Aetherlight Petitions

[Kimkate_Burnclock]

True, but I think it would help if it wasn't encouraged. If we keep our doubles in their own role plays and chat topics, having a double outside of them would be less normal to the community.

There's nothing we can do to prevent people's personal decisions, the most we can do is influence them for the better.

I understand why you don't like this idea, though. No one likes restriction of freedom, or feeling restricted. It's something all of us fight, including me. . . heh, I fight it more then I'd like to admit.

However, if this is truly what we need, if this is better for everyone, if this will end double deception for the most part, isn't it worth it?

[Abriss_Gearspark]

I think that double accounts should only be used for role plays, when it's other topics... It kinda sounds like talking to YOURSELF, agreeing with YOURSELF, backing up in an argument withy YOURSELF it's kinda messy

[Xonos_Darkgrate1]

I think that double accounts should only be used for role plays, when it's other topics... It kinda sounds like talking to YOURSELF, agreeing with YOURSELF, backing up in an argument withy YOURSELF it's kinda messy

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Iliara_Mustardtop]

A post was merged into an existing topic: Random Anything The Third

[Sierepica_Fuzzywalker]

Put Irving’s storyline back in the game?

• Yes
• No, the game is better without it
• I don’t care
• Make it a side quest like you said it was, Mech…

Show results

Make it so professions are a part of the Academy Automicus story and let the players have standard stats until then?

• Yes
• Nah, it’s fine as is
• What are you talking about?

Show results

Remove the fatigue RP designations from the game?

• YES. Playing the game is sooooo frustrating now, especially when playing through the story.
• Nah, it’s alright.
• This exists? I’ve never seen it.

Show results

Fix Caleb’s map?

• Yes.
• YES!
• I’m a terrible person and I enjoy watching Caleb suffer
• it’s low priority, but it should still happen, and it affects other people than just Caleb, so fix it

Vote now!Show results

Change the fur max back to 999?

• Yes.
• No.
• Give me my fur back, please.

Vote now!Show results

[Jayhawk_Greencape]

I thought that the fur 'bug' got fixed?

With the professions, I think that the professions should stay how they are, but at the Academy, you can choose a branch-off job for your profession, like weapon-smith, tank, spy, doctor, librarian, etc.

Also, do you mean the storyline with the crates? I think that adding it back would be okay as it would allow you to know where Irving is for the upgrading of the weapon, but what REALLY needs to be put back is the fight in Bootleg Pass. Taking that out damages the Bible-oriented part of the game. Irving and the boxes, not so much.

Caleb's map: indifferent ;0)

[Eerie_Coppernight]

weapon-smith, tank, spy, doctor, librarian,

Bless you, you brilliant human being.

[Jayhawk_Greencape]

Why thank you. I just thought that it would add more interesting branches to the 'tree' that is becoming Aetherlight. :0)

[Jones_Elderview]

This would be a good idea, however if they were to do that I think they should also have a chance to change professions as well. Because right now, someone might've wanted to be a spy, but then figured out the Soldier class is drastically underpowered and the only think making it reasonable is a helmet so instead they chose Medic because it's good. But yea, branch-off professions would be good, and it'd really give another major reason to add trading. What good is being a Weapon Smith if those weapons basically make you the Tank class? You should give the weapons to the tank class, and that way it'd be far better, get more cooperation in and also get more players on in general. Also it'd give them a chance to add more Automatons like the ones in the Snowmoors (Everywhere and overpowered) but only in places after they're certain you have the ability to beat them, may it be only by teaming up with someone else I don't mind.

[Eerie_Coppernight]

That's another good reason we should be able to trade.

[Sierepica_Fuzzywalker]

Ability to trade items between players in-game?

• Yes.
• No.

Show results

Add some things for the Dreamweaver to uncover in the Lagoon?

• Yes
• Eh, the Lagoon is fine as is.

Show results

Keep the Real World Politics topic open?

• Yes
• No

Show results

Upgrade the Aetherlight Forums from Discourse version 1.8 to 2.X+ as described here: https://forums.theaetherlight.com/t/forums-update/4017 ?

• Yes please.
• Nah, I like the forums as they are
• That would be cool, but fix the game first.

Show results

[Sierepica_Fuzzywalker]

This is probably one of my dumber ideas, but hear me out. Add a rule to the community guidelines that reads thusly:

All posts need to be relevant to the discussion that they are in. If you are not interested in the topic under discussion in a topic, do not post in that topic. Posts that are for the sole purpose of criticizing other members in a discussion for discussing a certain topic are not allowed.

• Yes
• No
• We already have this rule, or something similar enough

Show results

[Beth_Applemine]

This would apply to Random Anything and Talk all You Want? Cause the topics there are all over the place and also, how would that you ever change the subject?
For example, random person starts a convo in Random Anything about purple elephants. Oh look, now everyone in random anything is doomed to talk about purple elephants for eternity.

[Sierepica_Fuzzywalker]

Random Anything is about Random Anything, and Talk all you want is for talking. So how this rule would apply is that people aren't allowed to complain about people being random (in random anything) or say that people shouldn't talk to each other in Talk All You Want.

Neither of those things are likely to occur, but just throwing that out there.

Cause the topics there are all over the place and also, how would that you ever change the subject? For example, random person starts a convo in Random Anything about purple elephants. Oh look, now everyone in random anything is doomed to talk about purple elephants for eternity.

The same way we would change the subject normally. In Random Anything, you would just post another random thing. In Politics, you would post another political thing, etc.

What this would ban is people who don't like discussing purple elephants yelling at the purple elephant discussers for discussing said purple elephants and criticizing them for the discussion. The person who doesn't want to discuss purple elephants can post something different and try to discuss that instead, but they aren't allowed to fight everyone else who wants to talk about purple elephants. Does that make any sense?

[Spector_Otterquill]

The same way we would change the subject normally. In Random Anything, you would just post another random thing. In Politics, you would post another political thing, etc.

What this would ban is people who don't like discussing purple elephants yelling at the purple elephant discussers for discussing said purple elephants and criticizing them for the discussion. The person who doesn't want to discuss purple elephants can post something different and try to discuss that instead, but they aren't allowed to fight everyone else who wants to talk about purple elephants. Does that make any sense?

So you want a rule to prevent people from telling you to stop talking about LGBTQ on a kids forum?

[Sierepica_Fuzzywalker]

No, that's not what the rule says. At this point, I actually don't care whether or not LGTBQ discussion is allowed or banned, but I want the mods to make a decision on that and stick to it already. If they are going to allow it, I want the criticism to stop, and if it's going to be banned, I want the ban enforced.

Ban LGTBQ discussion from the forums?

• Yes
• No

Show results

[Levi_Orangeburst]

I feel like in a way banning all discussion would be homophobic, Like y'all they're people. How can we ban discussion of a legit people group. It's just going to far honestly. If you decide to ban it, consider me gone.

[Eerie_Coppernight]

I think the reasoning behind it is the same reason we don't discuss straight relationships. It is a topic that should not be taught to children.

[Jayhawk_Greencape]

Yeah, you have to have a degree of freedom for off-topicness. Otherwise it starts to become tyranny.

What this would ban is people who don't like discussing purple elephants yelling at the purple elephant discussers for discussing said purple elephants and criticizing them for the discussion.

I think that the rule wouldn't really protect against that. And if that's the point of the rule, doesn't that mean that no disagreements would be allowed?

[Xonos_Darkgrate1]

A discussion about whether or not we should talk about purple elephants is still a discussion about purple elephants. Lol.

Extending what @Jayhawk_Greencape said ... it sounds like you just don't like hearing people disagreeing with you.