Talk:Records of BattleMaster

Player Records

I have removed the player records.

One, fame and gold are already listed in-game and that is much better because it's always current.

Two, I do not want any contests around medals. All you're doing is tickling the idiots to find any dirty trick imaginable to get more medals, and that runs contrary to their purpose.

--Tom 10 February 2006 12:15 (CET)

Here, Here! - Revan

I added one compitition regarding fame, and that is how much you can gain in one year. If you feel that will violate somthing or anything like that, feel free to remove it....--Twinblade 02:05, 21 September 2006 (CEST)

most fame in a year is totally irelevent. the only way to break it would be to start a new account, which means its practically unbreakable anyway for 99.99 players plus fame is constantly changing with new points being added in for various actions, as such fame points you earned a while back can suddenly apear. in short there is no purpose of it. I did however like the fastest ascension to the throne idea however i thimk it should be character days and not player days.... --Shadow 2006-11-23, 00:22:41 (CET)

^ The fastest ascension was both. It was her first character and the only realm she's been in. Thegep 11:23, 28 November 2006 (CET)

It's probably better this way. Let's say when a king dies he names his son as his successor (player creates a son character) and is elected as soon as he is eligible. That happened in Yssaria for example. Ascension to the throne was about a month for the son of the king. - Nylen 13:47, 9 January 2007 (CET)

Most Poisoned

What exactly is the "Most Poisoned" record supposed to be? - LilWolf 18 February 2006 14:00 (CET)

"Sir Blah Blah was captured and taken into custody after being seen hanging around the camp of Sir Joe Bloggs with a poison dagger under his cloak"

Well, it's something to that effect anyway. So just a strange way of saying, most Assassinated troopleader I guess?

- Revan February 19, 2006 20:24 (CET)

In fact this record could do with being renamed most Assaulted or most assissinated or something. But it isn't very measurable. - Revan April 27, 2006 22:59 (CEST)

If someone wouldn't mind editing Ascensia into most assassinated? So far, on 3 seperate occasions, Ascensia (priest) has been attacked and seriously injured 3 different times, the most recent happening just now. A8mew July 07, 2006 3:48 -4 GMT

Biggest Battle

What are the odds of the two largest battles in known history have the exact same total CS? I found that pretty amusing :D Marouane

• Yeah it was, especailly since i had two of my Chars in the battle and both of them on the winning side. Thats gives a nice record for my family :D ScottSabin 7 March 2006 13:47 (CET)

Consecutive Victories

Is this having a victory every turn, or victory streak? I know my current Talerium unit hasn't been in a losing battle, well, ever, which may be like 20 battles.

But if it's winning turn after turn after turn, then I guess it's different. Malitia 8 March 2006 10:20 (CET)

Hmm, I made that catagory with the though of Turn after turn, as that is currently what I am doing, but I think it might be better changed to over a long term, in which case you should update it... Centauri 8 March 2006 11:43 (CET)

Its not realy consecutive if its victories are days/weeks apart by then you would of probvally refitted the unit so it would hardly be the same, besides if anyone smashes Kainaq's record i wouldnt believe you haha Shadow 20 Sept 2006 (as you can tell by the dates Kainaq's record is consecutive)

Monsters

Frogs?? "Biggest Monster unit seen: About 5000 Frogs (About 6000 CS) seen in Enweil, Beluaterra. 2004. --Eldar Family 24 April 2006"

Yes, a group of 5000 frogs was around Lopa, they fought some militia and their experience went up, skyrocketing their CS to about 8000. They made their way west and we engaged them in Clejorg and defeated them by killing the Frog King. --Neoro

Guilds

There is a problem with guilds, saying that there is 10 guilds on EC? I KNOW thats wrong because I am in at least two which are not listed on the wiki, and know of 1 more that definitely exists, albeit only in one realm so far. This should be fixed, or removed. --The1exile 25 April 2006 16:13 (CEST)

My vote is for removed actually, unless someone can find a concrete way of finding out the actual numbers - the wiki page for guilds is in no way an accurate reflection of the actual number (I can name at least 6 FEI guilds that don't appear there for instance)--Roy 25 April 2006 17:38 (CEST)

Well, you're right, that some of the guilds even like to stay as unknown, so we would never know about them, because it wouldn't be publicly shown. Since i am the one who created this Records, i decide to erase the records of "Most Guilds in a Continent/Realm". The other two may stay, since it's not a problem if those unknown don't want to be recognized.... Does the same happen to Religions? Well i wouldn't think so as the main goal of religions is to get famous and known so to spread their faith, so i don't think they want to keep everything secret... - Shoenaemaeh 25 April 2006 23:52 (CEST)

Religion

Okay, what is a "shrine"? I was under the impression that that was just another word for a small temple. Is it something else?

In the game, it's only similar to a temple in that it has a similar function on religious belief in the area. It can only be built by a Priest. House Olik 18:24, 25 September 2006 (CEST)

Think of it like a statue to a god of the religion. It can amaze the simple peasants and can speed up conversion in the region, but it doesn't have the capeabilities of a temple. Fredrich 21:56, 25 September 2006 (CEST)

Oldest

Doc's only older than gregor by a few days. I'm pretty sure that they're the two oldest, and double checking the next closest to those two is Gollum (alexander) who is as of writing 49 (three years younger). Next player ID is Eric, James B., and TK all top out at 40 (12 years younger). Might want to throw gregor in too? Loren 26 April 2006 04:20 (CEST)

Are those characters also the literally (in terms of creation) oldest too? With each character's individual actions affecting how he physically ages, it is possible that the oldest character in the game could actually have been created after someone elses...so who's been around the longest? --Roy 26 April 2006 13:36 (CEST)

Well i would say you should post the age of the character and also the date of the character-creation if possible. This way we can get to know who's older. But someone could have started with 17 years and another one with 20 and today they have the same age (40, for example), which means that theoretically the one who started with 17 years is older. Let's post both things: the current game-age and the date of creation. Plus, i don't think there's so much people in tie, right? Or maybe i should make another different record to distinguish the case given...? Suggestions?

Well, here's the thing, back then you didn't get the option to decide how old you would be at character creation time, so theoretically we know for a fact that Doc was created three days before Gregor. Though, out of the year you couldn't ever tell that the one was older than the other for more than a few days. Loren Loren 20:34, 27 November 2006 (CET)

Actually Tom (god) has had the oldest Character. I was looking through his family history. I came upon a character called Lich King, who was retired at the good old age of 1227. But i gather that he was testing somthing which made him that old? :D ScottSabin 11:24, 25 September 2006 (CEST)

No, I believe that was intentional. Liches are immortal. 1227 is a pretty young Lich, he was just getting potty trained. Which is why Undead sprouted up everywhere during the reign of the Lich King in Belluaterra, he couldnt hit the toilet. ;) Vellos 16:58, 25 September 2006 (CEST)

Temple Sizes

I deleted the Temple Size element in religion records. If we want the largest temple sizes, too, it should be a seperate record, as I'm making right now.mAlexTurner 26 April 2006 21:23 (CEST)

Post also the sizes of the temples. In case of tie in the number of temples, the record lies in that religion with the most-sized temples. Before erasing anything, please post comments in the talk-list: that's why it exists. - Shoenaemaeh 26 April 2006 23:41 (CEST)

So if there is no tie size doesnt matter? Alex 26 April 2006 23:47 (CEST)

I don't think posting size is a good idea. The record is "Most Temples" not "Most Temples, filtered by temple size, with those having the largest size being prefered over those with the smaller combined number of temple levels." Records should be as straitforward as possible. AlexTurner 27 April 2006 01:10 (CEST)

So, what do you have against putting more information in the records?? The tie will stay as "tie" if there are two different religions with the same number of temples, even if one has only small temples and the other one has nearly reached the maximum levels in all temples. But i think it gives more info to know also the sizes of the temples, because this way you can check quantity and quality... I don't think this causes problems to anybody. - Shoenaemaeh 27 April 2006 13:30 (CEST)

I just think records should be straitforward. I don't think temple size is unworthy of a record (I made a 'largest temple' record) but it seems to me like temple size is irrelevent to number of temples. Every other good record on that page is in the format:

<Name of Record>: <number + location or person> AlexTurner 27 April 2006 22:38 (CEST)

In my opinion, it breaks the flow of the page to have a record formated:

<Name of Record>: <number + location or person> <different numbers/numbers/numbers/numbers> AlexTurner 27 April 2006 22:38 (CEST)

Furthermore, it further breaks the flow when the <different numbers> are not directly related to the <Name of Record> (number doesn't have anything to do with size). I suppose we must dissagree; does anyone other than me or Shoenaemaeh have comments? AlexTurner 27 April 2006 22:38 (CEST)

Warning against Edits

The admonisment against people editing anything but the records is more or less contrary to the spirit of a wiki. Discussing important changes is good and all, but not required, and not always the best way to get a page to its 'best-case' state. AlexTurner 27 April 2006 01:07 (CEST)

No, just erasing what you find on other's pages without consulting it's editor goes against the wiki spirit. I created this page to collect records and i also accept it's not a perfect one, so i will gladly accept your comments in the talk page (here). But erasing just what you feel isn't right, is not precesely the good way to do things. For example: Some days ago i stated the records of guilds and religions. I created also the records of "most guilds in a realm" and "most guilds in a continent". As you can see in this same page a bit over this, i was told how unaccurate the number of guild was, since some of them don't want to get known and therefore its existance isn't known for us. That argument convinced me and as you can see the record has been erased. I just ask of you to do the same before deleting anything. It won't be a big effort, will it? - Shoenaemaeh 27 April 2006 13:30 (CEST)

Ah, I understand what you're saying. Because you created the page, you have appointed yourself as the editor of it? That's not how wikis work. Provided it isn't vandalism, no user has to get permission to edit a public page, nobody has to consult you before editing a page, nobody has to convince you of anything. From right below the "Save Page" button:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here."

On a public page like this one, you are just another member of the community. You can edit, revert, and comment the same as anyone else, but so can, well, anyone else. It's considered bad form to edit personal pages that arn't yours, but community pages are editable by everyone. If you want a Records page that you're the editor of, move this one to User:Shoenaemaeh/Records of BattleMaster and I'll fork it to make a page for the actual community. AlexTurner 27 April 2006 19:54 (CEST)

As i can see, your desire is not to improve the page, but to prove your ideas don't need to be discussed for this page. So if we accept this as a public page, you should also think to discuss publicly your ideas, instead of erasing the parts you don't like.... I mean, you can always add things, but to erase what other people have written (of course, i'm not referring to overwrite records, which is obviously the goal...) is really against the wiki-spirit. Talk pages were made in part to discuss and comment things before deleting them. See, if you add, you don't disturb anybody, but deleting you're just overwriting an idea (leaving it blank). I'm just defending a posted idea which you erase and you're defending your right to delete whatever you feel isn't good... Who's against the wiki-spirit? - Shoenaemaeh 27 April 2006 20:59 (CEST)

"I'm just defending a posted idea which you erase and you're defending your right to delete whatever you feel isn't good..."

This is not about deleting vs. adding, this is about you declaring yourself the editor and putting a big ALL CAPS warning telling users what can and can't be changed. I'm saying you can't do that; you have no more right to edit the page than anyone else. But let's go with your topic for a second.

"As i can see, your desire is not to improve the page, but to prove your ideas don't need to be discussed for this page."

False dicatomy. My desire is to improve the page, and to show you that ideas don't intrisically need to be disussed on this page. Unless there is significant dispute, there's no reason to discuss every change (addition or deletion), or run them by you. If there is a significant dispute (as there may be in the Temple size topic), then the Talk Page comes into play, (as it has in that case).

"I mean, you can always add things, but to erase what other people have written ... is really against the wiki-spirit."

Why? I disagree; deleting the parts you don't like is exactly half of editing.

"I'm just defending a posted idea which you erase and you're defending your right to delete whatever you feel isn't good... Who's against the wiki-spirit?"

Neither of us? Both Person A posting an idea and Person B deleting what he thinks isn't good are doing exactly what they should be doing.

My writing must be unclear. I'm not saying that disputes shouldn't be discussed. I'm saying you can't tell people what they can and cannot edit, and can't appoint yourself as the editor of the page. Instead, if someone makes an edit you don't like, you should do one of two things. Either revert it and bring it to the talk page (like you did with the Temple issue) or bring it to the talk page first (as I've done here). AlexTurner 27 April 2006 22:23 (CEST)

A Simple Solution?

I'm with Alex on this one. It is pointless to stop people editing anything but new records. I know you created the page Shoenaemaeh but the nature of the page has turned it into a community effort, clearly. And a very popular one too, you should be proud! But it is not for you to control, or indeed Alex or anyone. The wiki is a community effort afterall. Hence why we have a simple solution. It's like this:

• You let people add their own categories onto this page and edit it the way they like, but:
• Discuss any bad changes in the talk page. It's what it's here for! Not to debate putting something in an article, but to debate whether to change or remove something from it. Then once you get a consensus from one side or another, act on it.

-Revan April 27, 2006 22:59 (CEST)

An Editor's Opinion

A wiki is a collaborative work. No one has absolute control over the wiki. If you think you can improve something, edit it. It is impolite to edit someone's family page, but a general page like this is a group effort. In fact there are quite a lot of contributors. You should be proud. Of course, if you disagree with someone's changes, feel free to edit the page. If you believe the changes are entirely without merit, you can revert them. Just try to avoid a revert war.

I have removed the warning against editing from this page. I also did a little rewriting of the intro. If you don't like something I changed feel free to edit it. But please don't put large "don't touch" signs up on the wiki. If you honestly think that a page needs to be uneditable, you can ask Me, Tom or another editor to "Protect" it. But you must have a good reason.

--Nicholas April 27, 2006 23:11 (CEST)

So, it seems i've been wrong with this... Thanks Nicholas, but there's no need to use the "Protect" option; that would be completely exagerated. Since this is wiki-system, like you well described, i think you're right and have the right to post whatever you want and however you like it, deleting, overwriting or adding... I'm sorry to have caused such discussions. Oh, and thanx Alex for posting sizes in the Temple records... - Shoenaemaeh 28 April 2006 19:52 (CEST)

Biggest Peasant unit

Was this peasant unit a unit? Or was it peasant militia?

I assume peasant militia. Can anyone command Peasants? --The1exile 18:29, 11 May 2006 (CEST)

I would say that it is peasent milita, iotherwise it would come under TL units ScottSabin 18:45, 11 May 2006 (CEST)

Thats my point. Sceptre had a unit of 900 something peasants. You know how generals or some people can use militia as units, as to move them or use them as a unit? Sceptre (rick overstreet) had that as a personal unit. Was telling me that it cost 100 a day to command lol. So unless it is confirmed that a noble commanded that unit, then it is judged false and the old record gets put back up. Dan raymond 00:44, 12 May 2006 (CEST)

Biggest realm

Rulers everywhere, BEWARE! Sandalak is about to finish the war on SEI, and when we do, us blood-thirsty maniacs will need another victim!

Best RC? This won't work right now.

This won'twork.

Best Recruitment Center 60/70/90, "Shoot a Goat" Archers in Stargard; RedSpan, Atamara oshea 19:54, 8 June 2006 (CEST)

Why? Because Tom made a load of nearly invinvcible SF on Atamara.

If we are going to de this then I suggest best RCs for each type of troops, excluding SF. Any thoughts? --The1exile 21:19, 8 June 2006 (CEST)

YEah, I've seen some SF that are something like 95 on every stat up in BoM or somewhere... Vellos 21:59, 8 June 2006 (CEST)

Most Religions in a Realm

Does this mean nobles belonging to different religions or does it include just regions that have peasants converted? - LilWolf 10:34, 8 July 2006 (CEST)

No, it means that how many religions were founded in the regions of one realm. Or at least that was my main idea. Your record would be the "most international religion"... Post it if you want!- Shoenaemaeh 13:41, 8 July 2006 (CEST)

Most vassals

Sounds a bit silly to me, I think Tara will take the cake on this one. One city, 74 troop leaders. They won't all be freemen and infils.

eh, I don't think its silly. Doesn't matter who wins.

Highest prestige/honour increase in a single battle

Battle Results (10 hours, 10 minutes ago)
Your scribe has written down this battle report as a Scribe Note.
The battle lasted for 4 hours.
You have gained 7 Honour and 7 Prestige.
You have improved your swordfighting skill.
You have improved your leadership skill.
8 of your men were killed and 10 were wounded in this battle.
Morale of your troops falls by 42 points. Your men's equipment suffers 44 % damage. Combat training increases by 3 points. Unit cohesion rises 3 points.

Character Honour/Prestige from 12/1 to 19/8 -- Gsklee 04:18, 28 July 2006 (CEST)

Troops

• Biggest Militia unit:
  • 319 infantry on the walls of Outer Tilog, Colonies. 2006. Enstance Family

Just to clarify, is that one militia unit, the total number of infantry units or the total of all militia standing in OT? --Calvin November 07:08, 21 September 2006 (CEST)

Should be one unit. Many citites have more than 319 infantry. --The1exile 07:46, 21 September 2006 (CEST)

(CEST)

is it realy nessasary to have a time AND date, the record isnt going to be broken on the same day you know... and even if it was it wouldnt matter.

Um... you mean the fact that people sign the record using--~~~~? --The1exile 17:31, 22 September 2006 (CEST)

Positions Held

Is this EVER or SIMULTANEOUSLY? Vellos 21:38, 22 October 2006 (CEST)

• I do believe it is ever. Loren 21:46, 5 January 2007 (CET)

Longest Titles

"Company of the Grand Unison of the Flow of the Balance" = 54 characters, but "To found a new army, simply enter the name of choice here (max 40 characters) and choose a base region:"

How is this possible? - Nylen 00:15, 29 November 2006 (CET)

I read into it and found out the army is called "Grand Unison of the Flow of the Balance" officially. (That's 39 characters... but then I know someone who has a longer title.) - Nylen 00:22, 29 November 2006 (CET)

Most different positions held by one character

To those who have been adding their characters here: Have you been counting the different instances you have been elected/appointed to the same position in one realm or just if you have been in a position in a realm (regardless of the ammount of times)? -Balewind

The amount of diffrent positions is more important than the amount of times you've held these positions. Foreign Curs 11:33, 6 January 2007 (CET)

ie: If I have a character who has been elected banker in 1 realm on three separate occasions I would only count it as being banker once? -Balewind

Hold on, I think there has been some confusion among some of the people posting to this category. The name of the category is "Most different positions held by one character", not "Most positions held by one character". You can't count the same position more than once no matter how many times that character has been in it or how far appart the appointments are. If not then any long standing ruler/judge etc. being elected time and again would have the list filled up in no time. Let's keep it to different positions. -Balewind

Ok, just remove me if you keep insisting. Foreign Curs 11:29, 7 January 2007 (CET) (or you could just make your own corrections -Balewind)

I agree that being re-elected to the same position shouldn't count, regardless of any time passing between terms - or no time at all. It's the same exact position, regardless of how many times the character has had it. However, I would like to make the case that being elected to the same position in different realms is, in fact, a different position. You're dealing with a different realm, a different group of people, possibly different government types and different islands as well. All those point to the positions being different. e.g. While they have highly similar (though not necessarily identical) duties, the Judge of Realm A is a different position than the Judge of Realm B... if it's the same position, then logically they would both be held by the same character, right? -- Murakama 11:38, 7 January 2007 (CET)

Absolutley. "Prime minister of Nerf" is a completley different title than "Prime minister of Giblets" yet both Prime Ministers. A new realm is a whole new environment. However I see one possible confusion to this: Let's say you are the "Tyrant of Nerf" and are then overthrown in a rebellion yet 3 months later manage to become the "Prime Minister of Nerf", should that be two seperate titles even thoguh it's mostly the same realm? -Balewind

Considering that our (mostly) authoritative reference for this is the Player's User Details page, I don't know that there could feasibly be a distinction between government types in the same realm, since the positions are listed by their generic names. Keeping in the same vein, what would you say about different versions of the same South Island realm - same, different, or in between? -- Murakama 12:24, 7 January 2007 (CET)

Dimitris' additions

Is it just me or does he seem to keep trying to find ways to add things that were already removed? --Bannable 18:52, 10 January 2007 (CET)

Yes, indeed, I thought the remove was made by a mistake as I find no reason for the removal of some impressive records. Dimitris 12:30, 11 January 2007 (CET)

Removed "Less populated realm" and "Less gross gold collected for tax", any of the fallen realms would hold both of these records as they are still considered to exist by the game with no regions until Tom removes them.

These aren't "impressive", and I would hardly call them records. This entire Records of BattleMaster page has become a joke. Everyone with an eye to seeing their name in lights has quickly devised some way to manipulate the numbers and define a narrow enough scope until they can manufacture a "Record" that applies only to themselves. This page was much more interesting, and useful, when the number of records tracked was small enough that getting your name here was actually an accomplishment. Now it's just a matter of seeing how devious you are at coming up with ridiculous statistics. --Indirik 15:04, 11 January 2007 (CET)

I'd have to agree that for example warring realms CS difference is absolutely dull... There aren't always 2 sides to a conflict and not all realms are in a certain war at the same time (just a few things why it doesn't work). Feels very much like just wanting to have the Avamarian war among the records. - Nylen 16:00, 11 January 2007 (CET)

Good point, things that aren't "impressive", as you said Indirik, shouldn't be on the records page (So I removed the warring realms CS difference thing.) We should probably make it clear to people who are editing the page that any "records" they may want to add should actually be impressive, and not there just to get your name on the page. --Bannable 18:13, 11 January 2007 (CET)

We'd better also limit all topics just to the best, and the runner-up. Having 5 people on just one minor topic is not impressive anymore... Foreign Curs 19:39, 11 January 2007 (CET)

Page format

I've been looking at the page, and watching how it has grown, think it might bge time for us to move the page away from the bullet format to a more organized one, e.g. using proper headings so that the TOC is actually useful. --Bannable 18:15, 11 January 2007 (CET)

Problem with that is that then the ToC will be a mile long if every record is a subsection. --The1exile 19:05, 11 January 2007 (CET)

Probally best to split into 5 pages or so, Realms/Politics, Military/Troops, Guilds/Religions, Charaters, and Misc. Would also be cool to come up with a basic template to help with the formatting. --mcsporran 14:23, 17 January 2007 (CET)

Second places

Is it really necessary to have second places for some of the records? They are not records after all, just second places. -Pizarro 03:08, 17 January 2007 (CET)

I'd say delete 'em all. -- Neoro 03:23, 17 January 2007 (CET)

Agreed. -- Sinweaver 07:26, 17 January 2007 (CET)

Indeed, there are third places popping up as well, 1st place or nought mcsporran 14:17, 17 January 2007 (CET)

Agreed - Revan 17:08, 17 January 2007 (CET)

So that's five Yays and no Nays... who wants to do the honours?-Pizarro 17:24, 17 January 2007 (CET)

The honour is yours I believe - mcsporran 22:42, 17 January 2007 (CET)

Done. I wasnt sure about a couple things, though. First, the record for most times assassinated. It seems a lot of the claims there are undocumented, so what do we do with them? Second, the oldest character. I'm pretty sure we can dump the Lich King, as it is a character played by Tom, so it is somewhat of an NPC. But then we have Gregor and Doc, both 57 years old, with Gregor being created 10 days after Doc. But the game doesn't add years in a linear manner, as in one year per x amount of time in the game, but rather, calculates the age using other parameters. So I think we should just use the number between brackets that comes after the character name, and disregard creation date, whoch would make it a tie for first place between Doc and Gregor. -Pizarro

Some of the unit second places should be kept, I think, because some of them date back to before honour limits. --The1exile 01:39, 18 January 2007 (CET)

Records with hard limits

While we're at it, I'd like to suggest the adventurer fatigue record be removed as Tom has added a limit to it. --Bannable 14:19, 17 January 2007 (CET)

I'd suggest that anything with a hard limit should not be put up as a record. This would apply to fatigues, character skills, etc. --Indirik 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CET)

I'm not too sure about that, because getting high skills takes a LONG time, not to mention that they don't stay up. Getting 90% swordfighting takes a lot of time, whereas something like adventurer fatigue can hit over 100 in less than 3 turns with travelling. --Bannable 01:37, 18 January 2007 (CET)

I agree that it takes a long time. (Depending on what you consider a long time. It took significantly less than a year.) A lot of sitting in an academy paying your tuition, and then attending endless tournaments. I fail to see what is record-worthy in such an achievement. All it takes is a bit of patience, and a willingness to devote a character to the task. --Indirik 14:50, 23 January 2007 (CET)

Longest reigning ruler

This category is somewhat unfair IMO, because PMs and Chancellors have to be re-elected, so unless people manually count their days in office, it's pretty hard to time their reign. -Pizarro 03:36, 20 January 2007 (CET)

That's like saying that not being able to claim the record for "most recruiting centers in a realm" because your realm only has 3 regions is unfair. If you want to claim the record, then put yourself in a situation that makes it possible. Don't complain that your government style prevents you from claiming the record. Or, heck, make a new record for most consecutive re-elections in a Democracy or Republic. Then the Monarchy people can complain because they can't win it. --Indirik 04:30, 20 January 2007 (CET)

Or we could get rid of all elected rulers in the game! Or you could get your elected ruler to stay in power that long through re-election month after month. It's really not that hard to do. Shall we argue that because EC is the oldest continent, the longest time in realm record is unfair? --The1exile 22:02, 20 January 2007 (CET)

Adventurer Fatigue

Highest fatigue for an adventurer isn't worthy of a record. A hard cap has been placed on fatigue, after which no more actions are possible. Putting it up as a record would merely be an acknowledgment that you had hit the hard cap. (Besides, 68 is way below the previous high...) --Indirik 14:44, 23 January 2007 (CET)

Again... Stop with the Fatigue records. This stat has been hard capped. --Indirik 03:26, 30 January 2007 (CET)

Longest traveled

While this is an... odd record, to say the least, removing the guy that set it was probably not appropriate. "(Removed an infiltrator from the "Longest traveled adventurer record")" There actually is an adventurer on Belauterra named Infiltrator. --Indirik 04:49, 26 January 2007 (CET)

Mentor Points Earned

Seems only fair to those poor mentors, should it be added? Loren 22:23, 2 February 2007 (CET)

Skills

Can we remove the bureacracy and preaching skill records? I know at least half a dozen of each with over 80%. Unlike jousting and swordfighting you have a hard limit that's much easier to achieve. --The1exile 07:52, 6 February 2007 (CET)

The only skill records that could possibly have any relevance at all are Swordfighting and Jousting, as it is possible to at least get an estimate of those past 80%. Preaching, bureaucracy, infiltration, etc. do not belong here, as there is no way to tell what the value is. I would even argue that Swordfighting and Jousting should be removed, also, as they also have a hard cap. --Indirik 14:03, 6 February 2007 (CET)