOUS~~[/b] (win+1) This type of outcome happens when both players lose at least 10% vitality and the difference between both oponents is at least 30%. The win gets counted with the win/loss ballance. [*][b]WINNER[/b] This happens when you win the fight but you don't fulfill the rules to achieve ~~VICTORIOUS~~. The win does not get counted with the win/loss ballance. [*][b]~~DEFEATED~~[/b] (loss+1) When the difference between the players is at least 90% and you lose, the lost fight gets counted with the win/loss ballance. [*][b]You Retreated[/b] When you lose a fight but the difference between you and your opponent is less than 90% you get this type of outcome and the lost fight does not get counted with the win/loss ballance. [/quote] [/list] [quote] [b]How you get heads?[/b] Every time you win against a player you get a head from him. If you are VICTORIOUS (read rules when a fight makes you victorious or just winner) you get ALL the enemy heads. While in sanctuary you can attack other players holding heads. If you have no creatures to defend yourself anybody who attacks you will get all your heads. [/quote] So, you might've just won which will still net you one head.

Brulant Inner Necrovion 47 days Heraldry fully applies. And before anyone asks, it's out of focus on purpose. You'll notice that the background and shadows are completely crisp. [size=5][attachment=3358:Dream Sigil.jpg][/size]

This is what it looks like. The "MagicDuel" becomes split when you have tabs open and I think some of the theme gets cut off along the bottom. I personally am not a fan of themes on my browsers, but if you get the kinks worked out of this one I just might switch over [attachment=3353:Screen Shot 2011-11-26 at 5.30.55 PM.png]

5 silver and 5 pieces of candy. Edit: For the branches. Sorry

It starts on the 1st of December, MasterB 5 daysish.

Happy birthday from 32k feet in the air, Pippy! And many mooooooooore~

I also have this problem. It happened most notably in the past where I had fight alarms for 4 days after Heads ended. Refreshing the browser, clearing cache, restarting the browser, using a different browser, and rebooting didn't fix it for me, so I just muted my computer for 4 days. I'd really like to see a mute alarm button (that mutes everything including alliance and pms) or just a way to reset the fight alarm.

All trades have been completed and this can be closed! Thank you for you work, Mods.

And the auction is closed. I'll stick around the Tranquil Plains for the next couple of days to make the trades.

[quote name='Soothing Sands' timestamp='1321803929' post='96276'] If you need a force of 20, and have a constant of 10, the power must be twice the time, right? What you said is that more time = more power, but i think less time = more power. Super-fast casing means a more concentrated spell, i guess. More time lets the heat escape, you know? ~ [/quote] Thank you for catching that!! I seriously messed up some variable descriptions when I wrote them down. My handwriting isn't exactly the greatest and there were arrows everywhere! Too many arrows! Instead of rechecking what went wrong where, I just tried to make it work ([b]making me a very stupid person if you read my earlier status[/b]). To be truthful, I was rather confused when I was typing it up because it didn't sound [i]anything[/i] like what I had said earlier and it sort of broke part of my earlier theory... It should be straightened out now, sorry for the confusion. Don't allow me to work on things after midnight! [quote name='Soothing Sands' timestamp='1321803929' post='96276'] And for that last image, i think it could have a few more axis than 2. Each plane is a new level of complexity... [/quote] I could draw so many arrows and axis that it just looks like a black circle. The point of a force diagram is to help you visualize. Adding so many axis would be incredibly confusing. If you want to map out everything that affects Reality, please be my guest, it's less work for me! I didn't even want to include the Y-axis, but the engineer in me wasn't happy looking at it without a "normal" force and "gravity". [quote name='ColdSteel566' timestamp='1321780209' post='96253'] In the discussion, we never mentioned [i]where [/i]the 'object' (reality) is. Which, is significant... Consider the object of reality like an airplane, it must have enough upward force to fly, along with enough forward force. (I know a bit about planes so can further explain what I mean) [/quote] Where Reality is? Um, it's sort of everywhere. Reality is Reality. It's not a box, wheel, sled, car, ball, spring, plane, penguin, carrot, molecule, or person. It just Is. It's an object at rest unless something acts upon it. When it is at rest, there are only two forces affecting it; Decay and growth.

Last day of bidding, auction ends at 00:00 ST tomorrow.

"Q&A in the DQ", "Implications of the Former", and "Changing the Variables of Magic" were just added to the initial post. The latter is a practical culmination of what I have theorized and hypothesized so far.

Here is a log of a lovely conversation I had with Krioni in the Defensive Quarters. In it I answer a couple of general questions and he asks some very interesting questions that I begin to answer. I suggest that you read it [log Q&A in the DQ] [20/11/11 02:05] [b]Brulant:[/b]Hello, Krioni. [20/11/11 02:05] [b]Brulant:[/b]And Pothos! This is where you got to. [20/11/11 02:12] [b]Krioni:[/b]Hello Brulant [20/11/11 02:15] [b]Brulant:[/b]I hear that you're studying magic. [20/11/11 02:16] [b]Krioni:[/b] *[i]closes book[/i]* Well, as much as I can I think. I read what I could find in the Archives. [20/11/11 02:16] [b]Krioni:[/b]Trying to figure out what to do next. [20/11/11 02:16] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]smiles[/i]* The Archives are a good start. [20/11/11 02:16] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]leans comfortably up against the wall[/i]* What have you learned so far? [20/11/11 02:17] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, it seems the majority of what magic is is some sort of netherly cloud, not really defined. What can be defined are these Principles. [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]But the principles themselves can be contradictory to each other. I know I don [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]Don't comprehend all of it. [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]smiles broadly[/i]* I believe I may be able to help you, if you don't mind a bit of reading. [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]I love reading. [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Brulant:[/b]I myself just concluded enough research to feel comfortable in creating a few new theories. [20/11/11 02:19] [b]Brulant:[/b] [[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/10985-interaction-of-principles-theory-and-magical-force-hypotheses/"]Forum link[/url]] [20/11/11 02:19] [b]Krioni:[/b]I saw what you had written, though I haven't read it all yet *[i]begins reading[/i]* [20/11/11 02:22] [b]Krioni:[/b]So to make sure I understand correctly, Laws are derived from what the Principles are, right? [20/11/11 02:23] [b]Krioni:[/b]Neat teleportation example. [20/11/11 02:24] [b]Brulant:[/b]Sorry, I spaced out. *[i]shakes his head to clear it[/i]* [20/11/11 02:24] [b]Brulant:[/b]The Laws, as I put them, are summarized principles. [20/11/11 02:24] [b]Krioni:[/b] *[i]smiles[/i]* no problem. [20/11/11 02:24] [b]Brulant:[/b]Since the Principles define this Realm and, by extension, Magic. [20/11/11 02:25] [b]Brulant:[/b]They are the "laws" of Magic. [20/11/11 02:25] [b]Krioni:[/b]Right. More of what they are instead of just a name. [20/11/11 02:25] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]Hello Krioni. [20/11/11 02:26] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]Greetings Sir Brulant. [20/11/11 02:26] [b]:[/b][i]Amoran K Kol blinks.[/i] [20/11/11 02:26] [b]Krioni:[/b]Hello! I don't believe we have properly met. [20/11/11 02:26] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]A..ah.. Brulant. [20/11/11 02:26] [b]:[/b][i]Amoran K Kol chuckles.[/i] [20/11/11 02:26] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]No we have not, not formally. [20/11/11 02:27] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]I am Amoran Kalamanira Kol, I am the Sibyl of the Eclipse. *[i]smiles[/i]* And you, friend? [20/11/11 02:27] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, I am Krioni *[i]smiles[/i]* [20/11/11 02:27] [b]Krioni:[/b]Not much more, not much less, still learning. [20/11/11 02:28] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b] *[i]furrows her brow and goes quiet, turning to Brulant.[/i]* Pardon me if I interrupted a conversation. Word had reached that magic was being discussed here. [20/11/11 02:28] [b]Krioni:[/b]In a way. I have grown curious on the subject and exhausted the Archive, so I am reading Brulant's theories on the subject. [20/11/11 02:33] [b]:[/b][i]Krioni finishes reading[/i] [20/11/11 02:34] [b]Krioni:[/b] *[i]thinks for a moment[/i]* I believe I understand, though in a way that the more I understand, the more I realize I don't. [20/11/11 02:35] [b]Krioni:[/b]I think about a simple example and say "Oh, here is the combination and theory in how it acts* and then realize that each of those combinations could be even more complex. [20/11/11 02:36] [b]Krioni:[/b]What if the action of a spell has distinct start and end, acceleration and deceleration. Than the F-something is then the acceleration. [20/11/11 02:37] [b]Krioni:[/b]The spell runs its course at the speed desired and slows via the Magic Friction to Reality's natural resting point. Except that point is ([i]hopefully[/i]) where the caster desired. [20/11/11 03:16] [b]Brulant:[/b]Acceleration is something tricky that we're not sure is possible. [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Brulant:[/b]Acceleration is the change of speed over time, and who's to say that spell speed can be increased? [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, when I think about it, lets say I want to heal someone. [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Brulant:[/b]Then again, who's to say it can't? [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Krioni:[/b]And lets talk Magic acceleration, much like you talk magic friciton. [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Krioni:[/b]*friction [20/11/11 03:18] [b]Brulant:[/b]Alright. You have piqued my interest. *[i]smiles[/i]* [20/11/11 03:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]Let us in this case assume the person would naturally heal over time. [20/11/11 03:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]But I want them healed now. [20/11/11 03:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]I want to shift them to that reality where they are healed, though reality is already slowly turning to that existence. [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Krioni:[/b]So I apply a force to displace them to that position faster. I apply a force. I accelerate them. [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Brulant:[/b]Ahha! See, you've said it yourself. [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Brulant:[/b]You are accelerating the _person_ [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Brulant:[/b]Not the spell. [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Krioni:[/b]Oh [20/11/11 03:20] [b]Krioni:[/b]I misspoke them, I meant to say the spell itself is the force. [20/11/11 03:20] [b]Krioni:[/b]*then [20/11/11 03:20] [b]Brulant:[/b]But your force itself isn't changing. Just the person. [20/11/11 03:20] [b]Krioni:[/b]But, what would happen if you could accelerate the spell? An interesting question. *[i]thinks[/i]* [20/11/11 03:21] [b]Krioni:[/b]Wait, what do you mean my force isn't changing? [20/11/11 03:21] [b]Brulant:[/b]You are applying a constant magical force to that person. [20/11/11 03:23] [b]Brulant:[/b]Which is defined by the amount of Reality's static friction that you must overcome. [20/11/11 03:24] [b]Krioni:[/b]So can you not just apply enough force to overcome that static friction? [20/11/11 03:25] [b]Brulant:[/b]This is where I'm not able to concretely tie things in with my theory yet. I've talked about them, but am not confident in saying this is how it is. [20/11/11 03:25] [b]Krioni:[/b]Hmm, but how would you do it. How can you apply more force to someone else without displacing yourself? How do you anchor yourself? [20/11/11 03:25] [b]Brulant:[/b]Whenever we cast a spell, it costs heat, yes? [20/11/11 03:26] [b]Krioni:[/b]I assume, that is what I have read. [20/11/11 03:26] [b]Brulant:[/b]You don't need anchoring, you're not applying force to yourself. *[i]winks[/i]* [20/11/11 03:26] [b]Brulant:[/b]Or even through yourself, really. Reality fills in the opposing forces. [20/11/11 03:26] [b]Brulant:[/b]That heat allows our spell to overcome Reality's static friction. [20/11/11 03:27] [b]Brulant:[/b]Is what I am assuming. [20/11/11 03:27] [b]Brulant:[/b]Then, another force, which could be heat but might not be, is the actual force of our spell. [20/11/11 03:27] [b]Brulant:[/b]F"something" [20/11/11 03:27] [b]Brulant:[/b]Which I think we could call Fmagic to make things easier. [20/11/11 03:28] [b]Brulant:[/b]Fheat is _always_ equal to Fstaticreality. [20/11/11 03:28] [b]Krioni:[/b]So our principles and the spell structure the direction, the heat allows us to overcome the Reality static friction, and then the F-something actually is the force that begins the acceleration. [20/11/11 03:28] [b]Brulant:[/b]But there is no acceleration, you see. Not of the spell. [20/11/11 03:29] [b]Brulant:[/b]If Fmagic was GREATER than Fmagicalfriction, then the spell would speed up. [20/11/11 03:29] [b]Krioni:[/b]Not of the spell, but of the object through reality. [20/11/11 03:29] [b]Brulant:[/b]It depends what type of spell you're casting. [20/11/11 03:30] [b]Brulant:[/b]For instance; a movelock spell. There we twisting reality to imprison someone. [20/11/11 03:30] [b]Brulant:[/b]I wonder if we could create spells with heat upkeeps to keep the force running… hmm. [20/11/11 03:31] [b]Brulant:[/b]Things only decelerate or stop if the backwards force is greater than the forwards force. [20/11/11 03:31] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]is muttering to himself now[/i]* So our forward force, the Fmagic, must suddenly disappear… but why I wonder... [20/11/11 03:31] [b]Krioni:[/b]So there is a reality that says x object can move y speed. We want to change the reality state of x to where y is zero. [20/11/11 03:32] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]looks back up[/i]* _A_ Reality? I think it's safe to say that there is only one Reality. [20/11/11 03:32] [b]Brulant:[/b]And we're not just changing Reality for that one object, we change it for everyone. [20/11/11 03:32] [b]Brulant:[/b]Everyone has to accept that that thing has changed. [20/11/11 03:32] [b]Krioni:[/b]But what if there is one active reality for each person, though an infinite amount of possible realities. [20/11/11 03:33] [b]Krioni:[/b]And then an overarching Reality which is the state of all current realities for every real object. [20/11/11 03:33] [b]Brulant:[/b]Ah, I would call those an existence, not a Reality. [20/11/11 03:34] [b]Brulant:[/b]We can change something existence, but not its Reality. [20/11/11 03:34] [b]Brulant:[/b]The principles only let us change how we act through Reality. [20/11/11 03:34] [b]Brulant:[/b] ([i]somethings*[/i]) [20/11/11 03:34] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, if we change definition like that, wouldn't a real objects current existence be it's reality? [20/11/11 03:35] [b]Brulant:[/b]But something cannot have it's own Reality unless it reject every other Reality. [20/11/11 03:35] [b]Krioni:[/b]Then the reality and the object operates under its current state as defined by its resting state. [20/11/11 03:35] [b]Brulant:[/b]And if it does that, it can no longer affect other Realities. [20/11/11 03:36] [b]Krioni:[/b]Alright, so you are saying there is one Reality. No matter how many real objects exist in that reality. [20/11/11 03:36] [b]Brulant:[/b]I am. [20/11/11 03:36] [b]Brulant:[/b]Object exist, Reality is. [20/11/11 03:37] [b]Krioni:[/b]Alright. [20/11/11 03:37] [b]Brulant:[/b] ([i]Objects*[/i]) [20/11/11 03:37] [b]Brulant:[/b] ([i]My, I'm having trouble with my "s" key tonight.[/i]) [20/11/11 03:38] [b]Krioni:[/b]So then spells affect reality, right? [20/11/11 03:38] [b]Krioni:[/b] ([i]no problem [/i]) [20/11/11 03:38] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]nods[/i]* Yes. [20/11/11 03:39] [b]Krioni:[/b]Then why does reality snap back in some instances and not in others? If you teleport, you do not un-teleport later, right? [20/11/11 03:40] [b]Krioni:[/b]But then why do people who are move-locked regain the ability to move? [20/11/11 03:40] [b]Brulant:[/b]Good question! *[i]grins[/i]* [20/11/11 03:40] [b]Brulant:[/b]Think of the rubber band as Reality wanting to return to it's non-fluid state. [20/11/11 03:41] [b]Brulant:[/b]Things don't return to exactly the way they are [20/11/11 03:41] [b]Brulant:[/b]But Reality does become concrete again. [20/11/11 03:42] [b]Krioni:[/b]Oh, so what if you think of teleporting as the act of not existing in a material place. Reality can snap back to you existing, but then you have modified where. [20/11/11 03:42] [b]Brulant:[/b]I prefer to think of it as I allow Reality to snap back, but I guess that's one way of saying it. *[i]smiles[/i]* [20/11/11 03:43] [b]Brulant:[/b]As long as we apply the force, Reality will allow us to change it. [20/11/11 03:43] [b]Brulant:[/b]Oh! Think of it like making a clay pot. [20/11/11 03:43] [b]Krioni:[/b]Right, so you can keep applying the force to stay non-material. Than just release the force when you are done. [20/11/11 03:44] [b]Brulant:[/b]Yes, but what exactly does applying that constant force mean for you? [20/11/11 03:44] [b]Brulant:[/b]Most spells seem to happen in a heartbeat. [20/11/11 03:44] [b]Brulant:[/b]Resisting Reality can't be easy. [20/11/11 03:45] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, what if time is a factor of reality as well. Maybe this entire time we are expending a certain amount of energy to create a force that counteracts the time factor of Reality when we do a spell. [20/11/11 03:45] [b]Brulant:[/b]Time is factored in to force. [20/11/11 03:46] [b]Brulant:[/b]You can't calculate a force without a time.*[i]smiles[/i]* [20/11/11 03:46] [b]Brulant:[/b]F = m x ([i](Vf - Vi[/i]) / ([i]Tf - Vi[/i]) ) [20/11/11 03:46] [b]Krioni:[/b]In the physical world. [20/11/11 03:47] [b]Brulant:[/b]I prefer to think of Magic as a physical force. [20/11/11 03:47] [b]Krioni:[/b]What if the force to suspend aspects of reality operates via a different unit? [20/11/11 03:47] [b]Brulant:[/b]Ah, suspending different forces of Reality is something… different. [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Krioni:[/b]Because if you act to do something instantaneously, it should take in infinite amount of force. [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Krioni:[/b]Such as teleporting. [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Krioni:[/b]In our time, it seems to happen instantaneously [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Brulant:[/b]It's 1) Not instantaneous, just very very very very short and 2) You'd still only enough force to overcome the instantaneous force of Reality. [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Krioni:[/b]But it takes a finite amount of resources for you to do it, right? [20/11/11 03:49] [b]Brulant:[/b]Yes [20/11/11 03:50] [b]Krioni:[/b]Hmm [20/11/11 03:50] [b]Krioni:[/b]This is fun. [20/11/11 03:50] [b]Brulant:[/b]Yes, yes it is. [/log]

[quote name='Maebius' timestamp='1321738844' post='96228'] I like this, and will type up a bigger erply, but in my own Magic Theory, I simply use Fstaticreality & Fmagicalfriction = Viscosity. Without our effort in moving, or magicking, Viscosity tends to crystalize Reality into a static form. In movement, and otherwise. [/quote] I look forward to your reply, Maebius. Viscosity is a force that may act upon Reality, but does it act against Magic? I don't think so. it's present but not part of. However, I think you maybe possibly might have just filled in one of the Y-axis forces. I was hesitant to name a force that I hadn't give much thought to, and I still am, but Viscosity may fit in very well. ----- Edit: A couple of hours later and I'm still not sure what the Y-axis forces are. I know that Viscosity is a part of the down force, but it definitely isn't the entire down force. Maybe I'm attacking this too straight on. What opposes Viscosity… hmm ----- Edit 2: Actually, as I say that, I think I know what they Y-axis forces are. My initial problem was trying to relate the X-axis forces that deal with Magic to the Y-axis forces, but, just like with a dragging a box across a table, they really aren't related. In the example of the box, gravity and normal force have nothing to do with the dragging force and friction. Get it? That being said now, the Y-axis downward force in Entropy (death, decay, disuse, viscosity, forgotten history, etc etc etc) which would make the upward force is Syntropy (the events that will come to pass, growth, new life, people, ideas, innovation, exploring, etc etc!). If those two forces are not in check, Reality would collapse much like a box would if gravity was taken out of the equation. Does that make sense? ----- Edit 3: There is now a more completed diagram at the end of the initial post

[quote name='Soothing Sands' timestamp='1321721249' post='96201'] Last time I checked, I only have 5 principles i can use You divide teleportation up into it's elements, but sometimes i find it to be useful to use as few laws as possible while describing something. A complex train of thoughts like the one you used would be very difficult, as well as more powerful. But how efficient? [/quote] Exactly my point! You can even describe a spell using only one principle if you want. You'll use the ones you understand best. [color=#008000](Second Law)[/color] With that example I was trying to show that all of the principles work naturally together and all influence each other. As soon as I completed one action with one, it led naturally into something that I should do with the others. Understanding that anything can be accomplished in any way that best suits you is one of the core ideas to that theory.

For some time now, my fellow Necrovian researchers and I have been discussing theories that relate to how the principles interact with one another. Over time, that discussion moved partially on to just generally about magic. This topic is a summary of my theories from that closed discussion. I wanted to make them available to the public because I think that a couple of the theories are pretty interesting, and I know a few of you appreciate such things. I will not be posting the theories that other people came up with because I do not have their permission. Each separate post of mine will have it's own log box. They're fairly long and occasionally get pretty dense. The theories are obviously not completely filled in yet, but they're getting there. Read it all. I think it's worth it. - B - [hr] [log General Principle Interaction and Teleportation as An Example] I'm just going to speak in general for a moment, and then give an example for teleportation. So if you just want my example, skip down. [color=#0000cd]General:[/color] I personally, and quite strongly, believe that every single last little action in the world, both the real world and our Realm, can be explained by any and all of the principles in pretty much any combination. Why? Because those 10 Principles of Magic are simply Laws of the Universe. A principle is a fundamental Truth; a principle is a Law. Almost every Law is derived from another Law and is used to explain yet even more Laws (I'm making a very important distinction between Law and Theory). Every Law can be used to describe some part of any behavior. Every Law can be applied to anything. So what are the Laws that we have taken as our own in our Realm? 1) All things turn in cycles and true immortality is not linear. 2) All things have a counterpart and exist with that counterpart balance. 3) All things can be divided down into their most basic components. 4) All things are created to die. 5) Death itself has a counterpart and must be balanced. 6) We define our own limits. 7) Perception is comprised of Detail, but in the end all things are One. 8) All things have an identity that allows the unchangeable to be changed and the lifeless to live. 9) All things are relative; Good and evil, light or dark, color and colorless. They are just words. 10) Nothing contains everything. 11) Some of the best kept secrets are right under your nose. (I split and combined Darkness and Light into three Laws.) There are much more to all of these Laws than what I have stated. Like with any Law. But, those suffice fairly well as a quick and dirty way to explain them. The importance in our choice of the Principles, our Laws, is we, supposedly, should understand those Laws better than all of the others. The Principles we pick are supposed to define us. Let me use myself as an example. It's no secret that my favorite principle is Transposition. I love it. I think it's the most powerful principle and allows for the most adaptation and creation. Understanding an identity, being able to really know what the heart of something is, gives you complete power over it. Because once you know it, you can manipulate it. That's the basic fundamental idea of Transposition; Understand then Manipulate. However, it can be spiraled out and extrapolated to mean a whole amalgamation of things. Transposition is a principle that plays extraordinarily well with others. It's always easier to work with things if you can understand the identity of the situation. But, I'm going to stop there and not prattle on about Transposition for too long. Back to what I was saying. The better we understand each Law the more inclined we are to use it in an explanation of a phenomenon. Me being me, I always think of Transposition first. I know that a lot of people reach quickly for Imagination, which I also often include. But. We don't need to. We chose what we do because it's comfortable. I'm pretty sure that you could come up with some "crazy" explanation for teleportation that only includes Balance, Light, and Cyclicity. Why do I say crazy? Because that'd be a massive stretch of the mind for people who aren't comfortable with those Principles. I know that I'm not. The better you know a Law the more inclined you are to use it. [color=#008000]So, what are Brulant's Laws?[/color] 1) Every Law contains and relies upon other Laws. 2) The more comfortable we are with a Law, the more often we will use it to explain the world around us. Now, let me get to my [color=#ff0000]Example:[/color] Principles used: Imagination + Transposition, Entropy, Darkness, Element, Transposition + Cyclicity + Time, Syntropy + Light (Balance is also appeased here), Time + Transposition. Oh my, that's a lot isn't it? Well, I think it'll be a fun explanation. And it demonstrates how I like to use Transposition in combos! Win win. [i]Imagination and Transposition [/i]both simultaneously capture and contain my own identity while separating it cleanly and clearly from the rest of the world's identities. Taking my newly packaged identity, I then begin to give in to the natural urge of [i]Entropy [/i]and allow my identity to decay and fade away into the [i]Darkness[/i]. Now, my identity is not dead, but free. At this point my identity has changed Elements, or what I refer to as an [i]Elemental State[/i]. Every action or event contains an identity and all identities are [i]Elements [/i]by nature of existing. All I have done thus far is remove myself from wherever I was. The first step is accomplished! Now I have to get to wherever my end destination is. As I said earlier, all events contain identities (Are you keeping track of how many Principles that involves?). And, as we know thanks to [i]Cyclicity[/i], all events come in cycles; cycles of [i]Time [/i]and cycles of space. At this point, my identity has changed. But, I can remember my old identity thanks to [i]Transposition [/i]and I can remember the [i]Times [/i]when it wasn't decayed in the [i]Darkness[/i]. I can find a [i]Cycle [/i]somewhere in [i]Time[/i] where I was both not decayed in [i]Darkness [/i]and at my destination. We're getting close! Now, we also know that [i]Entropy [/i]and [i]Syntropy [/i]move in [i]Cycles [/i](still keeping track?) so while my mind is engaged in [i]Cyclicity [/i]it should also be able to reverse the [i]Entropy [/i]spiral and begin returning me to [i]Balance [/i](which I also naturally want to be at) which involves invoking some measure of [i]Light[/i] to return my decayed form to a corporeal form. As I'm doing this I have to focus on regaining the same identity I had when I started the teleportation, which means some [i]Transposition[/i], and I have to make sure that I'm not returning to the [i]Time [/i]that I was focusing on earlier when I was searching for the correct [i]Cycle[/i]. I must make sure that I return to the present [i]Time, [/i]preferably exactly when I first left as I don't want to be stuck in limbo for years on end. After all of that, I think I would be from my starting location to my ending location. So, how many Principles were in play at the same time there? And I think I also appeased my own Laws. [/log] [log General Forces and Frictions of Magic Theory] Any physics student in the world knows that [quote] for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, [/quote] Which can also be stated as [quote] for every [b]force [/b]there is an equal and opposite force. [/quote] In many/nearly all real world cases where you have forward movement/force you have static friction to overcome and kinetic friction to keep ahead of. If you want to accelerate your forward force has to be greater than kinetic friction. If your forward force and kinetic friction are equal, you have constant speed. [color=#0000ff]General Forces and Frictions of Magic Theory:[/color] What is magic if not a force? Those same laws of physics apply in equal measure to Magic. When we cast a spell we overcome static friction to bend reality, which the reason why I think we need the heat in the first place - to overcome reality's static friction, but… what's our kinetic friction? I'm going to call it Magical Friction - the force that opposes the force of the spell. So, can spells be extended by a constant stream of energy? Can you provide more energy than the resistant force and "accelerate" the spell? A few things to think about. [/log] [log Forces in More Detail - An Explanation of the General Theory] Reality exerts no force naturally until acted upon by an outside force. As stated by yet another familiar physics law [quote] An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force [/quote] I think it's safe to assume that Reality is an 'object' at rest. Yes, it has movings parts but Reality itself isn't going anywhere anytime soon. So, that would make Magic the outside force, the imposed thought, that exerts pressure on Reality. When we impose the thought Reality doesn't want to budge. Once the thought is imposed, Reality is like a rubber band; it wants to snap back to how it was. The tension of that rubber band is Magical Friction. [color=#ff0000]Summary So Far:[/color] Reality has inertia. We cast the spell Heat overcomes static friction. The spell runs while (something, more Heat?) resists Magical Friction. Then, after the (something) is removed, unopposed Magical Friction snaps Reality back to how it was. Magical Friction only exists while there is forward motion. Magical Friction is just Reality not wanting to change. [/log] [log Tying The Principles Back In] In my head, I've been constructing what is known as a Force Diagram. A Force Diagram is something that you draw in physics to help you visualize all of the forces that will be acting upon an object. [color=#ff0000]In Magic's case[/color]: Object = Reality Fstaticreality = The natural force that you must overcome in order to affect the world. Reality tends to stay the same unless acted upon by an outside force. This is Reality's inertia. Fmagicalfriction = The opposing force that wants Reality to remain as it was, I call it Magical Friction, or, the force that doesn't want us to use magic. I believe it was likened akin to a rubber band in earlier posts. F"something" = The force fueling the spell. Maybe heat, maybe not. Maybe can be increased to "accelerate" a spell, maybe not. Fheat = The heat used to overcome Fstaticreality. [attachment=3343:u2l2c1.gif] (click on the image to make it a little bigger) As you might be able to guess, it looks like all of the forces have an equal and opposite force. When you have an equal force, you're supposed to put hash marks or something, but I didn't feel like doing that. Take my word for it; they're equal. When all forces on the X-axis are equal, the object moves at a constant speed. If one force outweighs another, then you have acceleration in that direction. That's why I talk about "accelerating" a spell. There are NO Y-axis forces on my diagram, but I suspect that there should be. In normal physics, they're usually "Normal" force, the force of the planet pushing up, and gravity. So, that's what I've been visualizing. You may have noticed that there really isn't room for any of the principles in that diagram; leading me wonder where they fit in. I looked back at my earlier "lecture" and my Laws helped me find where they go. [color=#008000]Review Brulant's Laws:[/color] 1) Every Law contains and relies upon other Laws. 2) The more comfortable we are with a Law, the more often we will use it to explain the world around us. In physics, whenever we conduct an experiment, we tinker with one of the laws to see what it does to the other ones. This is summed by my [color=#008000]First Law[/color]. I said in my earlier lecture that [color=#0000ff]"those 10 Principles of Magic are simply Laws of the Universe"[/color] or Laws of Reality. We use them to describe Reality, or, in other words, to describe the Object that we're affecting. That fits in perfectly with what we already know of the principles; when we impose a thought on the Realm, we do so by affecting the principles that we're most familiar with ([color=#006400]Second Law[/color]). So, the "object" in that Force Diagram could be a wheel, a box, a pulley, a barrel, or whatever else you want it to be. Reality takes whatever shape we define it as with our Principles. [color=#800080]Why does that matter to the Force Diagram?[/color] Every object handles the forces that we apply to it in different ways. Some forms are more efficient than others, but, again, only if you understand them. For example, most people would assume that you could roll a wheel down a hill faster than you could a box. But, if you were a champion box flipper and had no idea what this "rolling" thing people were talking about, the opposite would be true. [color=#ff0000]To sum up:[/color] The Interaction of Principles happens inside of the "object" that we affect with the forces of our spells. We choose the Reality that we want to work our force through. [/log] [log Q&A in the DQ] [20/11/11 02:05] [b]Brulant:[/b]Hello, Krioni. [20/11/11 02:05] [b]Brulant:[/b]And Pothos! This is where you got to. [20/11/11 02:12] [b]Krioni:[/b]Hello Brulant [20/11/11 02:15] [b]Brulant:[/b]I hear that you're studying magic. [20/11/11 02:16] [b]Krioni:[/b] *[i]closes book[/i]* Well, as much as I can I think. I read what I could find in the Archives. [20/11/11 02:16] [b]Krioni:[/b]Trying to figure out what to do next. [20/11/11 02:16] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]smiles[/i]* The Archives are a good start. [20/11/11 02:16] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]leans comfortably up against the wall[/i]* What have you learned so far? [20/11/11 02:17] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, it seems the majority of what magic is is some sort of netherly cloud, not really defined. What can be defined are these Principles. [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]But the principles themselves can be contradictory to each other. I know I don [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]Don't comprehend all of it. [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]smiles broadly[/i]* I believe I may be able to help you, if you don't mind a bit of reading. [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]I love reading. [20/11/11 02:18] [b]Brulant:[/b]I myself just concluded enough research to feel comfortable in creating a few new theories. [20/11/11 02:19] [b]Brulant:[/b] [[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/10985-interaction-of-principles-theory-and-magical-force-hypotheses/"]Forum link[/url]] [20/11/11 02:19] [b]Krioni:[/b]I saw what you had written, though I haven't read it all yet *[i]begins reading[/i]* [20/11/11 02:22] [b]Krioni:[/b]So to make sure I understand correctly, Laws are derived from what the Principles are, right? [20/11/11 02:23] [b]Krioni:[/b]Neat teleportation example. [20/11/11 02:24] [b]Brulant:[/b]Sorry, I spaced out. *[i]shakes his head to clear it[/i]* [20/11/11 02:24] [b]Brulant:[/b]The Laws, as I put them, are summarized principles. [20/11/11 02:24] [b]Krioni:[/b] *[i]smiles[/i]* no problem. [20/11/11 02:24] [b]Brulant:[/b]Since the Principles define this Realm and, by extension, Magic. [20/11/11 02:25] [b]Brulant:[/b]They are the "laws" of Magic. [20/11/11 02:25] [b]Krioni:[/b]Right. More of what they are instead of just a name. [20/11/11 02:25] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]Hello Krioni. [20/11/11 02:26] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]Greetings Sir Brulant. [20/11/11 02:26] [b]:[/b][i]Amoran K Kol blinks.[/i] [20/11/11 02:26] [b]Krioni:[/b]Hello! I don't believe we have properly met. [20/11/11 02:26] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]A..ah . Brulant. [20/11/11 02:26] [b]:[/b][i]Amoran K Kol chuckles.[/i] [20/11/11 02:26] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]No we have not, not formally. [20/11/11 02:27] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b]I am Amoran Kalamanira Kol, I am the Sibyl of the Eclipse. *[i]smiles[/i]* And you, friend? [20/11/11 02:27] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, I am Krioni *[i]smiles[/i]* [20/11/11 02:27] [b]Krioni:[/b]Not much more, not much less, still learning. [20/11/11 02:28] [b]Amoran K Kol:[/b] *[i]furrows her brow and goes quiet, turning to Brulant.[/i]* Pardon me if I interrupted a conversation. Word had reached that magic was being discussed here. [20/11/11 02:28] [b]Krioni:[/b]In a way. I have grown curious on the subject and exhausted the Archive, so I am reading Brulant's theories on the subject. [20/11/11 02:33] [b]:[/b][i]Krioni finishes reading[/i] [20/11/11 02:34] [b]Krioni:[/b] *[i]thinks for a moment[/i]* I believe I understand, though in a way that the more I understand, the more I realize I don't. [20/11/11 02:35] [b]Krioni:[/b]I think about a simple example and say "Oh, here is the combination and theory in how it acts* and then realize that each of those combinations could be even more complex. [20/11/11 02:36] [b]Krioni:[/b]What if the action of a spell has distinct start and end, acceleration and deceleration. Than the F-something is then the acceleration. [20/11/11 02:37] [b]Krioni:[/b]The spell runs its course at the speed desired and slows via the Magic Friction to Reality's natural resting point. Except that point is ([i]hopefully[/i]) where the caster desired. [20/11/11 03:16] [b]Brulant:[/b]Acceleration is something tricky that we're not sure is possible. [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Brulant:[/b]Acceleration is the change of speed over time, and who's to say that spell speed can be increased? [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, when I think about it, lets say I want to heal someone. [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Brulant:[/b]Then again, who's to say it can't? [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Krioni:[/b]And lets talk Magic acceleration, much like you talk magic friciton. [20/11/11 03:17] [b]Krioni:[/b]*friction [20/11/11 03:18] [b]Brulant:[/b]Alright. You have piqued my interest. *[i]smiles[/i]* [20/11/11 03:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]Let us in this case assume the person would naturally heal over time. [20/11/11 03:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]But I want them healed now. [20/11/11 03:18] [b]Krioni:[/b]I want to shift them to that reality where they are healed, though reality is already slowly turning to that existence. [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Krioni:[/b]So I apply a force to displace them to that position faster. I apply a force. I accelerate them. [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Brulant:[/b]Ahha! See, you've said it yourself. [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Brulant:[/b]You are accelerating the _person_ [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Brulant:[/b]Not the spell. [20/11/11 03:19] [b]Krioni:[/b]Oh [20/11/11 03:20] [b]Krioni:[/b]I misspoke them, I meant to say the spell itself is the force. [20/11/11 03:20] [b]Krioni:[/b]*then [20/11/11 03:20] [b]Brulant:[/b]But your force itself isn't changing. Just the person. [20/11/11 03:20] [b]Krioni:[/b]But, what would happen if you could accelerate the spell? An interesting question. *[i]thinks[/i]* [20/11/11 03:21] [b]Krioni:[/b]Wait, what do you mean my force isn't changing? [20/11/11 03:21] [b]Brulant:[/b]You are applying a constant magical force to that person. [20/11/11 03:23] [b]Brulant:[/b]Which is defined by the amount of Reality's static friction that you must overcome. [20/11/11 03:24] [b]Krioni:[/b]So can you not just apply enough force to overcome that static friction. [20/11/11 03:25] [b]Brulant:[/b]This is where I'm not able to concretely tie things in with my theory yet. I've talked about them, but am not confident in saying this is how it is. [20/11/11 03:25] [b]Krioni:[/b]Hmm, but how would you do it. How can you apply more force to someone else without displacing yourself? How do you anchor yourself? [20/11/11 03:25] [b]Brulant:[/b]Whenever we cast a spell, it costs heat, yes? [20/11/11 03:26] [b]Krioni:[/b]I assume, that is what I have read. [20/11/11 03:26] [b]Brulant:[/b]You don't need anchoring, you're not applying force to yourself. *[i]winks[/i]* [20/11/11 03:26] [b]Brulant:[/b]Or even through yourself, really. Reality fills in the opposing forces. [20/11/11 03:26] [b]Brulant:[/b]That heat allows our spell to overcome Reality's static friction. [20/11/11 03:27] [b]Brulant:[/b]Is what I am assuming. [20/11/11 03:27] [b]Brulant:[/b]Then, another force, which could be heat but might not be, is the actual force of our spell. [20/11/11 03:27] [b]Brulant:[/b]F"something" [20/11/11 03:27] [b]Brulant:[/b]Which I think we could call Fmagic to make things easier. [20/11/11 03:28] [b]Brulant:[/b]Fheat is _always_ equal to Fstaticreality. [20/11/11 03:28] [b]Krioni:[/b]So our principles and the spell structure the direction, the heat allows us to overcome the Reality static friction, and then the F-something actually is the force that begins the acceleration. [20/11/11 03:28] [b]Brulant:[/b]But there is no acceleration, you see. Not of the spell. [20/11/11 03:29] [b]Brulant:[/b]If Fmagic was GREATER than Fmagicalfriction, then the spell would speed up. [20/11/11 03:29] [b]Krioni:[/b]Not of the spell, but of the object through reality. [20/11/11 03:29] [b]Brulant:[/b]It depends what type of spell you're casting. [20/11/11 03:30] [b]Brulant:[/b]For instance; a movelock spell. There we twisting reality to imprison someone. [20/11/11 03:30] [b]Brulant:[/b]I wonder if we could create spells with heat upkeeps to keep the force running… hmm. [20/11/11 03:31] [b]Brulant:[/b]Things only decelerate or stop if the backwards force is greater than the forwards force. [20/11/11 03:31] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]is muttering to himself now[/i]* So our forward force, the Fmagic, must suddenly disappear… but why I wonder... [20/11/11 03:31] [b]Krioni:[/b]So there is a reality that says x object can move y speed. We want to change the reality state of x to where y is zero. [20/11/11 03:32] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]looks back up[/i]* _A_ Reality? I think it's safe to say that there is only one Reality. [20/11/11 03:32] [b]Brulant:[/b]And we're not just changing Reality for that one object, we change it for everyone. [20/11/11 03:32] [b]Brulant:[/b]Everyone has to accept that that thing has changed. [20/11/11 03:32] [b]Krioni:[/b]But what if there is one active reality for each person, though an infinite amount of possible realities. [20/11/11 03:33] [b]Krioni:[/b]And then an overarching Reality which is the state of all current realities for every real object. [20/11/11 03:33] [b]Brulant:[/b]Ah, I would call those an existence, not a Reality. [20/11/11 03:34] [b]Brulant:[/b]We can change something existence, but not its Reality. [20/11/11 03:34] [b]Brulant:[/b]The principles only let us change how we act through Reality. [20/11/11 03:34] [b]Brulant:[/b] ([i]somethings*[/i]) [20/11/11 03:34] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, if we change definition like that, wouldn't a real objects current existence be it's reality? [20/11/11 03:35] [b]Brulant:[/b]But something cannot have it's own Reality unless it reject every other Reality. [20/11/11 03:35] [b]Krioni:[/b]Then the reality and the object operates under its current state as defined by its resting state. [20/11/11 03:35] [b]Brulant:[/b]And if it does that, it can no longer affect other Realities. [20/11/11 03:36] [b]Krioni:[/b]Alright, so you are saying there is one Reality. No matter how many real objects exist in that reality. [20/11/11 03:36] [b]Brulant:[/b]I am. [20/11/11 03:36] [b]Brulant:[/b]Object exist, Reality is. [20/11/11 03:37] [b]Krioni:[/b]Alright. [20/11/11 03:37] [b]Brulant:[/b] ([i]Objects*[/i]) [20/11/11 03:37] [b]Brulant:[/b] ([i]My, I'm having trouble with my "s" key tonight.[/i]) [20/11/11 03:38] [b]Krioni:[/b]So then spells affect reality, right? [20/11/11 03:38] [b]Krioni:[/b] ([i]no problem [/i]) [20/11/11 03:38] [b]Brulant:[/b] *[i]nods[/i]* Yes. [20/11/11 03:39] [b]Krioni:[/b]Then why does reality snap back in some instances and not in others? If you teleport, you do not un-teleport later, right? [20/11/11 03:40] [b]Krioni:[/b]But then why do people who are move-locked regain the ability to move? [20/11/11 03:40] [b]Brulant:[/b]Good question! *[i]grins[/i]* [20/11/11 03:40] [b]Brulant:[/b]Think of the rubber band as Reality wanting to return to it's non-fluid state. [20/11/11 03:41] [b]Brulant:[/b]Things don't return to exactly the way they are [20/11/11 03:41] [b]Brulant:[/b]But Reality does become concrete again. [20/11/11 03:42] [b]Krioni:[/b]Oh, so what if you think of teleporting as the act of not existing in a material place. Reality can snap back to you existing, but then you have modified where [20/11/11 03:42] [b]Brulant:[/b]I prefer to think of it as I allow Reality to snap back, but I guess that's one way of saying it. *[i]smiles[/i]* [20/11/11 03:43] [b]Brulant:[/b]As long as we apply the force, Reality will allow us to change it. [20/11/11 03:43] [b]Brulant:[/b]Oh! Think of it like making a clay pot. [20/11/11 03:43] [b]Krioni:[/b]Right, so you can keep applying the force to stay non-material. Than just release the force when you are done. [20/11/11 03:44] [b]Brulant:[/b]Yes, but what exactly does applying that constant force mean for you? [20/11/11 03:44] [b]Brulant:[/b]Most spells seem to happen in a heartbeat. [20/11/11 03:44] [b]Brulant:[/b]Resisting Reality can't be easy. [20/11/11 03:45] [b]Krioni:[/b]Well, what if time is a factor of reality as well. Maybe this entire time we are expending a certain amount of energy to create a force that counteracts the time factor of Reality when we do a spell. [20/11/11 03:45] [b]Brulant:[/b]Time is factored in to force. [20/11/11 03:46] [b]Brulant:[/b]You can't calculate a force without a time.*[i]smiles[/i]* [20/11/11 03:46] [b]Brulant:[/b]F = m x ([i](Vf - Vi[/i]) / ([i]Tf - Ti[/i]) ) [20/11/11 03:46] [b]Krioni:[/b]In the physical world. [20/11/11 03:47] [b]Brulant:[/b]I prefer to think of Magic as a physical force. [20/11/11 03:47] [b]Krioni:[/b]What if the force to suspend aspects of reality operates via a different unit? [20/11/11 03:47] [b]Brulant:[/b]Ah, suspending different forces of Reality is something… different. [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Krioni:[/b]Because if you act to do something instantaneously, it should take in infinite amount of force. [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Krioni:[/b]Such as teleporting. [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Krioni:[/b]In our time, it seems to happen instantaneously [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Brulant:[/b]It's 1) Not instantaneous, just very very very very short and 2) You'd still only enough force to overcome the instantaneous force of Reality. [20/11/11 03:48] [b]Krioni:[/b]But it takes a finite amount of resources for you to do it, right? [20/11/11 03:49] [b]Brulant:[/b]Yes [20/11/11 03:50] [b]Krioni:[/b]Hmm [20/11/11 03:50] [b]Krioni:[/b]This is fun. [20/11/11 03:50] [b]Brulant:[/b]Yes, yes it is. [/log] [log Implications of the Former] Krioni's questions lead me to a very interesting point. Can we change the variables of Magic to change the spell itself? The answer? Yes. It's entirely possible. We just didn't know we could. From henceforth: [color=#ff0000]F[sub](something)[/sub] [/color]= [color=#ff0000] F[sub]magic[/sub][/color] [color=#ff0000]F[sub]magicalfriction[/sub][/color] is defined by [color=#ff0000]F[sub]magic[/sub][/color], because it is the force that is respond to our "push". Forces MUST be equal and opposite. [color=#ff0000]F[sub]magic[/sub][/color] is something that we have influence over, think of it like the power of our spell.[color=#ff0000] F[sub]magic[/sub][/color] will always come out to equal [color=#ff0000]F[sub]magicalfriction[/sub][/color]. Meaning that, no, spells cannot be accelerated after you cast them. BUT they can be accelerated in a way… [/log] [log Changing the Variables of Magic] This is a culmination of a sort. A mathematical proof that we are able to change Magic in order to fit our needs. [color=#0000cd]General[/color]: Force = Mass x Acceleration Acceleration = Change in Velocity/Change in Time [color=#ff0000]For Magic and Spell Casting[/color]: Initial Velocity = 0 Initial Time = 0 therefore, Acceleration = Velocity/Time Meaning, Force = Mass x (Velocity/Time) (this will make a little bit more sense after the next paragraph, I think) [color=#0000cd]A Redefinition:[/color] Now, mass is a constant depending on the thing whose force is being measured. In this case, it is the spell. So, the "mass" of a spell is but a constant that is unique to every spell. Velocity is a vector measurement, meaning that is has a direction. With spells, the only direction we can move is forwards, so you can really just call it speed; a vectorless measurement. The speed of a spell doesn't make much sense, so let us call it the Natural Power of the spell, that is, the "speed" at which the spell naturally is progressing. I said in the previous, "Implications of the Former", that [color=#ff0000]F[sub]magic[/sub] [/color]is something that we can affect because it is the personal strength that we funnel into the spell, our own Power if you will. Natural Power and Personal Power are two different things. I'll be exploring the idea of Natural Power in a later post. So Force = Mass x (Velocity/Time) can be redefined as Mass = Spell Constant Velocity = Natural Power F[sub]magic[/sub] = Spell Constant x (Natural Power/Time) Of those four variables, we can only [i]theoretically[/i] change two of them; Personal Power and Time. Because there are two fixed variables and two fluid variables, we can really mess with them to get the results that we want. [color=#ff0000]An Example:[/color] Again, this is arbitrarily for teleportation. F[sub]magic[/sub] = Spell Constant x (Natural Power/Time) Say that Teleportation has a Natural Power of 20 when you have x and y principles. Assume that Teleportation's Spell Constant is 10. Now, at this point you can either change the casting Time or your own Personal Power. (T = Time, PP = Personal Power/F[sub]magic[/sub]) Let's do some rearranging… PP = 10 x (20/T) PP = 200/T (PP)T = 200 Now we can decide on whatever values we want for PP and T as long as they equal 200. If you have a casting Power of 1, you will need to spend 200 Time on it. If you increase your Power to 2, you only need to spend 100 Time on it. A Power of 4? 50 Time. Etc, etc, etc. [color=#008000]The Variable Law:[/color] Any combination of Personal Power and Time that satisfies the variables is valid. The variables can be customized to fit the spell to your needs. Say, for instance, that you are low on Power but have a lot of Time on your hands because you are somewhere far off from Civilization and you really want to get back. Or, you need to cast an immediate spell that will transport you away from a chasing enemy at the cost of leaving you physically drained. Make sense? I think so. [/log] For Maebius: [attachment=3344:full force.png] (click to enlarge) Most edits are for spelling and grammar. I am merely human.

Well, the page does say [quote] (Causes are group actions, leave empty if you didn't planned this first with more fighers or if you are uncertain what this is about. [i][b]Fighting for a cause consumes all active heat[/b][/i])[/quote] Besides that, I don't think heat strengthens or weakens your cause.

I can sponsor with Candy. Ah, the sweet sweet taste of victory

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1321550119' post='96042'] Eno was a typo in Passant's post. Eon is his name in both the forum and in game. Awi [/quote] Eno was the name of the account that took the logs and, as far as I know, is still is the Log Room. There is the unverified message at the top.... Many people park alts in the Log room though, so I don't see that big of a problem with it. Even if you want to argue that the Eno character was the one who gathered the information, "Eno" still could've given it to "Eon" who could've collected the bounty. Like having an informant or something.

[s]No, the maximum is still in effect.[/s] [s]In fact, we already hit it.[/s] [s]No more Candy can be created.[/s] [s]Until some of it gets consumed that is, which should happen every day due to the number of Elus in the Realm. If you have a Candy box but aren't awake when the Elus eat their candy; too bad so sad. No more Candy for you. [/s] Edit: The maximum was increased to 800, quadrupling what it once was. That being said, we still need to consume Candy in order to create Candy. Syntropy [u]and[/u] entropy. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, etc etc. [log Candy Limit Increased!] [color="#CCCCCC"][font=Georgia,]Ann. 2091 - [2011-11-16 05:27:36 - Stage 11][/font][/color] The number of Candies that can exist at the same time in the realm is limited. Limit increased from 200 to 800. To be able to generate more candies you need to consume the existing once first. If the the cap is reached and nobody consumes them, then the candy boxes become useless till the number lowers. [/log]

As many of you are aware, I posses an independent Rainbow Candy Box that works slightly faster than the shared Boxes. Candy is now a semi-important resource because it serves a purpose; Elucubrations eat it to create their paper collection. (All relevant announcements listed at the end of this post) As many of you are ALSO aware, I sent out a survey polling the Realm for what it felt was a fair Candy price. The demand of Candy was getting too large for me to keep up with so I felt that I either had to set a price to stem the flow a little or only give out Candy to people who I felt deserved it. The latter choice is perfectly allowed, but I think it's only fair that everyone should have a chance to obtain Candy fro me. Hence, the price. To my immediate joy, 27 people responded to my survey within the first day with fairly detailed answers and explanations. THANK YOU ALL! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using that demand data and my own supply statistics I crunched some numbers and have decided upon the price that I will ask. [b]~~1[/b]sc per "Paper Pack" of 3 Candies[b]~~[/b] That price should help me keep up with the people who want to buy Candy. Especially now that there are shared tools You may be able to get better prices from others, but that is the price I ask. Hopefully this will help define the Candy market and, through extension, the Elu and Colored Paper markets as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will still give out Candy to those who I feel deserve it. There are many ways to "earn" it from me, but you'll have to find them on your own. I am also more than happy to sponsor quests with my Candy. If you are a quest creator and wish to use Candy as a prize, please contact me at least 3 days in advance of the prize giving so I can build up a reserve for you As this market continues to evolve I will probably make some adjustments to my own policies as Candy is a very elastic good. Thank you all for your help and your understanding. [log Brulant Gets the Rainbow Candy Box] [color=#CCCCCC][font=Georgia,][Ann. 2073 - [2011-11-11 18:44:04 - Stage 11][/font][/color] [b]Brulant gets the Rainbow Candy box[/b] On Halloween i release 3 rainbow candy boxes, to be shared and used to give candy just for fun (not sold etc). I asked those boxes to be back after the event. One was returned two were not. I took back the two that were not returned and Brulant will keep the box he returned as his own item from now. Rainbow candies are very tasty and interesting for the Elucu creatures, they like colored items and sweets. [/log] [log Elucubration Creatures Eat Candy!] Ann. 2077 - [2011-11-13 00:45:58 - Stage 11] [b]Elucubration creatures eat candy![/b] Well this is not just a nice description text of a creature, the Elus will actually eat candy from your inventory, if you have any. This might be good or bad. They do so daily and will carefully put aside the colored wrapping paper from the candy and collect it. They need about 3 candies to get one colored paper for their collection. (More technical details: each candy an Elu consumes means +0.37 paper, the paper quantity is rounded down when you collect it. Elus eat one candy every 24h). You will not see how many candies an elu had or how much paper it collected, untill you take the paper away from the elu. Careful, Elus without paper are sad elus (more about that later). Candy production will be supported soon probably through shared tools. [/log] [log Candy Boxes as Shared Items] [color=#CCCCCC][font=Georgia,]Ann. 2082 - [2011-11-14 06:11:06 - Stage 11][/font][/color] [b]Candy boxes[/b] Box of rainbow candies,item that allows creation of candies, are now available as shared tools in the tribunal kitchen, next to the tea cups, of course. [/log]

Mur was working on it just last night, and may have even completed it (not entirely sure, as I don't have a level 2 grasan). Your efforts have not been ignored