BattleMaster Community

BattleMaster => Marketing => Wiki => Topic started by: Gloria on March 29, 2011, 06:51:18 AM

Title: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 29, 2011, 06:51:18 AM
What is it with people in OW? The treaty is ON THE WIKI. Read it.

The problem was that the treaty was made on the wiki but not played IN GAME. 
The game should be played in the game, not in the stupid wiki. 
The player of Galiard Scarlett seemed to be playing a whole different game than the rest of Ohnar West, with a forum and a constitution and a treaty that were all published on the wiki but not talked about in the game where it is supposed to be played.

 And yes, that pisses me off.  I play Battlemaster.  I do not play Wikimaster.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: De-Legro on March 29, 2011, 07:48:01 AM
It was played in game, if was talked about several times, it was posted in OW several times, it was posted in Arcaea several times. It is on the wiki as a reference so people don't have to ask for it to be REPOSTED for the 11th time.

Further to that the wiki IS a IC and IG resource. You have been playing the game for long enough that it should have become apparent by now, even if you have missed the several announcements to that effect. Everything Galiard did was talked about IG to some degree, then posted to the wiki for easy access. That way when you wanted to view it and someone wasn't online that had it to post, you still had a place to go and find it.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Bedwyr on March 29, 2011, 08:14:03 AM
The problem was that the treaty was made on the wiki but not played IN GAME. 
The game should be played in the game, not in the stupid wiki. 
The player of Galiard Scarlett seemed to be playing a whole different game than the rest of Ohnar West, with a forum and a constitution and a treaty that were all published on the wiki but not talked about in the game where it is supposed to be played.

 And yes, that pisses me off.  I play Battlemaster.  I do not play Wikimaster.

Go to your Information page.  Check the Diplomatic Treaties link.  Go to the Ohnarian/Arcaean Compact.  Read the treaty.  Compare to the wiki.  They're exactly the same.  Beyond that, Ohnar West received the region of Arempos.  In other words, the negotiations were done in-game.  The treaty was discussed and signed in-game, using the official treaty system.  Effects of the treaty have been felt in-game.  In other words, it has been played as well as any treaty in the game, and better than most.  I added the treaty to the wiki for record-keeping purposes.

The treaty was signed on February 13th.  It was done after considerable discussion and negotiation between Jenred and Galiard, and I know for a fact that Galiard talked about it with various people in Ohnar West.  Just like I know that certain people in Ohnar West can't distinguish between a message group described as a "forum" and this game forum.  It is also standard practice to put most details about a realm and how it is run on the wiki.  It is not only standard practice, but the game flat out tells you that the proper place for detailed information about your realm is on the wiki.  If a Ruler attempts to post a Ruler Bulletin that is too long, then they receive this message "(And remember, the proper place for realm histories or lengthy background and roleplaying descriptions is the community site)" with "the community site" being a link to, you guessed it, the Battlemaster Wiki.

Check Sirion's wiki page.  There is a link to a Constitution.  Check Carelia's wiki page.  Laws and prisoner agreements.  Check any other realm page, and I'd lay fifty-fifty odds that they will have laws, a constitution, customs, treaties, or some other information that is important to know on it.  The message system of Battlemaster is explicitly designed to make linking to the wiki simple because the game is intended to be played with the wiki as an accompaniment.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 29, 2011, 11:47:05 AM
Maybe it was played well in Arcaea.  In Ohnar West it was not properly done.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Broin on March 29, 2011, 12:28:41 PM
The problem was that the treaty was made on the wiki but not played IN GAME. 
The game should be played in the game, not in the stupid wiki. 
The player of Galiard Scarlett seemed to be playing a whole different game than the rest of Ohnar West, with a forum and a constitution and a treaty that were all published on the wiki but not talked about in the game where it is supposed to be played.

 And yes, that pisses me off.  I play Battlemaster.  I do not play Wikimaster.
Maybe it was played well in Arcaea.  In Ohnar West it was not properly done.

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I play in Ohnar West, and while I understand you characters taking this stance, I'm rather surprised to find it is the players view also. The constitution was voted on by the realm. It was too large to be in a single message, so a link to the IG reference area, the wiki was provided. The Forum was part of the constitution, its simply an in game message group, one of the four that each realm is allowed. Any noble of the realm can join it. The treaty was discussed within that message group, as stipulated by the constitution, which was passed by referendum. I understand that your character refuses to join the forum as a protest against it and the other reforms, but to claim the treaty wasn't handled correctly IG simply because for what ever reason you choose not to avail yourself of the source of information is beyond ridiculous. You can't have it both ways, you can't protest against the current democratically ratified system, and expect to have access to everything discussed under that system.

Galiard is now gone, he has paused all of his characters as I believe he found BM eating into time he would rather spend on something else. No doubt once a new PM is elected we can go through all the fun of changing our systems again. Perhaps this time you might agree with what the majority of those that voted also thought, so we don't have to go through the nonsense of these half truths.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Indirik on March 29, 2011, 03:58:50 PM
The problem was that the treaty was made on the wiki but not played IN GAME. 

That is not true. The treaty was passed in-game, and posted on the wiki for reference. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the wiki.

Quote
The player of Galiard Scarlett seemed to be playing a whole different game than the rest of Ohnar West, with a forum and a constitution and a treaty that were all published on the wiki but not talked about in the game where it is supposed to be played.

For clarification, the "forum" was an in-game message group named the Forum, not a separate out-of-game discussion forum. It was a message group where anyone could join to discuss realm matters, just by asking the ruler.

And, as I said above, this was all discussed in-game. Just because you don't remember the discussion or weren't paying attention to it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Quote
And yes, that pisses me off.  I play Battlemaster.  I do not play Wikimaster.

So you expect him to just retype the whole thing from memory every time you ask for it? If he copies and pastes it into a text file to save it on his computer, is that unacceptable because then he's playing NotepadMaster?

The wiki is a perfectly acceptable IC resource, especially in the way Galiard's player used it. The document was posted both IG and on the wiki, and links were given to the wiki page several times. Discussion was held extensively in the realm about it, with many quite "spirited" discussions. I'm sorry you object to using the wiki as a reference for the posting of documents so they can be referenced after the 30-day expiration of IG messages. But seeing as how most people, including yourself, can't be bothered to actually personally save copies of these things, the wiki is the place for these things to be posted for future reference. It is publicly available for everyone to use. In fact, it should be used more often.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 29, 2011, 04:38:17 PM
That is not true. The treaty was passed in-game, and posted on the wiki for reference. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the wiki.

For clarification, the "forum" was an in-game message group named the Forum, not a separate out-of-game discussion forum. It was a message group where anyone could join to discuss realm matters, just by asking the ruler.

The ruler being Galiard Scarlet, and never including me in that message group.  Not even when Duke Iceberg told him to. 


And, as I said above, this was all discussed in-game. Just because you don't remember the discussion or weren't paying attention to it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So you expect him to just retype the whole thing from memory every time you ask for it? If he copies and pastes it into a text file to save it on his computer, is that unacceptable because then he's playing NotepadMaster?

The wiki is a perfectly acceptable IC resource, especially in the way Galiard's player used it. The document was posted both IG and on the wiki, and links were given to the wiki page several times. Discussion was held extensively in the realm about it, with many quite "spirited" discussions. I'm sorry you object to using the wiki as a reference for the posting of documents so they can be referenced after the 30-day expiration of IG messages. But seeing as how most people, including yourself, can't be bothered to actually personally save copies of these things, the wiki is the place for these things to be posted for future reference. It is publicly available for everyone to use. In fact, it should be used more often.

I am not against the use of the Wiki.   But I do see a problem in relying so heavily on it that it replaces in game experience.  Editing a page in the Wiki and adding to the discussion page are very different experiences from having a character propose and discuss a document.  And I'm not into publishing things on the Wiki that have little to do with what goes on in game. 
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 29, 2011, 04:46:42 PM
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Indirik on March 29, 2011, 04:53:37 PM
A poorly drafted document with lots of sections "to be filled in later" was voted. 

Which my character objected to quite strenuously. She spoke out against it, and voted against it. Sadly, it passed anyway. But by a close margin.

Quote
False.  Only those Sir Galiard included in the message group were in it.

See my point?

My character never refused to join the forum.  Sir Galiard refused to include her.

That's a valid IC gripe. Not a reason to launch this OOC attack against the treaty, the wiki, and the player.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 29, 2011, 10:40:55 PM
Yes, I remember your character objecting to it.  Thanks.

And yes, I'm ranting about the way the treaty and the wiki were done.  And there's nothing wrong with IC gripes.  Please don't take it as an OOC attack.  As a player, am not very comfortable with how things were done, so I am speaking against it.  And I only mentioned it because it seems someone assumed I am an idiot for asking about the treaty.


Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: De-Legro on March 30, 2011, 03:41:00 AM
You really don't get the wiki do you? There was no need for general players to edit the wiki treaty page, or add to the discussion page, in fact such things just make it harder. The wiki page was a reference. Discussion should of and as I understand DID occur within the normal realm channels. Being excluded from a message group is a valid in game power play, so you would have to ask what your character did that lead to the ruler deciding he would like to exclude them. There is no requirement in this game for anything to be discussed realm wide, rulers are free to choose how they will be advised. In general it looks like OW decided to use a message group, that claimed to provide entry for all, pretty standard in a lot of realms. Other realms don't even bother with that illusion of inclusion, the ruler just picks a few advisors and the rest of the realm either deals with it or organised to remove the ruler.

There are plenty of IG thing to complain about with how OW was run recently. But I don't really see anything OOC or anything for a player rather then a character to be annoyed about.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 30, 2011, 08:05:39 PM
You really don't get the wiki do you?

Is that question addressed to me? I have been playing the game and using its wiki for half a decade already. 

You're just not getting the point.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: De-Legro on March 30, 2011, 11:26:05 PM
Is that question addressed to me? I have been playing the game and using its wiki for half a decade already. 

You're just not getting the point.

Oh my, a full half decade. And here I was thinking you DIDN'T want to play "wikimaster". It is quite obvious you don't get the point. You keep trying to imply that the treaty and the constitution were on the wiki for a reason other then being a convinent place to store it were all can access it at any time. This

I am not against the use of the Wiki.   But I do see a problem in relying so heavily on it that it replaces in game experience.  Editing a page in the Wiki and adding to the discussion page are very different experiences from having a character propose and discuss a document.  And I'm not into publishing things on the Wiki that have little to do with what goes on in game. 

has all been entirely in your head, which has been stated by several other members of the realm. They were discussed in realm, and I'm sure would have been updated by Galiard or someone at regular intervals to reflect the discussion. So you are upset you didn't get to participate in those discussions. Boo hoo. All because OW calls itself a republic does not mean there is any game mechanic or OOC requirement for everyone to be consulted. Sounds like you and Galiard had a good little feud going on involving some push and shove. Congratulations that is part of what politics in BM is all about.

Summary, you keep claiming he used the wiki wrong. Several disagree with both that statement and have given multiple examples of realms using the wiki in the same way. You complain in a OOC post about peace on the island, and then try and imply all your complaints are IC. Your very first complaint was the treaty was played on the Wiki and not in game. That has been disputed by several people that were involved in discussion of the treaty in both realms. You can keep trying to rephrase things, or imply what you want. But in this case, you were simply WRONG. Your character might not have been aware of the discussions, fine. But don't come here whining and trying to imply that people are circumventing IG interaction just because your character was excluded.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 31, 2011, 07:31:49 AM
Oh my, a full half decade. And here I was thinking you DIDN'T want to play "wikimaster". It is quite obvious you don't get the point.

Playing wikimaster is different from using the wiki.  Properly.  The game is the game and the wiki is the wiki.  I do not post in the wiki in character, but as a player and as a wiki editor.  The participation in both is different.  That's clear, isn't it?


You keep trying to imply that the treaty and the constitution were on the wiki for a reason other then being a convinent place to store it were all can access it at any time.

No.  I am not trying to imply that.  I am questioning the assumption that everyone in OW should know about the damn treaty.  I asked a simple question: "Did the treaty between Jenred and Galiard say anything as to what would happen if Arcaea failed to take over Enlod as planned?"  Your answer implied that something was wrong with me because I did not know what the treaty was and I had not read it on the wiki. 

This has all been entirely in your head, which has been stated by several other members of the realm. They were discussed in realm, and I'm sure would have been updated by Galiard or someone at regular intervals to reflect the discussion.


So you are upset you didn't get to participate in those discussions.

No.  I'm upset because, apparently, you believe I'm supposed to know.  Then you say I was not supposed to know.  Which one is it? 

Boo hoo.

I am sorry that you need to cry.  Maybe if the game is not fun to you you could stop playing and do something else?  Also, why do  you need to bully other players?

All because OW calls itself a republic does not mean there is any game mechanic or OOC requirement for everyone to be consulted. Sounds like you and Galiard had a good little feud going on involving some push and shove. Congratulations that is part of what politics in BM is all about.

Never has this meaning of "Republic" been assumed or implied.  My character and Galiard had a good little feud that, I hope, was an enjoyable roleplaying experience for both of us.  This had nothing to do with the Forum or the Wiki or the Constitution... but with a totally legitimate IC reason and family history.  Many and many a year ago, when Sasrhas seceeded from Lasanar, Sir Galiard Scarlet was the general.  Baroness Adelina Driscol of Attlel secceeded Attlel from Lasanar to join Ohnar West.  Of course Galiard Scarlet hates the Driscols and any younger Driscol would be weary of Galiard Scarlett.  That's normal.

Summary, you keep claiming he used the wiki wrong. Several disagree with both that statement and have given multiple examples of realms using the wiki in the same way.

You seem to misunderstand my argument completely. 

You complain in a OOC post about peace on the island, and then try and imply all your complaints are IC. Your very first complaint was the treaty was played on the Wiki and not in game. That has been disputed by several people that were involved in discussion of the treaty in both realms. You can keep trying to rephrase things, or imply what you want. But in this case, you were simply WRONG. Your character might not have been aware of the discussions, fine. But don't come here whining and trying to imply that people are circumventing IG interaction just because your character was excluded.

I never complained about peace on the island.  Lefanis started this thread, not me.  Read it again.  My first contribution to it was just the question about the treaty.  You claimed I should know about it because it was in the wiki.  But I haven't got the answer to my question. 

Quote
Did the treaty between Jenred and Galiard say anything as to what would happen if Arcaea failed to take over Enlod as planned? 

I thought the answer to this question would help the discussion about peace/war on the FEI.  I still don't know the answer to this. 

BTW, you're a moderator.  You're supposed to be helping discussions, not fueling flame wars.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Bedwyr on March 31, 2011, 07:38:44 AM
Gloria,

The treaty is in the diplomatic treaties, in game, that is visible to your character.  As I told you in my first response.  Or you can look on the wiki to check it.  You're an experienced player, look up the treaty and see what it says.

The fact that you derailed the thread with OOC attacks on people "forcing" you to play "wikimaster" is what made people annoyed with you.

Read the treaty, find your answer, and stop complaining about stuff being put on the wiki when the game tells you to put it there.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Cadfan on March 31, 2011, 07:48:46 AM
Playing wikimaster is different from using the wiki.  Properly.  The game is the game and the wiki is the wiki.  I do not post in the wiki in character, but as a player and as a wiki editor.  The participation in both is different.  That's clear, isn't it?

No because as several people have so far explained, but which you refuse to listen to, the Wiki is used and is expected to be used as a IG and IC storage facility, much like a library.

No.  I am not trying to imply that.  I am questioning the assumption that everyone in OW should know about the damn treaty.  I asked a simple question: "Did the treaty between Jenred and Galiard say anything as to what would happen if Arcaea failed to take over Enlod as planned?"  Your answer implied that something was wrong with me because I did not know what the treaty was and I had not read it on the wiki. 

Everyone on the island, and perhaps even beyond can know about the treaty. It is IC to access the treaty on the wiki, as several people have tried to explain to you. There is also the fact that the treaty, once passed was posted to everyone in your realm. So if you refuse to use the wiki as a in game source, you really probably should have recorded it then.

No.  I'm upset because, apparently, you believe I'm supposed to know.  Then you say I was not supposed to know.  Which one is it? 

Massive logic fail. He said your character should know the details of the final treaty, for reasons explained above, he never implied you were involved in the discussion that resulted in that treaty

Never has this meaning of "Republic" been assumed or implied.  My character and Galiard had a good little feud that, I hope, was an enjoyable roleplaying experience for both of us.  This had nothing to do with the Forum or the Wiki or the Constitution... but with a totally legitimate IC reason and family history.  Many and many a year ago, when Sasrhas seceeded from Lasanar, Sir Galiard Scarlet was the general.  Baroness Adelina Driscol of Attlel secceeded Attlel from Lasanar to join Ohnar West.  Of course Galiard Scarlet hates the Driscols and any younger Driscol would be weary of Galiard Scarlett.  That's normal.

That would depend. The most logical interpretation of many of your comments is that the treaty was handled poorly because not everyone had "access" to the forum that discussed it. In that context it is fair to assume that you believe this because the realm is a republic and thus should be open to all members of the realm.

You seem to misunderstand my argument completely. 

I never complained about peace on the island.  Lefanis started this thread, not me.  Read it again.  My first contribution to it was just the question about the treaty.  You claimed I should know about it because it was in the wiki.  But I haven't got the answer to my question. 

I thought the answer to this question would help the discussion about peace/war on the FEI.  I still don't know the answer to this. 

Because you have still failed to avail yourself to the source of the required info. He also didn't claim you were complaining about peace on the island, he was refering to the fact you decided to have what appears to be a OOC rant about how a treaty was handled in OW in a thread that is about peace on FEI. In other words he questions how relevant your rant was to the topic at hand.

BTW, you're a moderator.  You're supposed to be helping discussions, not fueling flame wars.

Look is it obvious you don't want to use the wiki as it was intended. Fine I'm sure no one will force you. It is also evident that De-Legro and others are trying to counter your claim that its not a IG source of info, to prevent other players being misinformed based on that. If you are going to keep trying to argue your case, they are going to keep needing to refute it. Its not a flame war, more a argument that has yet to see both sides moving towards a mutual understanding.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 31, 2011, 01:49:28 PM
The treaty is in the diplomatic treaties, in game, that is visible to your character.  As I told you in my first response.  Or you can look on the wiki to check it.  You're an experienced player, look up the treaty and see what it says.
[/quote]

Exactly.  I read that one.  And  it says nothing about what OW or Arcaea should do shall they fail to take over Enlod. 

With De-Legro's response, I assumed that there was something else on the wiki that was different from the treaty that is available in game.  Do you see my confussion now?

That answer implies that there was a treaty on the wiki that was different from the one drafted by the Ambassadors in the game.

Was it too hard to say "no, there's nothing in the treaty about that" or "yes, the part of the treaty that says [blah] means that OW and Arcaea should [blahblah]"?   

Gee, guys, really.

Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 31, 2011, 01:57:29 PM
Everyone on the island, and perhaps even beyond can know about the treaty. It is IC to access the treaty on the wiki, as several people have tried to explain to you. There is also the fact that the treaty, once passed was posted to everyone in your realm. So if you refuse to use the wiki as a in game source, you really probably should have recorded it then.

Yes, I've always had access to the treaty drafted by the ambassadors and actually played in the game.   That one does not answer the question I originally posted in this thread.  De-Legro's answer implies that there is a treaty "on the Wiki" that does answer that question, therefore different from the official and in-game treaty.  Does this document exist?
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Bedwyr on March 31, 2011, 07:57:04 PM
Yes, I've always had access to the treaty drafted by the ambassadors and actually played in the game.   That one does not answer the question I originally posted in this thread.  De-Legro's answer implies that there is a treaty "on the Wiki" that does answer that question, therefore different from the official and in-game treaty.  Does this document exist?

The treaty on the wiki is exactly identical to the treaty in-game.  As I already explained.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on March 31, 2011, 10:06:59 PM
Quote from: Indirik (In Game OOC Message)
You should never have to check any forum/list/group outside the game itself to play BattleMaster. Everything that you do in the game, should always be here in the game. Certain things are stored on the wiki for reference, record keeping, history, etc., but that's not something you need to regularly check to play. In fact, you can mostly ignore it, if you don't feel like participating in it.

That doesn't mean you can't discuss things outside the game, or maybe engage in a bit of forum-based RP, if that's what you like. But if it's something that affects in-game things, it should happen in-game.
- De-Legro

This was my point.  Duh.

Please mark the source of quotes clearly when they are not from the forum. It does nobody any favours to quote things without context.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Indirik on March 31, 2011, 11:15:06 PM
Quote from: Indirik
(snipped a message sent in-game as an OOC)
This was my point.  Duh.

For reference, that was sent IG when one of the players in OW sent an OOC about not being able to log onto the forums, and how he didn't want to have to check in-game messages *and* forum posts, because he didn't have time. He obviously misunderstood the whole "the Forum is an IG message group" thing.

However, I still stand by my previous statements of posting a treaty on the wiki for reference, and posting an IG link to it, as being perfectly valid. They are both valid tools. By telling that person that they didn't need to check the wiki, I meant that they didn't need to check it for updates all the time. No one will post realm orders on the wiki, and they should be posting laws on the wiki without announcing them in-game.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: [email protected] on April 01, 2011, 03:13:56 AM
It's really easy to link to any page on the wiki though. With the amount of text one has to read anyway in this game, either one doesn't read the text provided in-game anyway (in which one wouldn't care), or one is too lazy to click the link (in which case there's no helping it and such a lazy individual doesn't get to enjoy whatever benefits he/she thinks he/she deserves), or one is genuinely too busy to check (in which case that's unfortunate but there are many more people in the realm who can check).

I think it's fairly common practice for responsible realm leaders to link to the wiki in case that is used as a place to save the text. If there are differences between the wiki and in-game sources, then that can be taken up by the characters, as the wiki, unless otherwise marked as OOC, or obviously OOC (like the merchandise pages, userpages, etc), are fully valid IC material.

Now excuse me for saying this, but I am seeing this as a baseless complaint about being excluded from some group. It happens.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, but these complaints right now don't sound very convincing, given the nature and the situation thusfar explained by the other members who have varying extents of knowledge about the matter.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: egamma on April 09, 2011, 08:40:26 PM
Gloria, you say that people are missing the point you were trying to make. I'll do my best to address your original post, as best I can summarize from this thread. I'll leave out the parts that have been covered already.

Quote
The player of Galiard Scarlett seemed to be playing a whole different game than the rest of Ohnar West, with ...a constitution... published on the wiki but not talked about in the game where it is supposed to be played.
Was the player playing a different game, or the character? I've known some characters who were quite insane.
The constitution was published on the wiki. Does that bother you? Or is it the "to be filled in later" that bothers you?

The only valid complaint I can see is that an unfinished constitution was ratified--that bothers me too. But that's not what the title of the thread is, the title is asking whether the game is a valid IC source. So what is your point?
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on April 09, 2011, 09:08:36 PM
egamma,

The moderator decided the discussion about the wiki deserved a different thread.  This discussion stemmed from the "Down with the Peacekeepers" thread.  The title, therefore, is not mine. 
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on April 10, 2011, 03:38:55 AM
Also, it was not my question whether the wiki is a valid in game in character source.  My point here is that characters are not wiki editors.  A character may write a newspaper or  a document or a book or tell a story and make it available to others.  But I think that the wiki is also an ooc source and it must be as truthful and objective as we can make it as players... that is, my character may be a liar but publishing lies in the wiki because of it seems to me like misusing the wiki.  And in that sense, I think that the wiki and the game are two separate entities and, while the wiki is about the game, you do not publish or edit the wiki in character.   That means that  I should not be able to publish a constitution of a realm on the wiki and automatically have it become the constitution of this realm, until there is gameplay that supports it. 

Maybe that is not what the player intended, but that's the way it came across to me.  It was unnecesarily confusing.  And I think playing a character who tries to confuse other characters is ok, but it becomes bad gameplay when you make it difficult for players to follow what is going on. 

 
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: De-Legro on April 10, 2011, 04:15:39 AM
Also, it was not my question whether the wiki is a valid in game in character source.  My point here is that characters are not wiki editors.  A character may write a newspaper or  a document or a book or tell a story and make it available to others.  But I think that the wiki is also an ooc source and it must be as truthful and objective as we can make it as players... that is, my character may be a liar but publishing lies in the wiki because of it seems to me like misusing the wiki.  And in that sense, I think that the wiki and the game are two separate entities and, while the wiki is about the game, you do not publish or edit the wiki in character.   That means that  I should not be able to publish a constitution of a realm on the wiki and automatically have it become the constitution of this realm, until there is gameplay that supports it. 

Maybe that is not what the player intended, but that's the way it came across to me.  It was unnecesarily confusing.  And I think playing a character who tries to confuse other characters is ok, but it becomes bad gameplay when you make it difficult for players to follow what is going on.

Your right, its totally not what the player intended, and to be honest I'm puzzled how anyone could think it was when he was still asking for people to vote for it in the realm. Unless what you are trying to say is no realm should have a constitution until there is a IG way to record them, which probably isn't going to happen.

Whatever your belief, it is already established that the wiki IS a IG source, and large parts of it are IC.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on April 10, 2011, 06:33:34 AM
Your right, its totally not what the player intended, and to be honest I'm puzzled how anyone could think it was when he was still asking for people to vote for it in the realm. Unless what you are trying to say is no realm should have a constitution until there is a IG way to record them, which probably isn't going to happen.

Well, as I said, it was unnecesarily confusing. 

It got tricky when you had to vote on what was already on the wiki as some sort of official document to see if we wanted to keep it as the official document. 

Heck, playing an illiterate former Outer Tilogian finding her way in a Republic like Riombara was a lot easier than, as a player, figuring out what the hell was going on in Ohnar West. 

Whatever your belief, it is already established that the wiki IS a IG source, and large parts of it are IC.

But that was never my question, that was what you asked yourself to title this thread. 

And yes, the wiki is an IG source, but it is not a replacement for the game itself.  The game and the wiki need to match.  And you do not match the game to what it says in the wiki, but it is the wiki that must describe what is already going on in game.  Does that make sense?

Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: De-Legro on April 10, 2011, 12:40:52 PM
And the wiki did match the game. A draft proposal was stored on the wiki for voting, much like how in modern life I can go to the council offices to view proposed development applications and register a complaint against them. The proposed development application is an official document, but is not yet ratified.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Anaris on April 10, 2011, 02:30:29 PM
And yes, the wiki is an IG source, but it is not a replacement for the game itself.  The game and the wiki need to match.

This is not necessarily the case.

As the Wiki is an IG and IC source, in some cases, it can be used for propaganda and lies.  This is particularly true in newspapers, but can also happen in other parts of the Wiki.

Naturally, it must not happen in parts like the manual and help pages, which are less IC.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Gloria on April 10, 2011, 03:26:10 PM
Yes, but even when it is used for propaganda and lies, it matches the fact that, in game, there is someone interested in spreading such propaganda and lies. 
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: [email protected] on April 10, 2011, 03:31:05 PM
...Ok? Sounds about right. Sometimes the "wiki" really is authored by characters, you know. And sometimes it's the players. Working out the differences is up to each player. Usually it's hard to mistake the links to merchandise and IRC channels as being IC material, but for the tougher stuff, anything without the OOC tag, or the "limited scope" or whatever tag, is pretty much fair game IC. Think something like a universal library, which would pretty much be our Wikipedia except Medieval style. If it's not restricted, you can know it. Whether it is at all useful to have that knowledge is another question.
Title: Re: The Wiki - A Valid In Game and In Character Source?
Post by: Indirik on April 12, 2011, 02:57:34 PM
???  This thread confuses me.