Dacy

That WOULD be possible, not likely atm, given that we do not have a base developer right now. But let me explain that effect. Some items in the editor strip fx. Some items in the editor REGISTER as fx, even if they are not, strictly speaking, what you or I would consider an effect. Glass items, for instance, usually disappear. Most of Mot wings disappear. Most of the picnic table disappears...and so forth. So, any item that is made or covered by fx will disappear. Items that are behind something that disappears, will be "revealed". Items that strip effects include any calm water, bath water, the slow field, and some fx will disappear from the medium glass window in dividers, and some, but far fewer, from behind the large glass window in dividers (it used to make all of them disappear, but that was worked on by the dev because it affected costume parts in missions and there were complaints). As to making part of your base invisible to others, some things you can do: bury the entrance with things that have no collision. Sadly, there are not many items that can be used here, and all of the ones that would actually hide anything are plants. So, plants with no collision include: Hanging Vines, Large Bush 1 and 2, Agapanthus (all), and tintable reeds. So, covering an entry to a place with some of those is an option. Or making very hard to find entrances that you can just get through, much like the devs did in the Faultline easter egg. A tremendous example of doing this in a base would be Frankie's Bar and Grill on Everlasting (must DM owner for tour, tho; see directory). Another option would be creating an invisible teleporter that only can be found if you know where it is. See my video on hiding services for more on this.

Did that help? Do you understand what I meant, and do you have an understanding of what to do? I am happy to come help however I can; I can screen share, I can step you through things, and more. Just let me know. 🙂

First Showcase will be held April 14-28. See below for more! A Base Showcase is a chance for people to show off their bases in a non-competitive environment. We (the CRs) will be choosing themes for a total of 5 showcases. Themes will be: Tech/Sci-Fi, Arcane/Fantasy, Life-like, Nature/Natural, and Other. People will be encouraged to visit the bases listed during the two week long Base Appreciation period, and to send comments to the builder, and even put a comment in the base directory. We will have the codes listed in a base, along with a base hopping macro for those that don’t have one yet, for those who’d like to base hop without referencing sources outside of the game. This is a great chance to see what's out there, and find bases you might want to visit more, later. All bases that wish to participate need to be open for the duration of the 2 weeks of Base Appreciation, and should be listed on the directory, even if their status is usually more restricted than “open”. Since this is non-competitive, any base, even award winners and CR created bases, may exhibit in the showcase. CRs and participating judges (winners from last year) will tour the participating bases, and will offer critique or positives if desired. Although there is no physical reward for participation, hearing positives from visitors (and comments are typically positive) can be very rewarding. Also, the categories for the showcases will be the same categories we will have for the next big base contest. So, builders can see what others in their categories have done, learn from the comments if they want critique, and see what they can improve if they decide they want to enter the contest that will be early next year; but even if they don’t enter the contest, they still get to show their base and get some positives. (Bases that have already won awards, and CR bases, may not enter contest.) What’s the goal here if there are no prizes? We’d like to make a special effort to get more bases seen and appreciated! We have all done a lot of hard work, and we want people to appreciate it. As a community, we’d like everyone to join in; touring is something everyone can do, and is appreciated by all who are opening up their bases. The theme of this first Base Showcase is: Tech/Sci Fi. Showcase Base Appreciation dates will be April 14-28. Let’s see your bases! You may enter any base or bases that fit the category, including WIPs (works in progress). This is not a contest. Please enter your base name, code, and server/shard in this topic to enter. Bases should be open and available for touring/visitation during the weeks of April 14th-28th. It would be good to have a sign up at the entry, or a character with an afk message, telling people where they can send comments. And please be sure to tour other bases, and comment to the builder!

Ooof, sorry. I was assuming that we were talking about the editor, so it would be the first tab of the base editor when you're in editing mode! Sorry for the confusion.

I believe I have addressed how to rotate 90 degrees in my video on editing commands , but quickly, you just right click. The editing surfaces in the first tab will help you get things where you want them. The surface tower (I'd use the one without (col) collision) acts like a floor, so you can run things up the central tower to the desired height, and you can use the flat flaps as floor surfaces. It is not typical to lift things using the mouse scroll; I'm thinking you have programmed your mouse to work a little differently! On aligning things: things will align easily if they are set on a grid, it's a matter of getting a good camera angle (item placement is determined by where camera angle, mouse pointer, and item's attachment orientation all meet; so if you are looking across the base instead of angled down, items want to go across the base instead of right in front of you) and just getting close enough to see that you're lined up. I usually check from a couple of angles if I'm not sure. Using the grid on surface tiles is very helpful. If you have lifted something up and want to align after you lift it, hold control as you move it (Start holding control BEFORE you move it) and it will maintain its height. If you do not have the grid set to anything (i.e. Disabled), you will have to get VERY close and be very precise to align it, and even then...it's really difficult to get it exactly. But is possible. I'd be happy to come in and help you figure things out, but I do recommend watching the video first, I tried to make it comprehensive and helpful.

If you use Motiva medium pipes, you won't have the stars...

Yes, please make sure your bases are in the directory! (They can be listed as private without the code, if you desire, but at least we'll know it's there!) But show it off! 🙂 A few of mine: (this was a buff up of someone's base on Torchbearer; transportation hub TBTP-7677) video clip https://gyazo.com/d0279e87da74a8c658251ff1884f0ae4 ONES-5030 Excelsior (Open for use by anyone) https://gyazo.com/7576007c040adf223d83ae53ca5c32b5 https://gyazo.com/1575cca65ce632eac27787f913c9aa47 GAMERS-20972 Excelsior https://gyazo.com/98b9da03e99eb9dc619a6ea4e967eea1 https://gyazo.com/1d397bb1dd9673e038fbc5ea75152566 OVERKILL-2729 Everlasting (All services close to entrance, open for use) https://gyazo.com/4f39d294db1a31072395f3adcd651735 CROSSROADS-18062 Everlasting (teleporters are invisible) https://gyazo.com/c452ddb6588dd7ddd6f9df67c9b9d95f I love teleporters, they can be anything!

You're right. Let's call them "undesirable edits". I did not experience any myself, but have spoken with people whose listings were changed in ways that would prevent someone from being able to visit their base, or had other things done to express disregard. I mean, I can't really speak to the motives of such edits, but as they were not done by the owner and caused some upset, so they seemed malicious. But yes, they could have been mistakes. In some cases, apparently repeated mistakes... And I have asserted numerous times that I don't know that these edits took place on the wiki. Some may have; I have not gone into the depth of research that apparently you have, as it's really a lot of work to assess what was changed when and where. See, I'm not sure how you're looking this information up and determining that there were no malicious edits; to know whether or not a base was changed incorrectly and by someone other than the owner, you'd have to know what the correct information was, and compare that information to any correct changes that had occurred, and know who entered those changes. I personally find this impossible to do, as the original base directory document has been deleted, probably by the owner. The Wiki has a history, yes, but in order to know whether or not a change originated here or was copied from the original directory, you'd have to be able to compare the information. I mean, I suppose you could rule out the editors you know as very unlikely to have done any such edits, but I'm really baffled as to how you'd know what edits should be there, and which ones created or copied the inaccurate listings we found. So, I'm going by the balance of the listings as we found them, plus complaints from some people about listings that changed on their bases, plus the sign that was placed on both the wiki and the directory to ask people to not change other people's listings. And you're undoubtedly correct in assessing that anyone with malicious intent would ignore such a message; my point was rather that it was evidence that this had been a problem. As we have not brought up specific listings as "proof", sure, you can say you haven't "disputed specific things" we've seen, I suppose, except, from the very beginning, you argued that the wiki base listings were not taken from the original directory, even after Easter Bunny pointed to a history showing that GM Kal had made the original download and tables. You've pretty much argued with *some*thing every step of the way, whether it's how we do things, WHY we do them, evidence of malicious edits, how something is worded, or other details. We asserted there were malicious/undesirable edits done, and while we have not given specific examples, we did give general evidence, but things have moved from a general assertion on our part and disagreement on your part to a demand that we produce specific examples in order to "prove" to you they happened and to justify our method of keeping the directory. I have already detailed the work that that would entail, and I do not believe that, now that the original document has been destroyed, it would even be possible, and I see no reason we need do this. It simply does not matter whether there were malicious entries made, or whether simple human mistakes were made: mistakes were made. Inaccuracies in the directories discouraged people from using them. Regardless of the source of undesirable edits, we're sidestepping that with our system. It's just that simple. You are also right that "it would be extraordinary if there weren't such differences"! Well put. And exactly why we want to have the centralized system with controlled access. Of course, we have no control over people who change their codes and do not update them, or remake their bases and don't change the description, but we'll do our best with the information we get. Other than bringing up how you can't understand our rationale for maintaining our system the way we have it set up...repeatedly...you are right, this is the last/latest of the points of disagreement. And I have not responded. Mostly because, I have changed things every time you opened your mouth. And then you come back with one more thing. Even if it's only a very small change in wording, like this last time. It's like you're not happy until everything on the page is exactly how you want it and you have had the last say on it all. Do you go over wording to this extent anywhere else? I doubt it. I have not responded because, afaik, the wiki is still unable to be edited, so it's a moot point, and if I do respond and it's not "fine, we use your wording", I feel you're just going to come back at it again and again until you get what you want. Frankly, I'm tired of feeling like your pov is the only one that matters here. Perhaps your wording IS fine, but is there a requirement here somewhere that I must get all my wiki edits approved through you? Or is the fact that you suggested what you felt was an improvement enough, and now it's up to me as to whether or not I incorporate it the next time I edit that page? If all edits must go through you, that needs to be posted somewhere. But given the fact that you have told me that that is not how the wiki is set up, I don't think that's the case, in which case, since the wiki is free to be edited by anyone who signs up, and I am such an editor, I can make choices that do not have to be run through you, as long as they follow wiki rules. At this point, I'm waiting for the wiki to be accessible for editing again. Michiyo said she'd take a look at the situation then. She's said that perhaps a better place for the listings to be would be the FSBA wiki, but she was unwilling to "push for that". She made no mention of whether or not she disliked the fact that we were maintaining the directory outside of the wiki. So, I'm waiting to see what she says, if the directory is fine as is, or if we should take it down from this wiki. Either works for me; I assume that if she rules that it's fine sourced as it is, then that's the last I will hear from you on the topic, and if she says we can take it down, I assume that you won't have a problem with getting rid of the directory. Generally it's best that you discuss the contents of pages, not the character of other editors. That wasn't a shot at you. You complained you couldn't understand our rationale. If, after my explanation, you still can't understand it, then it's simply a fact that you'll have to live without comprehension in this situation, as I've done my best to explain things. In my world, that's not a shot, that's just a fact. (And I'm sad and a little baffled that you saw it as a shot. ) It's certainly not impugning anyone's character. And the only reason I said it was in response to something you brought up. Here you imply that I was deliberately taking a shot, which makes your statement quite ironic.

There have actually been 3 articles on bases, written by Bree of Massively OP. Here is the list so far (and yes, I think there will be at least one more): You can find the articles at: Working As Intended: 10 more City of Heroes Homecoming base builds you need to see Working As Intended: 10 City of Heroes Homecoming base builds you need to see Working As Intended: A guide to City of Heroes Homecoming’s best player-crafted portal bases

It might take some creative editing, but I think it would be, yes. There are even very large spheres in the editor that might work on that size scale, given the relative size of the trees and building.

Check again. 🙂 Easter Bunny went thru and updated some of the bases that had been neglected by their owners, all the bases we know of are there, completely tagged, and if the owners don't agree with how they're listed, well, they need to update the directory themselves.

Absolutely, or you wouldn't be able to see things that look like that. 🙂 First, get comfortable with the ways to manipulate items: And then, realize you can build outside the bounds of the base, or like, in the case of my space ship, build in, around, and on top of the rooms. Items MUST be "in" a room (point you grab the item can't go outside the walls of a room unless it's into a doorway), but "in" goes completely up and down from the boundaries of a room. So, once you know how to get things to where you want them, you can let your imagination and creativity take over. 🙂 Oh, and, players can go anywhere in a base, if the ceiling/sky is open, well past the base bounds.

"Zero evidence" ignores the fact that there were differences between some of the directory entries and the wiki entries. "Zero evidence" ignores the plea on the wiki to not change other people's base listings. I suppose the person who decided to put that into the wiki just did so on a whim? I have said that I don't know for sure that there were malicious entry changes in the wiki; I do know for sure that there were malicious entries, perhaps they were all on the directory, but if that's so, how did information on the wiki get to be incorrect? Because some of the information *was* incorrect. I am not going to dig through all of the history to figure it out, I just look at the end result and know 1.) of the entries of bases that were mine on the wiki, I entered exactly zero of them (altho I made two small changes in '21 to existing listings), and I know other builders did not enter THEIR bases, and the reason I made the changes is because the information that was there was wrong. Malicious? Not likely in that case, but still wrong information. But since neither I (nor the others) were the ones to enter the information, clearly there was opportunity for anyone to have entered anything. No one checks to be sure the information is CORRECT, just that it's been ENTERED correctly. It could even have been that information was messed with on the document that the listing was taken from, entered into the wiki in good faith, and then corrected on the directory again. But 2) the fact that different lists had different information, and some lists were accurate and some were not, and 3) the fact that anyone could edit the original directory, and the fact that 4) several people I know of had their base's information messed with and 5) people felt the need to post signs asking that people not do that, all should tell a reasonable person that it was a problem. And thus, we are controlling the ability to edit the master list on the document that supplies the wiki with the listings, thus ensuring that the wiki entries are also accurate. We already chased down several different sources of base listings to consolidate it, we'd like to not have to do that again, but in deference to wiki rules(?) or at least tradition, we will add in entries made to the wiki to the document before renewing the listings when they need renewal. But we've been over all of this with you, and you just refuse to accept any of it. You refuse to accept that we've seen what we've seen. But we have, and so we've chosen our response, and I guess you'll just have to live without comprehension, because that's just how it is, and endlessly explaining is clearly going nowhere.

I appreciate your input, AtC, thanks. 🙂

I'm not sure that option is available. You can't unilaterally remove them. I said it was your choice. I would be doing nothing, but I am giving assent. Nobody else is weighing in. Regardless, I'm asking on Michiyo's discord for permission.

I hope you've put it into the Base Directory! 🙂

I did mean, the previous version to ours. As in, we did not put it there, it was there already. And you're right, the official Wiki does not include base lists. And I will say, if you'd prefer to remove base lists altogether, we can certainly do that. We were updating to correct. The wiki does not tend to be the go-to place for base information anyway, and our efforts to maintain integrity are only complicated by maintaining the files here as well. Er... a comment in the source doesn't appear to an ordinary user viewing the page. It's only visible to people editing it. That's an appropriate place to have editing instructions. Right, and it appears I was not clear enough. This was in response to your suggestion to viewers of the page as to how and where they should edit. Apparently, when you make a comment and leave it on the source page, that's okay, but if we did it, it's not. We would prefer to just leave off instructions about editing on the wiki at all; anyone who is there and inclined to edit can figure out how, just as on any other page. Obviously I appreciate you have a lot of information about bases, yes, but that is not the same as saying that you should declare that all changes to a page should go through you. That is not at all the point I was making. I was pointing to the evidence of malicious edits. We found the differences. I can't say, as I stated, exactly where and when all the edits occurred, but we know THAT they occurred, either on the old directory or in the wiki because we've seen the differences in the directories as they existed. We know there was inaccurate information on the wiki. We know there was inaccurate information on the old directory. We know there are petty people that want to sabotage others, and some that are jealous of others. THIS is the information you do not recognize, you refuse to entertain, despite repeated assurances from us. We've seen it. It's why we are keeping such control over entries: we are safeguarding the information. The actual information is largely coming from the builders themselves; we just keep it from being changed to something it should not be. Here's an example of an edit that BlackSpectre fixed: 19:36, 25 December 2022‎ BlackSpectre talk contribs‎ m 4,096 bytes +527‎ Fixed a bunch of other broken links, passcodes, and text. Someone had copied the Costmic Transport passcode onto every copy link. That is just one example on the first history I checked. And we've asserted this numerous times as the biggest part of the reason we redid this and want to maintain protections over editing, and you simply refuse to accept any of it, asserting time and time again, against any evidence, that there were no malicious edits on the wiki. Oh, and note the date. I think that the reason you do not generally have a problem with people abusing editing privileges on the wiki is that most of the rest of your information is not like this. If you had issues with every area the way we've had issues with this one, I believe editing in the wiki would be much different, and perhaps there WOULD be safeguards similar to what we have in place. Most builders are wonderful and trustworthy, but as in any game, there are always a few bad actors, and if you were into bases at all, you might quickly realize that bases are as much a source of pride, ego, and stature as admired costumes, badge status, and powerful character builds, so for some, just seeing another base listed that's perhaps getting recognition and is owned by someone hated, is enough to motivate those people to put in something malicious, or, as in the Cosmic Transport correction, try and promote their own base over others that might be similar. But I do not need to know or understand why to know we need to safeguard against it. We have not said so, and in fact, if anyone wants to help make sure the content is accurate and up to date, we're happy to include them. But conversely, it should be obvious that every facet of our contribution to the wiki should not have to go through you. That is very much the appearance here. So, that was all pretty much just to clear up apparent misunderstandings of what I had meant. Regarding the base list, here is my understanding: I will monitor changes and handle them as they require. We will download the directory to the wiki when it needs to be updated with new information. No references to editing the wiki should be on the source page, but visitors will be informed of the existence of the directory and that they can enter information there, for ease and consistency, and if not there, then they may contact us. Wiki editors know how to edit the wiki if desired. As to it can be added, but we'd prefer this version, which would replace: To update the directory source please contact CRs @Dacy or @Easter Bunny or submit a ‘Base Directory Update Request’. We would appreciate it if base owners who have not yet updated the information for their bases would do so. Note this table will be overwritten periodically by the CRs with a fresh copy from the directory. With this: Bases are most easily updated in the base directory [link], to keep the identifying tags consistent and easily searchable. To update in this way, follow the link or contact CR @Dacy or CR @Easter Bunny to submit a base to the directory, or to update a base that has missing information. This will avoid mentioning editing the wiki on the source page, which you said was inappropriate. Those that do edit the wiki will know what to do if that is what they prefer, just like for all the other pages in the wiki, but it provides information they need if they want to keep their base entry consistent with how other bases are displayed and searched for. It does not threaten that their input will be erased, and it does not duplicate what has been said already. So, options: we're done here, having worked out concerns and compromises, or the other option could be no lists on the wiki; and, I leave that up to you. That's your choice, but either way, I want to be DONE.

New tour!

Really interesting, I don't know as I've heard of this problem before. Sorry you are experiencing it!

That is from the previous wiki. I don't oppose losing it, but it illustrates that this has been a problem, and I see no reason why it would not continue to be so. I will admit that I don't know if there were malicious wiki edits, or if all of the problems stemmed from having open editing on the original document, but either way, we'd like to avoid the issue entirely. I will admit to frustration here. Do you recognize at all that this is our area of expertise? That perhaps we have knowledge and experience you do not? It has never felt as though you do. Yes, you are a big wiki editor. No, this is not typical of wiki edits, to control things externally, but the reason that statement is there, the reason so many base entries weren't accurate or didn't match the directory is because there WERE malicious edits. Sad to say, there are malicious and petty people in this game. This is something that we've learned. This is why we feel that editing control is important. These are the reasons we wish to keep the system as we have set it up: The information is centralized, so we don't have to gather together base information from multiple locations again. We maintain presences on HC discord, our own discord, the in game base building channel, this wiki, the forums, and of course are available in game when we can be, and that's not even talking about what else we do. If we see a base not in the directory, we encourage the owner to enter it. By not encouraging people to enter bases on the wiki, we'd like to think that there's less of a chance that they will, so less of a chance that we'll have to enter the base ourselves. Yes, that's minimal work, but every little bit adds up. We'd definitely prefer the owner or builder to do the entering, as there are LOTS of bases. It's much easier to do a bulk copy paste than to individually edit the wiki, and we know it's correct. You probably couldn't do that with other sections of the wiki, but in this case, with a table such as this is, and this sort of information, it is much more efficient. It's our opinion that it's more efficient, but I think that there's an objective case to be made there as well. And, the information, when entered on the directory document, will have the drop-down tags to choose from, whereas the wiki does not have those. Therefore, any bases entered on the wiki without being able to reference the document itself may not conform to the other bases' information. It only makes sense to operate from the point of the greatest number of entries in a centralized system, and as you pointed out, that's not the wiki. So in short, we feel this method is efficient, accurate, and we see nothing wrong with how it's set up. The wiki is not just a link to a document, as it was in that first thing that EB tried, which we admitted was not what should have been, but this is information in wiki format in the wiki. It's accurate, it's up to date. and the system is efficient. No, it's not how things are done typically, but most information in the wiki is not changing as much as the base directory is from week to week, currently. The reason we do not want to have a statement telling people that if they are making an entry, where to do so, is because we do not want to encourage them to make entries on the wiki at all. (And what happened to "I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page"?) You have been the ONLY editor weighing in. And I will point out, EB and I are editors as well. As is anyone who registers and does it. So does not seem so much a "discussion" as it seem to be more "this is what I object to, and here are the changes I made that I want to implement". The few who have voiced opinions have been generally supportive of our efforts here. Look, your expertise is in editing the wiki, overall. It's a big wiki. There is a lot of information that needs to be edited and updated. Surely this need not take up so much of your attention? I do not know if this is your intent, but it's felt like you don't want us to be here, you don't want us editing the wiki, and you don't seem to care as much about the accuracy of the information as you do about how precisely it is entered and presented. Alone, you have made what should have been a relatively simple thing to accomplish into an unpleasant experience that in truth, has been very discouraging and time consuming. I don't want conflict, but this whole back and forth has gone on so long, and I feel it might be helpful for you to understand this side of the exchange, how things are coming across. I'm pretty sure our frustration has been clear, but I'm explaining why. So discouraging, in fact, that EB really does not want to work with the wiki at all, at this point, so I will be handling edits, with help from Mats when needed. We never "forbid" people from entering anything. We did ask that they contact us, but nowhere did we forbid the entry of information. We did not provide a place for them to do so, either, and that was entirely intentional. We also clearly warn that information they enter here but do not enter on the directory itself risks being overwritten. We do not want to tell them where to place something they're entering. There are no drop-down menus to help them with what terms we've used for the bases. The directory was designed to be simple to enter information into. Information entered on the document will be consistent with the information for the other bases. Information entered on the document can't be changed by someone seeking to make another's base inaccessible or invisible. Realize, the first tables were created from the old directory. Changes from that point on were made mostly by wiki edits. The wiki was out of date, the wiki had inaccuracies. We're just not going to return to that method, because it's demonstrated that it does not work. Was that the fault of entries to the wiki? Unlikely, imo, but still possible. However, we know that if we limit the entries to the source we download into the wiki, it will not happen again. I propose a compromise. As I said already, EB is out as far as editing the wiki goes, and I am willing to promise that I will monitor for changes/input to the wiki directory that is apart from entries to our directory. Is there a way to make that easier and get notifications from changes to a particular section of the wiki? That would certainly mean I could immediately take whatever action is needed. We will remove the warning about losing anything entered because of the downloads that will be done; however, we also will not encourage people to edit on the wiki by telling them where to place a new base entry. Instead, we will leave up the part encouraging people to contact either EB or myself if they do not wish to put an entry into the document itself, and of course, encourage people to please update their bases on the document. This way, you get what you wanted in that we have no warnings or other text that gives the impression that editing the wiki is forbidden. I will check for entries and changes to the document, and address them as needed. The document will be kept up to date as needed. Right now, changes are fairly frequent, but I anticipate that will die down. On the whole, this gives the wiki a much needed update in this particular area. It will be kept up to date, unlike the last table. It will be monitored to keep it accurate, unlike the last table. And it's being sourced from experts in the field, in the wiki tradition. Editing is allowed, but not encouraged. And perhaps both of us can move on to other pressing work and stop devoting quite so much time to discussion? I fervently hope this sounds acceptable, because I'm ready to be done with this.

Ultra Alt, I feel I must apologize for my confusion, and for not double checking what was posted. (And I deleted a bunch of stuff I'd misunderstood) However much of an idiot I have been here, I do feel it's unfair to paint the entire base building community with such a broad brush. It's a very good community, and I understand if you do not want to interact with ME, but I hope you do not avoid the community just because of my mistakes. There IS another CR, so if you need something, you don't have to talk to me at all, if you think I'm awful. Again, you have my sincere apology, fwiw. EDIT: and I messed it up again. I have been missing sleep, and just BLEAH. I AM an idiot. I did post that, but I should have omitted your name from the quote. *Shakes head* I am very sorry for not doing that. I thought I'd been directed to talk about it here.

And updated. Glad we did, because I had not realized that our "De-listed" bases had been appearing; those were not supposed to be there. RIP (bases that no longer exist) bases are also off of the list, and of course the few MRP friendly bases are gone. New bases were also added to the directory from the additions since the last download.

And WE are asking people to NOT add bases on the wiki, but direct additions to us. So that should not be added. We will try and catch any such additions through the changes to the wiki notifications, but we clearly state that they should contact us if they do not wish to add it to the directory directly, and that anything added to the wiki without going through us will not last, as it will be overwritten. However, Michiyo has ruled: any bases that promote/advertise MRP/ERP cannot be listed. Not even offsite. Now, I will say that bases that are simply " 18+" are 18+ for RP reasons; usually they are bars. An 18+ sign does not mean MRP/ERP, only those bases tagged as MRP (which is what we designate for ERP or MRP) should be removed. And that of course, we'll verify that it has been correctly tagged, because that's an area for malicious input, once it's discovered we're not listing MRP bases. We will take care of removal from the source, probably with an update tonight.

Love that! Very inventive, good work!

If you look at the post, I’m sure you saw that I did not say any particular name. In fact, your name was not even on my mind. I said that we had encountered resistance to our proposals, because there was more than one person. And the person who responded mentioned you by name, not me. This conversation happened on discord, so I was not trying to drag anyone into anything. I was merely checking with Michiyo to get clearance to delete the tables as I had been told I needed to do. Michiyo is the one who brought the conversation from discord to here. I’m sorry your name was brought up, but that wasn’t me. And the person who brought your name into it, literally said “no disrespect to Ultra Alt”, so your name was brought up, but it clearly was not meant to offend. -Dacy