These have been added.

forum.whiteroseorder.org
ironcircle.worldofelanthia.com
theapostlesorder.org
idonraiders.com
www.fearthegoose.com
elanthia.org

GM Turmis

---

"I've had good days and bad days and going half mad days."

Please add elanthipedia.org to the list of pre-approved profile URLs.

(Elanthipedia.com is supposed to take you to the same site, but right now the domain name is up for renewal.)

---

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!

This was updated!

Thanks!

Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor

If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.

https://elanthipedia.play.net

Now that Elanthipedia is moving, can this address be added to the list of pre-approved URLs?

Also, I noticed some typos in PROFILE HELP URL

You can include a personal url in your profile. However, the url has to be approved by the staff before it can be visible to the rest of the DragonRealms community. When you set your URL, it will go into a a holding state. While in this holding state, only you will be able to see it when viewing or editing your profile. Once your URL has been approved you will be notified. If your URL is denied, you will be a reason why and you will have to choose another URL.

To set your quote : PROFILE /SET URL website (without the http#//)
To clear your quote: PROFILE /SET URL
Example
PROFILE /SET URL www.play.net/dr
PROFILE /SET URL (clears your url)

---

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!

Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

My idea/proposal is to make all people stand on their own pvp stance.

For the Opens;
All open people would exist as it is now, opens are open, guarded are guarded, closed are closed

For the Guarded;
All guarded people would exist as if the world is guarded to them. All open people would be considered guarded, all guarded people would be considered guarded, all closed would be considered closed. An open person would be allowed to report a guarded or closed person if they were attacked without consent. The same rules would apply for a guarded/closed interaction as they exist currently.

For the Closed;
All closed people would exist as if the world is closed to them. All open, guarded, closed would be considered closed.

Why this change is needed;

This change would eliminate guarded first strike advantage on open characters. It would also force people who play policy to be constricted by the very policy they are protected by. People who are truly guarded should appreciate this change as the few bad apples who abuse the system wouldn't poison their stance.

This change would allow an open person to report a guarded person who attacked them without consent, and would hold them accountable for their actions. I believe even the threat of an open person "possibly" reporting a guarded person would make them think twice about being disruptive. This would level the playing field for all characters.

The sad truth is, a pvp warning is far more punitive than a character's death. You lose thump, and off-line drain. When you die you just lose "maybe" a little exp or a favor. The very few members of our community who have taken this "policy playing" to heart help contribute to the aggravation of the player base and wasted resources and time for the staff.

Giving a disruptive manipulative person this invisible policy shield is like giving them a tyrium win button of doom. The policy has been in place for years and it needs a slight adjustment.

---

Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:

http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

As I have said before, while I don't disagree with the theory behind an "open vs. open" or mirrored PvP stance policy, I am skeptical of how effectively it would deter players from abusing the closed/guarded PvP stances, as it would require open players (the very ones who are least willing to report) to start reporting closed/guarded players who attack them without consent. (They already have the option of reporting players for abusing their PvP stances, but they choose not to, because they don't want to lose their street cred.)


While we are on the topic of PvP stances, can a GM please give us an update on the status of the following proposal?

---

Re: Auto-Setting Profile PvP Status on 07/02/2010 11:41 AM EDT

Stealing is definitely going to set people to Open, I need to go ahead and do that (probably this weekend).

First strike while Closed will definitely set you to Guarded, multiple first strikes while Guarded in a TBD period of time will set you Open.

I don't personally buy the argument that if somebody honestly is insulting you in a way that grants consent that you should be forced to take it or make yourself open (presuming Guarded stance which says you do like PvP occasionally), and since the System can't track that it won't punish it (at least once).

You can feel free to keep arguing it, since you're being awesomely civil about it lately.

---

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!

Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

When this topic came up earlier, I went ahead and put together 4 or 5 things to possibly implement regarding PvP profiles as a proposal. It's only been up for review for a few days, so nothing to report on plans as of yet.

ASGM Ricinus
Core, Logistics, Survival
Cleric Advocate

>>Are you able to divulge?

Not yet. The proposal is well seasoned and in a nice hot oven, but it'll need to cook slowly for awhile before it's ready for any type of consumption.

ASGM Ricinus
Core, Logistics, Survival
Cleric Advocate

lol

---

"Brace yourselves, Squanto is going to bleh blah fart fart bleh.." -the player of the character formerly known as Pureblade

I think the profile system tries to make up for what the justice system lacks, but does not quite get there.

A justice system potentially could record first strikes, whether they were successful or not, and generate a warrant for the offending person. This could be explained in many ways with resurrection and moon mages.

The system could be bypassed by a challenge or other such agreement, such as CHALLENGE FEUD, which would last until one party pleads the court to stop it or some such thing. Challenge could also be revamped to be more customizable so as to better fit into roleplay when the challenge is issued, although the core function of disabling justice/modifying the combat system to fit the challenge type stays the same.

Convicted persons would be subject to serious jail time and/or fines, serious enough that you probably don't want it as a player, especially if it resulted in a murder, and might want to avoid the province for an extended period of time until the heat lessens. heck the offender could be put in the stocks automatically where the victim would have an opportunity to humiliate him or her in retaliation if it is a set IG time and not either IG or RL time.

Justice in this fashion should extend outside of normal justice zones but there could be areas where only the brave dare tread, and which gangs could potentially control.

It would probably reduce the amount of PvP(neither here nor there) and it would be more about who punked who which is more true to life anyway, and seperates things from the cold hard numbers somewhat and adds a human dimension which is a good thing IMO. Heck a non-lethal brawling mode in which a character can beat up another character without killing and subject to less fines for doing so would be a good thing to have in this system.

I think this would near eliminate the need for profiles altogether, and create a more dynamic game environment.