Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Burns last won the day on January 13

Burns had the most liked content!

About Burns

  • Rank
    Ardent Knight
  • Birthday 04/29/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    High up in Alps
  • Playername

Recent Profile Visitors

13,580 profile views
  1. I'm certain that absolute democracy will under all circumstances lead to absolute idiocracy, given enough time. I firmly believe that all voting must be limited to certain topics, but not certain people. If we allowed any sort of interference about the question who gets to vote, the "loud" ideas will inevitably overrule the "quiet" ideas, and history shows that the loudest ideas have almost always been the worst. Taking away the ability to vote from certain groups would in turn lead to this group being ignored, since their voice stops to count, and thus it also stops to matter. You can freely take rights, choices and property from those people without ever getting bad results, on the contrary, you will get better results from the people who dislike the non-existant group. For the same reason, some things must be exempt from voting, call it basic human rights or civil rights or whatever you will. In fact, i think that it's much better for the continued existence of a society when you don't allow people to vote on laws at all, but only on representatives for some form of parliament every once in a while (3-5 years, imo), who are in turn personally accountable for the decisions they make while in power. The representative towards the outside should be elected by the parliament itself, as primus inter pares. This would allow people to lead in a meaningful way, and give the general population the option to actually influence the way they live. Funny part is, all of us always exempt a very large part of the relevant population from all decision by sticking to the notion of borders. Small wonder no country actually cares for 3rd world development or immigration rights, after all, those people can't cast a vote. So, in my opinion, all votes need to include the whole known population to be effective in making everyone's lives better, in all other cases it's always about making the life of some group better, usually at the expense of another group. TL,DR: I disagree with the question in itself, because i'm quite sure that there is no vote that should exempt anybody at all. If the voting is narrowed down so much that it only applies to a certain group, the vote is inherently bad.
  2. I've just noticed that the icons in the left bar don't light up anymore. Tested with fight log, ally chat and PM, none of them send a notification (turn yellow or ping). Running on Opera: Version information Version: 46.0.2597.57 (PGO) - Downloading update 100% Update stream: Stable System: Windows 7 64-bit Browser identification Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/59.0.3071.115 Safari/537.36 OPR/46.0.2597.57
  3. Has current VE / VP - that allows you to make quests where people can actually help or hinder one another through combat features Has achievement - specifically thinking about research depth here, but i could think of newbie quests to require burst burner or high end quests to require full glow Has ally / specific ally - what ivorak said, but with allies. You could create nice little gang wars, for example
  4. Freedom of Idiocy

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/forum/321-heated-discussions/ IIRC that subsection is visible only to registered users?
  5. Build your own Drachorn

    It's got ears, spiky tail, even toes, that's more detail than most had Lovely little thing, the drach is heading out! What did you use for the eyes? It that a glass pearl?
  6. Contract Form

    Ad Sub-Lease: That's exactly what we had in mind when we made it, all those constructions won't matter. Once your time expires, you can demand your item back, regardless of where / on whom it currently is. It wouldn't matter whether your lessor leased it to someone else, sold it, gave it away, or simply tries to hide it, you just get it back. Ad Formality: We discussed posting it on the forum, but we figured it'd clutter the forum needlessly, and some people would want to keep secrets. We tried to make a failsafe for the people who would attempt to alter the text afterwards in a simpler way instead, that's how VIII. got in there. We figured the process to be like this: 1. Agree on terms, in any way you like, can be chat, forum, PM, out-of-game, it really doesn't matter. Just like you would have done anyway, basically. 2. When you have an agreement, you have your lessor print the essentials in chat: "Burns: Renting RainCollector, expiration date day 310". and make a screenshot of that. That gives us the name of your lessor, the item, and the expiration. Since you have the contract form (at least from your side), you also have the item-id and can provide that and the last itc you knew. That way seemed safe enough during discussion, in all directions. And it gives you the option to go to a secluded area, keeping it as secret as it gets. Ad "What do i get back": The intention is to guarantee the return of your item, nothing more. The fee, penalty, and any other conditions go to judges if you want to make your claim, and might take a while to process, and there's the chance we don't believe you about some parts. Having the contracts strengthens your position, obviously, but we'll still need to make sure it isn't forged. Your item comes flying back practically at once, though, since you provide everything that's required to grab it right from the database. That's a pretty nice security already imo, wouldn't you agree?
  7. Contract Form

    Heh, we didn't even come up with sub-lease, sounds rather unlikely, too... I can't see how a sub-lease weakens your position, though? Once the time you agreed on expires, you get your item back, no matter what the other party does with the third party... I can't see a problem with sub-lease, please do enlighten me. About the silver, if you wish to do more, feel free. There's no admin warranty on that part, though, admin powers only get you the item returned, i hope that's clear.
  8. Chewie brought up an interesting thought about a contract form and the option for people to call onto admin powers to get their stuff back, to promote the lease of items. So, after some internal discussion and tweaking, here's the form How to: Just fill in names, dates and terms at the points where you see [ and ]. Points that say 'optional' should be deleted if you don't need them, it gets confusing if you leave them blank. Read carefully before use, specially point VIII! Lease Agreement between [Owner of the Item] (referred to as 'Owner') and [Leaseholder] (referred to as 'Leaseholder') on the day [] of year [] I. The object of the following agreement is the item [Name] with the unique ID [ID] and the ability to [] (referred to as 'Item'). II. The parties agree on a rental fee of [silver, gold, creatures, whatever]. II. a. (optional) The parties agree upon a security deposit of [whatever]. III. The lease expires (optional): after [x] uses of the item, but at latest on [day, year]. IV. The Owner agrees to transfer the Item to the Leaseholder once the agreement is finalized (optional: before the end of [day, year]). V. The Leaseholder agrees to transfer the rental fee (optional: and the deposit) once the agreement is finalized (optional: before the end of [day, year]) and to provide the current ITC to the Owner. VI. The Leaseholder agrees to transfer the Item to the Owner before the end of the expiration date [day, year] (optional: or after [x] uses) and the Owner agrees to not use the ITC before this time. VI. a. (optional) The Owner agrees to return the security deposit to the Leaseholder within [x] days after receiving the Item. VII. The Leaseholder agrees to have the Item taken from him by a Game Admin upon official request of the Owner after the expiration date. VIII. To request Admin assitance for the return of an item, the Owner needs to provide a screenshot of the Leaseholder stating the item name and expiration date in chat as well as the last known ITC. IX. (optional) The Leaseholder agrees to pay a penalty of 1 Silver Coin to the Owner for each full day after the expiration date until the Owner receives the Item / for each use exceeding the agreed number of uses.
  9. Things that can be revived in the dead O.o

    Had to remove two posts, no insults. ~mod
  10. Judgment on Nomad Bring-In

    Doesn't sound like you asked for a judgement on a specific situation. You asked about a judgement on "the Nomad's Bring In spells". You see how that's quite different from asking for a judgement on whether it's okay if Azull teleports somebody to Necrovion to get a kill on them, right?
  11. Judgment on Nomad Bring-In

    Burns likes to be highly cryptic, get used to it Chewie made it clearer than i could have, mainly because he lives in a common law system and has english as first language... If i had tried to tell you how rules and judges work, i'd have taken twice the words and still only made it half as clear. One thing i want to underline, because i think Chewie didn't make that clear enough just yet, is the material difference thing. In Chew's summary (page 3, par 2) it sounds a lot like a change in law can make for a material difference, and the same is applicable for a different setting. The different setting thing is by far the more important of these two, and should be on a more prominent spot imo. You can only use precedents when the precedent and the case at hand are the exact same in all major points. That's the main thing judges need to consider in common law (and MD): Is this the same, or is this different from the one we had before? Changes in the rules almost always invalidate all previous cases either way. Apart from that, i love his explanation
  12. Judgment on Nomad Bring-In

    At longer consideration, and after Chew pointing out the obvious to me, i'll have to withdraw my previous post. There's too much risk of people considering everything that doesn't make it on the list to be okay, so i can't provide one. Sorry to get your hopes up.
  13. Judgment on Nomad Bring-In

    General rules is not exactly what judges are for, it's more of a case-by-case thing... What you're looking for is a parliament's job I'll happily give some input and lay out what i'd definitely rule as abuse (if proven), but i'm not going to bind all future rulings to this discussion. So, if you want a post from me, it'll be all the things you definitely can't do as far as i'm concerned, but that doesn't mean that the things that are not on the list are okay in all cases. If you find something like that helpful, i'll try my best to provide a useful list... But i don't consider this the job of judges.
  14. At a glance, my first draft would be like this: Both parties are acting within the rules of the game, so we're not talking punishments. Nadrolski is using a Mur-spell accessible to several players, which is limited to being used on people who abuse shared items in any way. Mur claimed that he'd specify abuse cases, but didn't, so we'll have to work off what we have. Abuse cases laid out by Mur so far are a) having more than one of the same type, b) hoarding on an alt. Starting from there, his intentions seem to go towards using legislatior items to make sure that the items remain accessible to a number of people, where the 'number of people' is defined by the number of items he's providing for each type. I'd think that the factor 'availabilty of the items' needs to be differentiated from the factor 'availabilty of resources', as Mur has stated several times that depletion of resources is something he wants to have in game. Thus, taking several items of one type out of the game on one account is definitely an abuse. I'd even argue that having more than one of a type on one person is an abuse, since Mur made it clear that he doesn't want hoarding on alts, and neither having more than one on an account. Taking that to a stretch, we could argue whether it's hoarding to have one item on one account, and another of the same type on an alt (which i'd agree to if i had to), but one item per person per rotation is definitely not an abuse case Mur had in mind. The argument of Nad has merit as well, since depletion of a resource means that other people can't use their items while they have it. It makes no difference to a player whether he has no bucket, or whether he has a bucket, but no options to use it, the result is the same: no water dowsed. However, there are several instances when Mur has laid out that he doesn't intend for people to be able to use their stuff too easily, specifically in relation to resources. For example, he's made cauldrons team-based, and set up big stacks of resources in remote locations, both making it harder to use your resources. So, i think we can safely say that Mur didn't mean for depletion of resources to be a case of abuse by default. On the other hand, since the interpretation of Mur's rules leads to making items available to people, and having an item available, but un-usable would be pointless, we can also safely say that depleting all places at all times is an abusive practice. That leaves the grey zone of abuse between those two: Depleting one location is acceptable, depleting them all is not. So, from my point of view, it boils down to the question how badly darkraptor depleted Marind Bell, and that's something i don't know as of yet, and it might be that his first use of the legislator item was justified. However, it seems that nad banned darkraptor from the buckets for 2 consecutive weeks, and it's simply not possible for dark to do something abusive with a shared item while he's locked out of said shared item. Granted, Mur talks about guarding the items from abuse, but if each case of abuse was enough to preventively lock out people for a prolonged period of time, there would be no way for them to rehabilitate, so that seems to be taking it too far. So, without judgement on the lockout dark posted about on july 21, the lockout he posted about on july 29 seems unreasonable, and unless there's proof of dark doing something abusive with MB's water resources between july 21 and july 29, i'd be highly inclined to rule in favor of darkraptor for that one. Again, that's draft version, without looking for specific MB rules (i actually don't even know if such exist) and without getting evidence from either side. If you want a case specific, 'final' ruling, it'd take some evidence, and i'd need to check for all the specific rules. [Also, in case you didn't notice: If nad depletes resources or not might be a psychological factor, but it doesn't make a difference to how he uses his legislator stuff.]