Anore

Long ago before I paid for Admin, even longer, almost 10 years ago I was once a grass VIP. I collected all the money I could from my mothers credit card to purchase this lowly VIP title. I believe Erik as the last of us, should receive the recognition he deserves.

I offer my name in signature

Horen "The Black" slept with Wilfred Proudfoot I's second wife. This is Halfling Erasure

14 hours ago, _Sug said:

Where is the Cappy or Urasept interview? Or, can y'all try to get an interview with the OG two owners of the server? Would be neat. :( been 10 years huh... Love Shift though, neat little idea.

One is MIA, one is too rich to care

The sun sets on the 17th of Sun's Smile, 1814 by Imperial standards. Rats have been spotted scurrying the streets of Providence much like the era of Helena where they ran rampant beneath the streets. A trail of blood trails down Helena Road on the intersection with Chamberlain St.  While on another case it was picked up by lawmen of the Ministry of Justice. Down the alleyway lies the body, an elderly man approximately 84 years of age.. upon closer inspection it appeared to be the Imperial Secretary of the Treasury. Theodore Mane was not one for walks about the city, he was not one to keep many enemies, nor friends. Rats scurry around his corpse, it is uncertain how long the body sat, being feasted on by vermin. The last known sighting of aging Treasurer was a very public argument between him and Charles Galbraith in front of the Imperial State Constabulary.  

The investigation by the Ministry of Justice is currently underway.

Mr. Mane stands, scratching his head. "Mr. Armas is my undersecretary, does he not realize it is not only within his abilities, but his responsibility as well to oversee the offering of budgets to the ministries.... More political posturing by Josephites, this is no different then standing next to a fire with the only bucket of water screaming 'Someone should put this out'" the aging treasurer strolls away back to his chess match.

Rule Changes, Week of 3/30/21

Raid Rules:

Original: Rule 3: Raid size is dependent on the raid target

• Lairs: 3 player max
• Settlements and non-capital tiles: 4 player max
• Nation capital tiles: 5 player max

Update: Rule 3: Raid size is dependent on the raid target

• Lairs: 3 player max
• Settlements and non-capital tiles: 6 player max
• Nation capital tiles: 9 player max

Rational: As initially intended, Raid Caps have been raised for raids against settlements and Nations on a trial period.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Conflict Rules:

Original: Rule 5: If 12+ people become engaged in the combat, the combat is defaulted to PvP. This can be overridden through a majority vote of all people involved. Spectators may not vote. To avoid any complications, you may ask a Moderator to watch. Votes may only be redone if new people join the scene or through moderation, but not after PvP has been initiated.

• Once PvP is requested, a PvP lock is initiated on whoever is present. Anyone who does not take part in the PvP or was not included in the PvP lock once the countdown is initiated is considered a spectator.
• Spectators may not interfere in any way. They may not follow along (even if they are statused) with the PvP unless approved by a moderator.

Update: Rule 5: If 12+ people become engaged in the combat, the combat is defaulted to PvP. This can be overridden through a majority vote of all people involved. Spectators may not vote. To avoid any complications, you may ask a Moderator to watch. Votes may only be redone if new people join the scene or through moderation, but not after PvP has been initiated.

• A Majority Vote is comprised of a minimum of 3/4 of players involved in the combat to override the PvP default and change to CRP.
• Once PvP is requested, a PvP lock is initiated on whoever is present. Anyone who does not take part in the PvP or was not included in the PvP lock once the countdown is initiated is considered a spectator.
• Spectators may not interfere in any way. They may not follow along (even if they are statused) with the PvP unless approved by a moderator.

Rational: Updated rules to clarify that when 12+ people become engaged in combat, 3/4 of players involved in the combat need to agree to switch to CRP rather than a simple half majority. If this can not be achieved in a quick and orderly fashion, the default remains PvP.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

General Raid Rules:

Original: Rule 5: All wartime raids shall have a /modreq filed prior to the raid when using war chat negotiated raid terms.

Update: Rule 5: All raids must have a /modreq filed by the raiding party prior to the raid declaring the origin, target, and number of raiders involved. It is not required for the Modreq to get claimed for the raid to continue.

Rational: The purpose of this rule, is more of a temporary change. By having moderators be able to observe the raids from the beginning they will be able to better observe and address the issues facing conflict and raiding with more experience and knowledge on how these situations conduct themselves. For those concerned that this rule will result in possible meta-gaming, please report concerns to Moderation Management.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Original: Rule 1: A raid constitutes an attack or banditry (either in peacetime or wartime) by two or more players of an outside group on a nation, settlement, or lair.

Update: Rule 1: A raid constitutes an attack or banditry (either in peacetime or wartime) by three or more players of an outside group on a nation, settlement, or lair.

Rational: Minimum number of players required to be considered a raid is now three members, while we are still working to change the definition of a raid to be more focused on an attack and not general banditry the rest of the rule will remain in effect to be worked on by whoever takes my place.

You'll have to take me off the Roster, I got traded to Freeport Remember?

13 minutes ago, Tiresiam said:

 

Sorry but I don't lol, given how less than an hour before that verdict came out you shut down james2k's thread within two seconds of it being posted. If you wanna be hostile af that's fine too, its not like players need anymore proof after that or the other biased decisions you've made when it comes to safeguarding your own playerbase, like the metagaming of Haense's rally through leaks in GM chat and I could go on. Take the L and dip out pal.

I had every right to shut down a rebellion spawned from a loop-hole in our poor region rules, but from the start I was provided with the roleplay Sedan had been engaged in and I enjoyed what they had done and what they were trying to do. The only thing I can be accused of was being careful with the precedent this could set for future wars going forward and not trying to let every single war on this server become a massive-world war that does nothing but drag our community into futher toxicity. Especially relating to internal conflict. At the end of the day its good roleplay and it will carry on with me or without me

6 minutes ago, Tiresiam said:

 

It isn't a coincidence that a decision by the admin team as a whole had to be made in order to come to a fair verdict regarding the Sedan situation in Oren, it took putting a gun to your head for players to come out on top. Regardless of that though, there is also a very telling wisdom in being self-aware enough to realize that. to acknowledge that, and to willingly take a step back; so for that you have my respect observations of your track record aside.

 

Moderation takes a heavy toll on people and it isn't easy to step away, so good luck in your retirement pal and I hope that with it you can learn to enjoy rp again without a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head.

You’re pulling shit out of your ass if you think I didn’t want a war and fun experience for players to come out of this from the get go, or if you are under the Impression that I was actively working “against the players interest” you are utterly mistaken.

There was no admin verdict forcing me to do something I didn’t want to with this war, nor did this have any impact on me stepping down. 

I love Redwall so I like this

Skin Name: Second Time’s The Charm

Skinner’s Username: Miko

Discord: Basket#4977

Bid: $10 USD

Political Entities of Almaris, 1st Edition.

Wilfred Proudfoot IV, Year 12 SA

((Click here for full resolution))

After traveling throughout the lands of Almaris, Wilfred Proudfoot IV completes his first edition of the political entities that occupy these new lands. On Year 12 of the Second Age he notes that there are ten entities whom would be considered Nations along with three independent charter groups. After lowering his quill, he notices his mistake of never choosing a color to represent the newly formed Talon's Port who has now risen to be considered a Nation. "Ah... well this shall be corrected in the second edition"  he mumbles before sending this map out across the land.

1 hour ago, Anore said:

 

 

 

What about custom map art that has already made it onto the server?

World Team Management is in the process of tracking down all world maps that were made (for personal or national use) prior to the system, logging them and ensuring they are paid for, or removed.

 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Basil Moroul said:

What even, how is that even remotely fair. Oren had got them added in by world team members who are part of their nation and then admins told them not to do it anymore because other people started requesting it, now everyone else has to pay 100 mina per item frame and they get to keep all theirs that they got for free? Thats ridiculous

18 minutes ago, MissToni said:

If Oren is allowed to keep their map art posters without having to pay for those they got before it became available for the rest of us. Then I think all nations should be given the amount of map art posters that Oren got with no payment. If not then they should be removed until paid for. Make it fair for everyone!

I just needed a second to get confirmation is all, See update in FAQ

2 minutes ago, Werew0lf said:

ima sneak in an image of @frillon a map just so I can sleep at night with his face constantly staring at me

No need to sneak, I will approve.

Mr. Mane, Judge of Freeport enters Providence, he spots some orphans, handing them a bag of coins and a handful of fliers. "Go hand these out you destitute young ones." He quickly leaves the city, hoping to not be spotted by Imperial Treasury officials.

After signing the pact, Theodore Mane sits at the Alley Alehouse in Talon's Port he writes a letter to Captain Leopold, of the Freeport Privateers, ruler of Freeport "I am sure you are still away on travels, but by the time this letter reaches you, Freeport will have signed into an agreement with the city of Talon's Port. Once you return, I recommend you make an attempt to work together. I will soon be returning to Freeport and I hope that was the last time I have to travel by sea."  Sets down his pen before sending off his letter, he reaches for his cane and begins his journey back to The Cove of Freeport.

3 hours ago, JustGrim said:

moderation secretary? what does that do?

 

i have proven to be useless with posting this monthly update

Wilfred Proudfoot III holds his flyer, he searches for his cane while preparing to make the exhausting journey down to Sutica to Compete "Oi 'ope I don 'ave te play that farm'r agin. 'es such a trouble'som boy."

Hello old friend, PM on discord  Basket#4977 we will get your sorted 

Rule Changes, Week of 1/4/21

Conflict Rules:

Original: Rule 5: If 12+ people become engaged in the combat, PVP may be called through a majority vote of all people involved. Spectators may not vote. To avoid any complications, you may ask a Moderator to watch. Votes may only be redone if new people join the scene or through moderation.

• Once PvP is requested, a PvP lock is initiated on whoever is present. Anyone who does not take part in the PvP or was not included in the PvP lock once the countdown is initiated is considered a spectator.

• Spectators may not interfere in any way. They may not follow along (even if they are statused) with the PvP unless approved by a moderator.

Update: Rule 5: If 12+ people become engaged in the combat, the combat is defaulted to PvP. This can be overridden through a majority vote of all people involved. Spectators may not vote. To avoid any complications, you may ask a Moderator to watch. Votes may only be redone if new people join the scene or through moderation, but not after PvP has been initiated.

• Once PvP is requested, a PvP lock is initiated on whoever is present. Anyone who does not take part in the PvP or was not included in the PvP lock once the countdown is initiated is considered a spectator.

• Spectators may not interfere in any way. They may not follow along (even if they are statused) with the PvP unless approved by a moderator.

Rational: General Clarification: The original purpose of this rule, was to cut down on instances where an attacking party sought to gather as many people into the conflict to force a PvP default. This led players who sought out CRP to be forced to PvP after being dragged into a conflict larger that they thought. While it is important to acknowledge that this is an RP server and we should strive to RP over other forms of combat, once you hit a high enough number, keeping track of emotes, movements and general CRP can become more troublesome. While the rule itself is not changing that drastically the intent is to say, once you get to 12+ people engaged in a conflict the default will go to PvP unless one side or group of the players decides to vote for CRP or Rolling CRP and a majority agree. This is to imply that although we would prefer to continue to RP, we as moderation acknowledge that oftentimes it becomes more difficult to CRP in large groups and eventually after arguments and eventual modreqs, it ends up defaulting to PvP regardless.

15 minutes ago, NotEvilAtAll said:

Anything to prevent a larger power from defeat in detail'ing multiple fronts that they would've lost had the fronts been combined? Like, it's kinda unfair if a coalition fighting a larger power can't combine their forces while the big power gets their entire rally for both fights.

That would be more on scheduling of the battles, if both allies had their battle on the same day/time then the other side would be forced to split their forces. Either try to divide their forces to win both battles, put their stronger forces on one battle and risk taking a loss on the other etc. I do agree that there is issue related to that, which should be clarified.