Guild talk:Rebel Rising

Rules Infractions/Trim Removal/Ladder Manipulation note should stay
- For the month of February 2009 Rebel Rising lost their gold trim for breaking tournament rules and for ladder manipulation . (note removed by User:SilentStorm) It appears that certain editors are obsessed with whitewashing Rebel Rising's image and reputation. The note about their rules infractions and trim removal should be kept in the article as an unusual fact (ArenaNet went out of their usual way to punish Rebel Rising). Loves to Sync 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an official documentation, but a page the guild maintains. As such, it is their choice if they want a note about the cape trim removal or not. It is not about whitewashing their reputation, it is about putting things where they belong. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like user pages, guild articles are for "personal" use, not to document the game. If rawr wants to put such a note up, they are free to. Otherwise, unless the guilds policy is changed to require listing non-punishments that a guild receives, it's no one else's business to be adding such notes. This has nothing whatsoever to do with ANet apologists. Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the guild pages are not for "personal" use, they are in fact to document the guild, their achievements, their playing philosophy, and history within the game for the community. I think including the information about the punative (and I use that term loosely) actions taken publicly by ArenaNet do in fact belong on their guild page. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Theoretically speaking, if I was in [rawr] and wanted to remove such info from "my" guild's page, would I be prevented from doing that? Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you from [rawr]? --Super  Igor  [[image:User Super Igor siggy.jpg|19px]] flame my shove sin bar!  20:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I see your point Wyn, I dont agree with you in this instance. The policy states that "Guild pages should generally not be created, nor information maintained, by non-members...", this is information being added by none members and to a degree the guildspace is maintained in a manner somewhat akin to the user namespace. There is nothing explicitly stated within the guild policy about none members putting factual things in the pages, however the way in which the guild pages read strongly implies it is page made for the guild and maintained by that guild with the information on that page being the information that guild wishes to have on it. I think opening that to other editors to put in their two cents here and there sets a very bad precedent and although it may be valid in this instance, I think when developed into being applied throughout the guild namespace could do ALOT of harm and cause alot of hassle in the future. Thus I think for consistency sake that the guild page not be allowed to be added too outside of the information the guild itself wants there. Otherwise we could have people adding all sorts of things if it bears a factual basis which may mess up the desired page formatting of that guild. I think if this is to be implemented however that a policy discussion is in order, because as it stands their is no clear answer in the current policy and historical precedent would go against what is being proposed by Sync. EDIT: Igor, how is that relevant? -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 20:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) No that note does not belong to the Guildpage as long as it has not been added by a Guildmember of Rebel Rising. Also while Guildpages are intended to document the Guild, their Playstyle, archievements and whatsnot it has always been up to the Guild itself what Information is displayed on the Guildpage. There is nothing that allows adding of Content when some Users of the Wiki think it should be there. -- Silent Storm  [[Image:User SilentStorm MySig.png|Talk to me|19px]] 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You must look at the policy as a whole however. Any member of the wiki community is able to remove inactive tags etc, if they have personal knowledge of the guild's existence in the game. I don't see how adding publicly announced, factual information about the guild is any different. The only reason it is recommended that the guild page be maintained by the guild is that they are the best source of information about the guild. There is absolutely nothing in the policy that restricts guild page entries to only the guild. This is a publicly announced action by ArenaNet, it is known to be factual by the entire community, and as such is very appropriate information to have on the guild page. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Wyn and I agree with you up to a point, however does that also mean that if you win a tournament people are allowed to put that on a guild page without the guilds say so? or maybe if you lose a gvg against a guild, can they add that too? What about internal guild mechanics and breakups and internal guild politics if the person can verify and support the additions, does that also then become note worthy? As it stands the policy as a whole implies that the guild userspace is to be operated in a manner akin to user pages in that it is somewhat akin to a collective user page for the members of that guild to talk about the guild history in the manner in which they wish it to be presented. Guilds are not anet creations, they are created by the composite users of that guild and as such can not really be documented in the same manner as other areas of the wiki. Thus documentation of these things will always be contentious and I just feel it will cause an awful lot of hardship for very little gain, when we start to get trolls changing peoples guild pages just cause they have a personal issue with the guild but have screenshots to help support whatever it is they are trying to add and I think in the long run it will result in a lot more work for the sysops. However I do think that this discussion is valid on both sides and thus, if possible, I would like to get some more interested users involved in the debate so a consensus can be reached. -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 21:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that one thing to consider is the relevancy of the information being added. Losing a single scrimmage isn't a huge deal. Losing in the final match for 2nd place might be. Having a member be banned/punished for something isn't a huge deal; having the entire guild punished is. And I think, like wyn was talking about, that this is a balance between a community and a guild page (it's our page, but it's about someone who knows better). --JonTheMon 21:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a LARGE difference between some joe schmoe who lost a gvg to them posting that and a publicly announced punitive action by ArenaNet for misconduct during tournament play. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Removing Inactive Tags from Guildpages is an entirely different matter, as removing an Inactive Tag is just the same as fixing Code Issues, correcting spelling mistakes etc. Its a maintenance Edit which benefits the Wiki and the Guild. Adding Information, Presumptions and whatsnot the Guild possibly does not want on their Guildpage is a different matter. -- Silent Storm  [[Image:User SilentStorm MySig.png|Talk to me|19px]] 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wyn I know it may not seem it but i do see your point here and to a degree i agree with the logic behind it, however what I'm worried about is that although many users can see the difference between one and the other, many will not. The result may then be a large spate of people adding things willynilly to other peoples guild pages and arguments breaking out over content as to what should be present and what shouldnt, which as i said I think will be very disruptive for very little gain. -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If ANet takes action on some other guild for some other thing in the future, would we be behooved to add it, then? Or is there a certain level of importance that has to be reached first? And if so, what is it? Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't say no to this based on what might happen in the future. Standards and policies are up to the community to maintain, and any vandalism of guild pages by people holding grudges would be dealt with as it occurs. and yes Vili, if ArenaNet were to take punitive action against ANY guild and announce it publicly it would be appropriate to add it to the guild's wiki page. This is nothing to do with the "notability" or as you put it "level of importance" of the guild in question. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to how important of an action it is by ANet, not the visibility of the guild, but Pling always says I need to lern2english. (On a side note, the information is hardly transparantly available; you have to look at Regina's Journal page, or go to rawr's website, or camp guru/recent changes if you'd want to hear any mention of this. To a casual user who just wiki'd rawr, there is nothing here to inform them. And even in the GW.com news, all that's there is a notice about how rawr won the tournament. :\ So with that in mind, it may not be a bad idea to make the information more publically available - keeping in mind that if rawr has it on their own website, that would be tacit approval to have it on their guild page here, no matter how indirect.) Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this shouldn't be added. The wiki keeps track of notable guilds, and this event fits that criteria. Rawr's actions brought to light a flaw in the AT system, and the tournament rules. This action has been debated fiercely here, and across several fansites. Even though it's not a positive event, and the guild may not want to remember it, it is still a notable event and should be documented.--Pyron Sy 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The main reason for the content to not be added is the way guild pages are treated, since they exist in a limbo between "main page article" and "userpage". While guild articles are intended to document the existance, playing style, and achievements (good or bad) of the guild, we give to guild page maintainers the freedom of deciding what amount of information and of what kind they want to show up on the guild article itself.

Unless people from [rawr] want to put a note themselves in the page regarding this issue, i think we don't have the attribution to force the addition of such information on the page, same as we don't have the attribution of adding a note on shard's page saying that he is banned.

If you people really think relevant information such as this should be included on guild articles, then a change on the guideline/policy is due, same as it happened for notable guilds.--Fighterdoken 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again Wyn I do agree with you but I'm not saying no to this for what might happen, more the fact that I honestly believe that a change of this manner should be changed in the policy itself so that we can adhere to an overarching coherent method of dealing with each guild page. That way we avoid issues in the future when people start adding content to guild pages that they are not a part of. -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 23:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, what Wyn is describing is the way she things ought to be, not what the policy actually says. While there is no current concensus, the original one was for a paradigm of 'Guild presentation'. So it's up to the guild how they want to do that. As long as it's in compliance with the rules (no false statements, no defamation...).


 * Moreover, there is clear motivation of personal animosity towards the guild here, and the wiki doen't exist to serve that purpose. The events can, of course, be properly documented on an appropiate mainspace article. Backsword 02:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another way
Perhaps the information is pertinent and relevant, but does it belong here on [rawr]'s guild page? Should there be a new page something like "Punative Measures" that could include the past punishment to Team Quitter as well as this recent incident? Putting it here is a bit like forcing a user who went under arbitration to wear a "Scarlet Letter" on their user page. Misery  23:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Backsword and Misery already raised what I wanted to say while reading all the above. I understand Wyn's point of view but guild pages really just started off as a means for guilds to kinda express what they're about in a simple way. To give them a link from in-game F10 to the wiki to their guild forum.


 * We can't ensure that what everyone writes about their guild are facts, and we don't really bother verifying what they say about guild. Since we aren't enforcing factual truth about a guild's information, we should not be trying to force factual events onto what many view as their guild page. Regardless of what the policy does or does not say, the general impression is that guild pages are something like user pages. And if that's the impression people get, then it's difficult to change it.


 * I'm not sure why no one brought it up, but doesn't this bit of controversy seem perfect for a "Controversy" section in the ATS article? That place would be perfect for listing down other "commonly known" criticisms (and contrary to popular belief, the majority of casual players probably don't even realise such a thing has happened). -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"You guys!"
Can someone tell me if this the guild using the Ritualist skills that are getting nerf if not, what guild is the one?--ShadowFog 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Status
I know about nothing of the current ladder, but clicking the link to view rawr on the official ladder site gave an error and searching for them gave no results. Has rawr disbanded or something? Should the page be marked as historical? -- Armond Warblade 19:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its cos they havent played since ladder reset i think. Or after a while of not playing you get listed as inactive to make room for bad guilds to climb ladder. They still exist. 24.150.172.32 21:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)