Jump to content

Azthor

Member
  • Content Count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Azthor

  1. Now, I would not write a post merely to censor your choice of words. That was hardly my intention, read it this way:   To be fair (to DD), (I must clarify) that was not an experience shared by all of the involved (lest someone get the wrong impression).
  2. Within a given field, whenever conflict between two parties arises, their sway is given by their respective influence within the field. The spoils and losses are both likewise reaped in that influence, and inversely proportional to the party's influence in relation to its opponent.   That, I believe, reflects what Mur has stated, though I may be mistaken. That, I assume, in the context of other recent posts.   ---   That, however, is only entirely true in a white room scenario, where only that field and those two parties exist, such that the field cannot expand or lose ground, nor can the parties, other than to one another.   In other words, while I do think it accurately describes a tendency in social relations , it would be an oversimplification to assume it accurately describes them in their entirety.   ---   There are many layers we can add to that statement. For instance:   A. the conflict for influence requires, itself, the investment of influence. As two parties are engaged in a conflict, they and their dominant field may be at their most vulnerable.   B. influence from outside a field can be used to accrue influence in another field. The gain of influence within a field may translate to the loss of influence within another field.   C. when a party uses a field's influence within another field successfully, it devalues the destination field's influence and increases the relative worth of the origin field's influence.   D. parties never seek influence in a single field, to the exclusion of all else. Fields, though they may have their unique characteristics, are never entirely unique.   E. a field is at its most influential when other fields fights over the right too interpret its symbolic capital according to their own internal paradigms, without, however, questioning its symbolic capital.   And even then, those are only broad descriptions which, though they accurately represent behaviorist tendencies in social conflicts, come short of accurately describing individual cases; good models, albeit  models nevertheless.   ---   The individual - anyone here, for instance - is already the individual case of the individual case in one such a model. One may reduce fields to institutions, those to individuals, and yet these to other categories of perception, and the more removed one from another, all the more insurmountable the task.   Accurately describing the individual through sociology, as opposed to institutions, or accurately describing institutions through psychology, as opposed to the individual, are things we are very distant from; and that is without getting into the meta-analysis of those categories.
  3.   To be fair, that was not an experience shared by all of the involved.
  4. Truth is nor the object nor the subject of science. Truth is beyond validation, and hence beyond recognition. Truth is not something our categories of perception can deal with, because it ultimately symbolizes that which always exists beyond our categories of perception.   Truth is what one cannot speak of, and what one cannot speak of, one may as well remain silent as to, where scientific pretension is exclusively concerned. If truth must be spoken of, then no method can be applied, and only statements of faith have any worth.   Theology and philosophy may deal with truth without incurring an internal error, science cannot.   ---   The question that should be asked is whether research in MD has any factor other than Mur's opinion by which it might be reviewed, or whether the sole defining review factor of research in MD is Mur's opinion.   Is research in MD scientific or theological, as given by an assumed standard of truth handed out by Mur?   ---   The principles are a thing, and in theory, their obedience implies a strong review factor. The problem, as I see it, is that they are too internally flexible to be easily used: it is difficult to isolate a principle so that it might be used as a framework of reference.   Does a theory conflict with the principle of Balance, is Balance actually obeyed through Cyclicity, or is equilibrium temporarily bent one way due to phenomena aligned toward the Light principle? Without a complete picture, I feel it is hard to make a statement.   ---   And even the phenomena can be confusing, what is a proper MD phenomenon? Certainly, I imagine a great deal of thought was put in many of MD's elements, such as the lands, but it would be naive to imagine Mur can premeditate everything; is there a way for us to always tell which is the case without Mur's direct input?   Unless the principles hold the pretension to being applicable even outside MD, and that poses other questions altogether, then anything not premeditated by Mur is not necessarily a MD element for the purpose of review, and we may not necessarily tell otherwise without being explicitly informed of such.   If, on the other hand, the principles might be applied outside MD, then they must be subjected to other standards altogether. Standards that have defined who each of us are and how we might think so much that to speak of them, even in opposition, is a mere reinforcement of their position; paradigms we were born into, one way or another.   ---   All of the above considered, I currently find it difficult to face research as something more than a topic of curiosity.
  5. Though I am rather late with this, happy birthday to both of you, Nimrodel and Menhir!   Or rather, I hope you had a great birthday.  :))
  6. I must confess, I was not directly aware of the parallel work on this myself, or I'd have raised the issue on both ends - as is, communication problems probably arose from the further sectioning of the task among the Archivists, as well as what may have been reliance on the Alliance chat  - not that such could have been avoided, in and of itself, as the sectioning was necessary.
  7. Though the thread's locking has rendered the status redundant, this exchange is still open:   http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15514-wtb-coins-for-credits/
  8. In the interest of being a general cheapskate and freeing poor MaGoHi from the clutches of slavery¹, I offer an exchange of cake - or rather, a piece thereof.   It is a symbolic act of great importance among my people.   Not that I'd expected an outsider to comprehend the sheer importance of this gesture and its deeply rooted significance among our forebearers.   Regardless, I'd hope you wouldn't dare scorn the ancient cultural traditions of my people by accepting a far inferior offer of precious metals or other such menial things from a third party.   We are very sensitive about that, specially after the Great Cake Partition of 1910.   I find this quite the tasteful offer, myself.   ¹Some individuals may seek to imply there is a measure of irony in this statement. Fortunately, I don't associate with any such people thus sorely lacking in proper judgement and reason.
  9. At lest for the next few months, I am available.
  10. With "shouldn't" come the questions: "according to what, and whom, for what?"   Our continued well-being, or sanity, perhaps?   The sane and insane are symptomatic, and the pathology of symptoms is, without variation, symbolic in essence.   The insane is the symbolically degenerated, the brilliant is the symbolically exalted.   Modern cultures are hegemonic enough that we no longer often see truly extreme variations in standards - those elements that might seem outright bizarre or alien to another culture.   But observation of the registers of the bygone institutions of other (and former) cultures, assuming at least some elements of consistency can be grasped through historical analysis, leads us to believe those symbolic standards may be at least somewhat subjective - that is to say, elastic - even if there may be some inherent element of inherent human nature (or nature in and of itself) to be found.   The question is both provocative and alluring, and so because it is a highly political question; that is to say, it does not concern a matter where the viewpoint has been highly naturalized by individuals in society.   As such, there is room for moral (read: habitual, arbitrary, and hence political) discussion.   But there is no correct answer - there is no logical conclusion to be found (is there ever?).   Personally, I do not have the unwavering faith in human thought necessary to believe knowledge is unconditionally desirable, and I also recognize that subjective ignorance can, in the right circumstances, achieve a given effect much more easily than any amount of knowledge - and knowledge is, in and of itself, a form of violence to be exerted upon the self.   However, I am not sufficiently trusting of others to leave myself entirely to their design - and that is why I'd rather be aware of (or at least feel aware of) than not.
  11. Nominee: Zul'Naar.   Nominator: Azkhael.   Reason for nomination: I nominate Zul'Naar in view of the following auction http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15846-wtsauction-various/, it actually being a covert Christmas giveaway, and attest to having received three aged angiens as a consequence thereof.
  12. On the topic of belated happy birthdays, happy birthday, Sir Blut!
  13. @Mur: are those uninterested in Tribunal citizenship allowed to participate nevertheless?
  14. Though I am woefully late, happy birthday, Krioni!
  15. Azthor

    This Quiz...

    It might be doable with a restricted group, but not as an universal attempt.   I received humorously inaccurate and wildly divergent results due to passively focusing on the geometric pattern, rather than the colors.
  16. @TheRichMerchant: certain credit purchases which cannot be directly gifted, as well as most of the subscriptions, come with a bonus amount of credits on the side.   Otherwise, you might have donated merely for the sake of donating, but, realizing you could use the accumulated credits as a quest reward, suddenly decide to have them converted.
  17. As long as we judge the possibility of takeovers desirable, and that is the first topic that must be discussed, then it is a matter of arguing over the balance between the offensive and defensive dynamics in those interactions.   Arguing what makes a good leader, on the other hand, is something of a moot discussion, if it is to be had here. The first thing that comes to mind is interpersonal skills, but is dedication not a desirable trait in a leader, and are the best grinders not dedicated to have got there?   Takeovers induce wariness in most, paranoia in some. If you cannot rely sufficiently on your ability to judge prospective members in a timely fashion, and yet are too ashamed of the possibility of which you might misjudge a prospective member to take any risks, it is only natural that you be unable to actually foster growth in your Alliance.   It should go without saying that one can argue against the possibility of hostile takeovers in the first place, but, as long as the risk of hostile takeovers is deemed desirable, it is only fair a steep price must be paid for invulnerability.   While true safety must have a price, it is likely true that, otherwise, the takeover process currently grants the offender more possibility of action than it grants the defender.   One can be held accountable over whom they invite, but to be held accountable over whom the one they invite invites becomes increasingly akin to gambling.   Inviting new individuals into an alliance could be made into a restricted privilege, so that there is a filter within the Alliance between members with invitation-privilege and members devoid of it. There'd have to be a mechanically enforced minimum amount of members with invitation-privilege, so as to prevent the leader from hoarding the feature into invulnerability.   Alternatively, there could be a set minimum timer, such as that of 24h, before an Alliance member that has surpassed the loyalty score of the leader acquires the position. It would make takeovers more difficult against active leaders, but not many have such a flawless record of activity.   Mutually exclusive, lest takeovers become impossible in many cases, but individually feasible, is the loyalty reset upon recruitment Ary Endleg had mentioned.   On those and other accounts, note:   Any sufficiently well-guarded Alliance is sacrificing some form of benefit in guarding itself. If anything, it should be argued that the lack of a reason for Alliances to compete against each other as institutions, rather than as individual players, is what currently conceals those handicaps.   Finally, while giving Alliance leaders a bit more of control over invitation, though not to the point of monopoly, could be reasonable, it must be remembered that the more difficult takeovers become the harder it should be to revert their effects. If something was achieved at great effort, then, indeed, simply popping the Alliance back into existence would be distasteful.
  18. Disclaimer: I have not, in any way or fashion, checked the veracity of the data below, it being taken directly from http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15492-combat-talk/. Should you find any factual mistakes, inform me of such within this thread and this post will be edited accordingly. New suggestions, where pertinent to the topic, will likewise be added.   I - It has been claimed that creature abilities such as Defend and Martyrism/Protect are unable to keep up with their Attack-based counterparts, given the vastly divergent amounts of Power and Attack that can be gained in any given period, and the lack of competitive boosting options. More so, they would lack the Power efficiency of Energy Burn, or the potentially beneficial VE scaling of Life Steal.   II - Those creature abilities remain contextually useful in producing a number of outcomes that might be desired by a player - as an example, Martyrism's allegedly negative side effect retains a number of circumstantial uses.  Otherwise, in those scenarios where the creatures' base stats remain meaningful, or tokens are in use, they would suffer primarily due to the lack of competitive creature boosts, all factors considered.    III - Concerning Intoxicate, refer to: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15891-how-is-intoxicator-supposed-to-work/ for the moment.   Index:   http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15716-aurasbonuses-creature-boost-skill-drain-vitality-drain-freeze-antifreeze-tokens-availability-order-opportunity-value/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15721-target-all-creature-diversity-creature-upgrade-value/ Defend, Intoxicate, Martyrism & Protect: Availability, Opportunity Value & Targets Heal & Regenerate: Opportunity Value, Targets & Upper Limit http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15734-rustgold-drachorns-reindrachs-wind-dragons-mutual-creature-boost/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15733-unit-limits-angiens-drachorns-archers/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15748-weaken-defense-lower-limit/ Honor & Negative Stats: Lower Limit Honor & Balance: Intended Function & Current Application http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15763-reducing-the-power-of-freezes/   Discussion status: new.   Note: as this thread has been created on request, some of what is written herein may be incompatible with reality. If any of the topics are explicitly incorrect or inaccurate, please inform me of such for the due  correction. This note will be later edited out.
  19. Activity: - Forums: daily, at least twice a day, - Game: near daily, activity across the day dependent upon personal availability and the ongoing events.   Role: Archivist. If that seems awfully vague, that is because it is so, and I have no current role. I am bidding my time in settling for something definitive, though not for the lack of having something in mind.   Interests and activities: a few, though there is no particular focus on any given activity yet.
×
×
  • Create New...