Talk:Shield Of The Tree Quest - Revision history

Pulse: /* Pulse's view */

2012-03-24T04:11:10Z

Pulse's view

Pulse: /* Pulse's view */ new section

2012-03-24T04:07:15Z

Pulse's view: new section

Nautilus: /* Is there any time or other policy governing when the stuff can be added anyway? */

2012-03-22T17:10:03Z

Is there any time or other policy governing when the stuff can be added anyway?

Shadowtop: /* Is there any time or other policy governing when the stuff can be added anyway? */

2012-03-22T15:22:19Z

Is there any time or other policy governing when the stuff can be added anyway?

WinterRose: suggestion on general policy

2012-03-22T08:52:42Z

suggestion on general policy

Neyne: /* they don't mind being spoiled */

2012-03-22T02:19:43Z

they don't mind being spoiled

Neyne: /* they don't mind being spoiled */

2012-03-22T02:15:26Z

they don't mind being spoiled

Shadowtop: /* Is there any time or other policy governing when the stuff can be added anyway? */

2012-03-22T00:38:50Z

Is there any time or other policy governing when the stuff can be added anyway?

WinterRose: pulse invited

2012-03-22T00:10:16Z

pulse invited

Mekrith: /* they don't mind being spoiled */

2012-03-21T22:49:33Z

they don't mind being spoiled

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:11, 24 March 2012
Line 168:		Line 168:
	The wiki is seperate from the Mud, and any policy on what gets published or not would be a policy by the wiki community. However, it is obviously great if the wiki community does follow the requests of the authors of areas or quests on Avatars. There might be aspects where publication of extensive information without permission could start to infringe on an authors rights (used in the widest sense), e.g. when full descriptions of areas are copied room by room.		The wiki is seperate from the Mud, and any policy on what gets published or not would be a policy by the wiki community. However, it is obviously great if the wiki community does follow the requests of the authors of areas or quests on Avatars. There might be aspects where publication of extensive information without permission could start to infringe on an authors rights (used in the widest sense), e.g. when full descriptions of areas are copied room by room.

−	If a spoiler of quests is included on the wiki, then personally I prefer descriptions that also includes the underlying story, instead of a do this / do that approach. Again though - this is not any official policy and in no way a requirement for publishing information.	+	If a spoiler of quests is included on the wiki, then personally I prefer descriptions that also includes the underlying story, instead of a do this / do that approach. Again though - this is not any official policy and in no way a requirement for publishing information. --[[User:Pulse\|Pulse]] 23:11, 23 March 2012 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:07, 24 March 2012
Line 161:		Line 161:

	I reinstated the spoiler flag which shouldn't have been taken down. Maybe someone could contact Pulse and see if the spoilers should be deleted/edited, or the flag removed, etc. If this isn't resolved, I shall flag this page for deletion, in line with the original statement. --[[User:Spaghetti\|Spaghetti]] 12:34, 20 March 2012 (CDT)		I reinstated the spoiler flag which shouldn't have been taken down. Maybe someone could contact Pulse and see if the spoilers should be deleted/edited, or the flag removed, etc. If this isn't resolved, I shall flag this page for deletion, in line with the original statement. --[[User:Spaghetti\|Spaghetti]] 12:34, 20 March 2012 (CDT)
		+
		+	== Pulse's view ==
		+
		+	A couple of years ago when the area went in I requested that people would refrain from making the information on the quest easily available, at least right away. I never expected that this would be interpreted as a 'ban' that would be going on for years.
		+
		+	The wiki is seperate from the Mud, and any policy on what gets published or not would be a policy by the wiki community. However, it is obviously great if the wiki community does follow the requests of the authors of areas or quests on Avatars. There might be aspects where publication of extensive information without permission could start to infringe on an authors rights (used in the widest sense), e.g. when full descriptions of areas are copied room by room.
		+
		+	If a spoiler of quests is included on the wiki, then personally I prefer descriptions that also includes the underlying story, instead of a do this / do that approach. Again though - this is not any official policy and in no way a requirement for publishing information.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 22 March 2012
Line 80:		Line 80:

	::: Gets my vote.--[[User:Shadowtop\|Shadowtop]] 11:22, 22 March 2012 (EDT)		::: Gets my vote.--[[User:Shadowtop\|Shadowtop]] 11:22, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:: While author wishes should be respected, they should not be absolute or final. There seems to be wiki-community consensus that short duration requests are good things while demands for permanent silence are not. I, for one, am not even remotely comfortable with a blanket ban on posting any content about particular player discoverable things. A six month standard embargo on new quest information with a possible extension up to a year (or 6 months past the first public discovery?) sounds a lot more reasonable. --[[User:Nautilus\|Nautilus]] 13:06, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Privileged Information ==		== Privileged Information ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 22 March 2012
Line 78:		Line 78:

	:: In the past posting of maps and non-quest items has not been a problem. Maps usually encourage exploration, not inhibit it, especially when chasing quests. My suggestion is, as with Eragora and areas before it, to only keep a 6-month moratorium on quests, and allow free posting of exploration details, ''unless otherwise stated by the author''. In case the author says "put the map but without hidden rooms, hold on the quests for a year", or "please no info ''whatsoever''", these can trivially be noted on the area proper or appropriate subpages. -- [[User:WinterRose\|WinterRose]] 03:52, 22 March 2012 (CDT)		:: In the past posting of maps and non-quest items has not been a problem. Maps usually encourage exploration, not inhibit it, especially when chasing quests. My suggestion is, as with Eragora and areas before it, to only keep a 6-month moratorium on quests, and allow free posting of exploration details, ''unless otherwise stated by the author''. In case the author says "put the map but without hidden rooms, hold on the quests for a year", or "please no info ''whatsoever''", these can trivially be noted on the area proper or appropriate subpages. -- [[User:WinterRose\|WinterRose]] 03:52, 22 March 2012 (CDT)
		+
		+	::: Gets my vote.--[[User:Shadowtop\|Shadowtop]] 11:22, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Privileged Information ==		== Privileged Information ==

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 : This sounds like a sensible policy. The most useful place to have information about where spoilers are not desired, or a time length for a moratorium on them, is here on the wiki. It should be quite easy for enthusiastic editors to transfer a builder's wishes to the most appropriate page or pages (if neccessary a note on the whole area category page - but the area quest sub-category seems a sensible place to start). I think a 6 month assumed period, unless heard otherwise - including if the builder says there is NO period at all and go ahead and wiki from day one - is a nice standard idea. Do we need to consider other information as well, like info on items, mobs or maps? Or can those be left to zero moratorium, barring builder wishes, as per Halfling Tunnels?--[[User:Shadowtop|Shadowtop]] 19:38, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
-==Priviliged Information==
+:: In the past posting of maps and non-quest items has not been a problem. Maps usually encourage exploration, not inhibit it, especially when chasing quests. My suggestion is, as with Eragora and areas before it, to only keep a 6-month moratorium on quests, and allow free posting of exploration details, ''unless otherwise stated by the author''. In case the author says "put the map but without hidden rooms, hold on the quests for a year", or "please no info ''whatsoever''", these can trivially be noted on the area proper or appropriate subpages. -- [[User:WinterRose|WinterRose]] 03:52, 22 March 2012 (CDT)
 I put this on so I'll give my opinion. I remember that request for no spoilage but did intentionally due to how people would not help anyone trying to figure this out. After many attempts to get the details or even hints on how to solve it I was getting little help. After one person gave me "help" that made me lose the clumps (not sure if intentional or not) I got so frustrated I put it up after I figured it out. Avatar has always been promoted as community and this wiki is an outreach of that. I saw it being treated as privileged information and decided it is just another quest. --[[User:Ylem|Ylem]] 12:37, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

@@ Line 143: / Line 143: @@
 You guys are running off of complete hearsay - we don't know what Pulse said or what his intentions were.  Until he shows up, there is no reason for page deletion.  I for one intend to restore the quest details to this page after any deletion which may or may not occur, and support the adoption of a blanket policy such as WinterRose has advocated, so people are not confused about the use of spoiler warnings in the future.   --[[User:Mekrith|Mekrith]] 17:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
-: You are right, it is hearsay. What I remember was from a very long time ago, and while I'm not exactly senile (if family history is anything to go by, it won't be long) my memory is far from perfect. At this point I'm sorry I even brought it up, as I was just answering the question posed (why was the page originally blanked) to the best of my knowledge. I am personally okay with posting any and all information on the wiki as long as it is formatted in a way that guides questers in a step by step fashion (like, first starting with clearing up anything that's counterintuitive with the quests, then giving hints, then delving into the actual steps), rather than '''''*BLAP*''' HERE IS ANSAR'' and spoiling the whole thing at once. --[[User:Neyne|Neyne]] 21:15, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
+: You are right, it is hearsay. What I remember was from a very long time ago, and while I'm not exactly senile (if family history is anything to go by, it won't be long) my memory is far from perfect. At this point I'm sorry I even brought it up, as I was just answering the question posed (why was the page originally blanked) to the best of my knowledge. I am personally okay with posting any and all information on the wiki as long as it is formatted in a way that guides questers in a step by step fashion (like, first starting with clearing up anything that's counterintuitive with the quests--in the case of this quest, that might be "there are three ticket-giving phases" or "you will probably need at least two characters if not more to finish it"--then giving hints, then delving into the actual steps), rather than '''''*BLAP*''' HERE IS ANSAR'' and spoiling the whole thing at once. --[[User:Neyne|Neyne]] 21:15, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
 : I filed a note and an email to Pulse hopefully he'll come around and help clarify the current status of the quest. -- [[User:WinterRose|WinterRose]] 19:10, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:15, 22 March 2012
Line 142:		Line 142:

	You guys are running off of complete hearsay - we don't know what Pulse said or what his intentions were. Until he shows up, there is no reason for page deletion. I for one intend to restore the quest details to this page after any deletion which may or may not occur, and support the adoption of a blanket policy such as WinterRose has advocated, so people are not confused about the use of spoiler warnings in the future. --[[User:Mekrith\|Mekrith]] 17:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)		You guys are running off of complete hearsay - we don't know what Pulse said or what his intentions were. Until he shows up, there is no reason for page deletion. I for one intend to restore the quest details to this page after any deletion which may or may not occur, and support the adoption of a blanket policy such as WinterRose has advocated, so people are not confused about the use of spoiler warnings in the future. --[[User:Mekrith\|Mekrith]] 17:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
		+
		+	: You are right, it is hearsay. What I remember was from a very long time ago, and while I'm not exactly senile (if family history is anything to go by, it won't be long) my memory is far from perfect. At this point I'm sorry I even brought it up, as I was just answering the question posed (why was the page originally blanked) to the best of my knowledge. I am personally okay with posting any and all information on the wiki as long as it is formatted in a way that guides questers in a step by step fashion (like, first starting with clearing up anything that's counterintuitive with the quests, then giving hints, then delving into the actual steps), rather than '''''BLAP''' HERE IS ANSAR'' and spoiling the whole thing at once. --[[User:Neyne\|Neyne]] 21:15, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

	: I filed a note and an email to Pulse hopefully he'll come around and help clarify the current status of the quest. -- [[User:WinterRose\|WinterRose]] 19:10, 21 March 2012 (CDT)		: I filed a note and an email to Pulse hopefully he'll come around and help clarify the current status of the quest. -- [[User:WinterRose\|WinterRose]] 19:10, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:38, 22 March 2012
Line 74:		Line 74:

	Comments, additions? -- [[User:WinterRose\|WinterRose]] 16:30, 21 March 2012 (CDT)		Comments, additions? -- [[User:WinterRose\|WinterRose]] 16:30, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
		+
		+	: This sounds like a sensible policy. The most useful place to have information about where spoilers are not desired, or a time length for a moratorium on them, is here on the wiki. It should be quite easy for enthusiastic editors to transfer a builder's wishes to the most appropriate page or pages (if neccessary a note on the whole area category page - but the area quest sub-category seems a sensible place to start). I think a 6 month assumed period, unless heard otherwise - including if the builder says there is NO period at all and go ahead and wiki from day one - is a nice standard idea. Do we need to consider other information as well, like info on items, mobs or maps? Or can those be left to zero moratorium, barring builder wishes, as per Halfling Tunnels?--[[User:Shadowtop\|Shadowtop]] 19:38, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

	==Priviliged Information==		==Priviliged Information==

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 22 March 2012
Line 140:		Line 140:

	You guys are running off of complete hearsay - we don't know what Pulse said or what his intentions were. Until he shows up, there is no reason for page deletion. I for one intend to restore the quest details to this page after any deletion which may or may not occur, and support the adoption of a blanket policy such as WinterRose has advocated, so people are not confused about the use of spoiler warnings in the future. --[[User:Mekrith\|Mekrith]] 17:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)		You guys are running off of complete hearsay - we don't know what Pulse said or what his intentions were. Until he shows up, there is no reason for page deletion. I for one intend to restore the quest details to this page after any deletion which may or may not occur, and support the adoption of a blanket policy such as WinterRose has advocated, so people are not confused about the use of spoiler warnings in the future. --[[User:Mekrith\|Mekrith]] 17:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
		+
		+	: I filed a note and an email to Pulse hopefully he'll come around and help clarify the current status of the quest. -- [[User:WinterRose\|WinterRose]] 19:10, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

	==The Wiki Drives Us Forward==		==The Wiki Drives Us Forward==

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 : Fair enough.  Flagged for deletion with intent to recreate page with no-spoiler banner, no categories inclusion, and a blank history. --[[User:Spaghetti|Spaghetti]] 13:20, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
-You are the only person advocating this as a policy for the wiki. Unfortunately this is a democracy, not a dictatorship. I for one intend to restore the quest details to this page after any deletion which may or may not occur, and support the adoption of blanket policy such as WinterRose has advocated, so people are not confused about the use of spoiler warnings in the future.   --[[User:Mekrith|Mekrith]] 17:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
+You guys are running off of complete hearsay - we don't know what Pulse said or what his intentions were.  Until he shows up, there is no reason for page deletion.  I for one intend to restore the quest details to this page after any deletion which may or may not occur, and support the adoption of a blanket policy such as WinterRose has advocated, so people are not confused about the use of spoiler warnings in the future.   --[[User:Mekrith|Mekrith]] 17:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)
 ==The Wiki Drives Us Forward==