User talk:Karlos

From Guild Wars Wiki

Can you check that all the title articles aren't in breach of copyright? A lot of it is copied and pasted from gwiki. - - BeXoR 07:20, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I've been cheking some content and rewriting it. (Some might be similiar to GWiki, but that' stuff which I have myself released for this license) --Gem (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Thank you for fixing the link in my article. I appreciate it and keep up the good work. EMonk 13:01, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Hey Special K (do you mind if I call you that from now on?) I'm glad you removed that notice from the main page. I think I've grown too used to just sitting back and letting people discuss things. I regret not removing it myself. LordBiro 18:36, 21 February 2007 (EST)

No problem. I regret not being there when it was first proposed and preventing it to begin with. I am busy in-game and sort of frustrated at how things have carried out here. If you see Tanaric somewhere tell him I want to talk to him about something that would provide much needed content here. Thanks Biro. --Karlos 18:49, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I could probably contact Tanaric if you wanted. Is this for his eyes only? :P LordBiro 18:59, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Contents 1 frustration 2 Favor of the gods 3 Question 4 Ban/Block 5 Admin noticeboard 6 Review 7 Title temps 8 an apology long overdue 9 Beg to Differ! 10 Er 11 deleted redirect 12 User Image: Character-Saifuddeen Kenaani.jpg 13 Hola 14 Heads up 15 Canthan Paragon? 16 :) 17 4th Koabd title? 18 User page 19 Why? 20 Dupek the Mighty 21 My views on sysops 22 Applying the user page policy 23 sys 24 Your comment above 25 eles in EotN 26 Creature stuff 27 Since you mentioned my name 28 Your comment on Skuld's page 29 Karlos the Ungrateful 30 Too many screenshots? 31 Alkar's Alchemical Acid 32 User page 33 Effective Monk Guide 34 Wikia move 35 Jibes 36 Hi. 37 My respect 38 IRC 39 Re:Why I left 40 Farewell 41 Thanks and goodbye 42 Farewell, old friend. 43 Lamees Screenshot 44 Hmmmm.....

[edit] frustration

ya, it's kind of my bad for getting worked up. the box did need to go. sorry if i offended. Oblio 02:17, 22 February 2007 (EST)

You did not offend and no apology is necessary. I am sorry if I made you feel I was forcing my way. I always speak my mind candidly and sometimes too emotionally. --Karlos 09:25, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Karlos, you said you cannot comment on everything going on. Yeah, I tried it at the beginning and it nearly wiped me out. Pick you battles. I like Guilds, could car less about Builds, but I stay on top of the ones I don't want to see ruined or those that are irrelevant. I don't go quiet, but some things do slip past my radar. You used to have that "I don't give up attitude". I'm not sure if you are working again, or what, but I'd like you to get more involved, even if it means sparring with me from time to time. ;) Someone told me once, that if you were a native speaker of English that you would be the most dangerous person in a discussion. Let's see that fire again. — Gares 10:22, 22 February 2007 (EST)

[edit] Favor of the gods

I'll reply here, since I dont usually read 10+ pages long threads (I only found your comment by chance):

"Xeeron, no offense, but if we limited HA access to teams from the territory that has killed Lord Jadoth the most in the past 2 hours, how many PvPers would feel insulted by the mere suggestion?

It is insulting, to me, that I have to wait on my adventuring/farming/whatever because an overpowered Paragon build is holding HA indefinitely for Europe or Taiwan or America. It's not that it's out of my control, it's that in the control of other PLAYERS like me whom ANet deems to be more important than me. But I'll discuss that in a spearate thread."

So being in the control of those who spend most of their time faction farming is better? Not to me. But anyway, did you read the last sentence of my post (given that my post was 2 sentences long, I hope so)?

In general, nothing is wrong with PvP having some influence on PvE, so my answer is yes. However the current WaW system is messed up for so many reasons (huge (europe) and tiny (taiwan) opponents*; multi-continental guilds; furthering conflicts rather than bringing people from different countries together) that I cant wait to see it scrapped.

And also this suggestion which I quoted from someone else and like a lot:

I am strongly against it the way it is.... In my opinion it shouldn't be region based it should be GOD based... For example....a team (no matter the makeup) enters HA and they have to dedicate to one of the gods at the start of thier run. THEN if they win in HA thier GOD gets a win...pretty much keep it the same way as in PVP determines WHICH one of the Missions are open Either FoW or UW. Depending on which GOD has 5 wins in a row and can hold. That way it pleases everyone...the pvers get a chance to go into atleast one of the Areas and the PVPers still get to fight for a reason....

The question was "PvP should control PvE access?" and to that my answer is still yes. For the question "Should the current favor of the gods concept be changed?", it would have been different. --Xeeron 12:22, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I read that, and still find it hypocritical unless you also endorse that PvE can control PvP access. Do you endorse that? I don't care in what scheme and whether or not it involved killing Lord Jadoth... Do you endorse that some PvE challenge controls some elite form of PvP? I don't want any PvP control over PvE whether it's the current War of the Worlds format or any other format. --Karlos 17:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

PvE controlled PvP for a long long time without me complaining. You had to use PvE characters (fully decked out unlocked lvl 20s!) for high end GvG because of the armor switching, you needed a +5 energy weapon that could only be gained in PvE, Tombs needed you to complete most of prophecies before you could bring your character there, the <lvl 15 arenas can not be reached by PvP characters, you need PvE money to buy your guild hall (which you need for PvP) and the cape, you need to have a character in HzH or Cav to make your guild kurzick or luxon to join an alliance. I complained about none of these, so dont call me hypocrite please. --Xeeron 05:23, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Would you still accept it now? 2 years later? Would you be ok if they rolled back Balthazar Faction and PvP equipment creation? I never said PvE never had any control over PvP... ANet bent over backwards to make sure every bridge between PvE and PvP was burnt, right? But not the otherway around. Hence my question... Would you accept it? Now? --Karlos 17:49, 23 February 2007 (EST)

If they would implement it in a reasonable way - yes. --Xeeron 08:07, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Would you accept how it WAS now? Not some new "reasonable" way... I did not say I am opposed to any new "reasonable" way to do this, I said I oppose the way it has been done for the past two years. You are saying it's somehow not hypocritical to support that old acrchaic and very ugly system yet accept that ANet has bent over backwards during the same two years to free PvPers from any need for PvE. I don't want to focus this on you, I find the position itself hypocritical. Would you go back to that point in PvP dependency on PvE after arriving to the point you are at now? --Karlos 18:46, 24 February 2007 (EST)

I am not your enemy here. Yes I do believe that it can be implemented reasonably, no I dont think it currently is reasonable, yes I said so in the original post, therefore I am not hypocritical. Your last question is the same as above, so still: Yes if done reasonably. --Xeeron 06:49, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Fair enough. Let's leave it at that. I apologize if my opinion seemed to target you specifically. I don't think you, of all people, are a hypocrite. I still find the stand itself hypocritical though. Given how much ANet has invested in divesting PvP from PvE, the only fair thing, in my view, is to equally divest PvE from PvP. You know there is no turning back for PvP. It will not be brought under the influence of PvE again. All the elitist PvE-despisers in the PvP community would whine so much ANet's heart would break. ANet's Devs play with those guys, they hang around with those guys, they don't mix with the PvE crowd. So, yeah, given that PvP will NEVER be under any influence from PvE, there's only ONE fair thing left... Kill FoW and UW reliance on Favor. --Karlos 15:35, 26 February 2007 (EST)

If you keep talking like that, I'm going to have to setup a karlos-love shrine, and I don't want to be that creepy. Seriously, I couldn't agree more. -- Oblio (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Last time I was in Lornar's Pass I saw an engraving "We <3 Kyle The Vile" on the Grenth's Statue there. Seems someone beat you to it? :) --Jamie 15:57, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I fully agree with you that there's really no reason for FoW and UW entrance to depend on who wins Halls, but I need to clarify something. PvP is FAR from being free from any influence of PvE. One of the most obvious examples? You cannot have a Guild without PvEing, the registrars are all in PvE zones. You cannot invite anyone to your guild either as members or guests, you need gold, which you can only get through PvE. (And in the same vein, you need gold to have a cape for your guild). So, in order to actually have a guild in this game, you need to PvE, regardless of whether you want to or not, you are forced to, there's simply no other way. (You can't join an alliance either, since you need to be in Cavalon or HzH for that, but if you can't even create a guild, who cares about an alliance, right?)

And this problem only gets worse when you think about what happens with those guys that buy the PvP Edition of GW, who can't even PvE at all, they don't have any way to get that gold or to get to Kaineng to register a guild. Tough luck for them? (Oh, and by the way, you can only buy the PvP Edition of GW through the in-game store, which means that you need to buy an entire PvE campaign first, before being able to get the PvP only version).

ANet has done absolutely nothing with the goal of separating PvP from PvE. Removing the necessity to have a PvE char for PvP? That was completely and solely done from a balance point of view, since you had these PvE chars who would outperform PvP ones, and it was unfair. ANet has never shown any effort in separating PvP from PvE, and I doubt they ever will. They keep insisting on forcefully getting these two completely different beings to depend on each other and to like each other, even though neither of them wants anything to do with it. And if there's one major problem with this game, I think this would be it. If they only allowed both of them to be separate entities, many many problems would be resolved. --Dirigible 18:13, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Your response personifies every problem I have with the PvP crowd. ZOMG I actually have to create a PvE character and waste SEVEN FULL minutes of my life creating a storage account. What injustice is this? How can ANet make those players suffer so much? You want to compare this to being in Taiwan and doomed to never set foot in FoW cause your region wins favor once a month?

Let's imagine a guild that's solely into PvP. If they are that immersed and that good, they can make all the money they want in HoH (with the added inconvenience of making a sole level 3 char in Kamadan to sell the goods to players there, but that's a penalty of wanting to deal with the PvE crowd). I mean, if you REALLY want to have nothing with PvE, you can. Get your guild to win HoH, sell a Sigil (trader in HA), now you have the cash for the cape, use the other to get a hall. The ambassador is at the great temple of Balthazar, no need for Kaineng Center. Win HoH a few more times, get a Stygian Reaver, sell it on Guru for 100k + 100 ectos (tell the buyer to meet you in the Great Temple cause you do NOT want to soil your feet with PvE dirt) and ther eyou have it, a fully furnished Guild Hall with a water cooler.

You CAN completely side step PvE with the exception of making a level 1 noob character in Kamadan (or Shing Jea) and forming the guild there. How can I completely side step PvP as a PvE guy who likes to play in the UW or FoW? --Karlos 06:05, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Well, I love both PvP and PvE and play both a lot and like the interaction, so ANet made the perfect game for me. Though I realize that I am in the tiniest possible minority here. --Xeeron 05:52, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Xeeron, you are a half-breed. Not accepted by either PvEers or PvPers. Welcome to the world of gray. I saved you a seat. :p
Karlos is correct all around. Full-time PvPers do not need to grind for gold in order to set up a guild, HoH and Ventari's Sell forum or the auction takes care of that. It wouldn't suprise me that ANet placed guild ambassadors in the first city you get to in Nightfall so hardcore PvPers didn't have to spend time trying to getting to them like in Prophecies and Factions. Though I have accounts in both America and Europe, as Karlos mentioned, Taiwan, Japan, and others never see the dark reaches of UW/FoW, except for the rare time they have favor. I don't hold any ill will towards PvEists or PvPists, though both of their whining and trading insults is rather childish, especially for the older crowd of players. I constantly monitor forums, and two places that brings out the immaturity in players, young and old, would be the Halls and any thread in GWG that is about nerfed skills. It's sad really. But fair is fair. 10 minutes of PvE interaction does not compare to being at the mercy of HoH for favor. — Gares 08:39, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Quite unrelated rant: This is the one good thing about PvE players whining about favor, err ... I was to say, PvE players rightfully complaining about being oppressed by heartless PvP maniacs, err ... I really meant, rightous consumers complaining about ridiculous decisions by evil monopolist ANet, err whatever. I finally get to laught at asian nationalism. HAHA. There you have it!

Whenever people discuss the european union here in Germany (or in any other european state), it usually comes down to "they are useless burocrats regulating the curvature of bananas and trying to build a european superstate". So let me confess here: I love the european union! I love that there are no border checks when traveling to France, no different currency when being in spain, harmonisation of laws and generally people from different countries trying to think about the whole of europe instead of just their tiny little state. Have you ever wondered why there is a realm for taiwan, and south korea and japan, but none for germany, france and britain? Obviously ANet thinks that europeans dont have a problem playing with each other and for "europe", but Asians would have these problems when playing for "Asia". As long as no one agrues for merging Taiwan, Japan and South Korea into one realm, my pity for all those taiwanese players never seeing UW will be extremely limited. You want to feel all that great and different and superior with your tiny island? Well good for you, I'll take a continent and UW access 50% of the time.

Gets ready to be kicked of Karlos user page for unrelated ranting

PS: What stops players from all coordinating on moving to one realm? Then everyone would have UW access 100% of the time.

PS2: I have played in realm america since the start.

--Xeeron 09:00, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I love the EU too! Although we don't use the Euro as our main currency, which sucks IMO. Too many nationalist idiots wanting the queens head on a piece of paper. Anyway, I think it's funny that you love the EU and play for America. LordBiro 09:13, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Its really dated. Wasn't the original idea to have PvP to be the endgame, back when you couldn't make a specific PvP char on the creation screen? The game has moved on a lot since then. The lousy argument that it is to stop people farming the UW just doesn't hold true, people have 2 accounts, one on america and one on europe, I assume the gold selling botters would have a bunch on both too; and the system is further flawed: the americans who are dead serious about wanting to access the realms have switched over to euro servers. Korea gets about 1-2 hours a night, Japan sometimes gets 1, taiwan every once in a blue moon, and this is only because of euro and american guilds like the black parades, weefree men, the spearmen and whatever guild has [Err7] as a tag, playing under korean and japanese banners. The biggest irony is that the HoH isn't even prestigious, its simply whichever scrubs can abuse the mechanics the most, all the real competition quit a long time ago. I think there should be some sort of limit or something on access, but HA needs kicking completely out of the loop. — Skuld 10:27, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Indeed. I had no problem with Favor and PvP controlling access over PvE back when it was meaningful. I think around March of last year is when I saw how degenerated it had become. I observed many games and saw two Euro (or American) guilds dancing around the ghostly hero to take out the third. I saw horrific builds hold the halls because of more horrific builds challenging them. I saw America fail to get favor for 2-3 days in a row because some build was overpowered and had to be nerfed or some skill had an unexpected interaction with another skill. It wasn't the ideal chivalry, just a load of crap. I used to actually root for Europe back when most American teams were IWAY fame farmers. Now I just don't care. It's just retarded. --Karlos 14:24, 27 February 2007 (EST)

How was the WoW system ever meaningful? My guild is half european, half american, so we all choose the american realm when we started GW way back. Yet in Tyria, neither America nor Europe exist, so what I am fighting for when I enter HoH? All it did was foster bad feelings between the players from different realms. That is why the faction system in factions is so much better: You have to be Kurzick or Luxon, but you get to choose your allegiance yourself, the ingame mechanic does not depend on your place of birth. --Xeeron 16:05, 27 February 2007 (EST)

With regards to the War of the Worlds system, it was fine when it was meaningful. Back in the early days it used to have a lot of meaning. At least to me. Your guild is a special case. For the most part, up until December or January of 2006, there was real rivalry and pride in who has favor.

Then it was known (probably started before) that top American players are going to Europe to play there cause they were sick of the IWAYers or what not. And as I got to know more PvPers I discovered that favor and Europe vs America has little meaning to them. It may have been like that all the time, but I only sensed it on the PvE side around that time.

Faction system in Factions is very, very, very poorly implemented. You're the only player of the game I ever met who actually thinks it's cool. :P --Karlos 20:38, 27 February 2007 (EST)

One has to realize that something as complicated as re-implementing an entire portion of a PvP system is not so easily accomplished, and that I'm not sure if it would be worth it (for ANet) to dedicate so many programmers to try and fix these problems rather than working on new campaigns. After all, money does make the world go round. =P — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)

As long as elite armor requires ectos and shards, PvEers will care. --Karlos 21:11, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Well, it might have been meaningful for PvEers, but never was for PvPers, who actually played the matches. All people I meet were interested in their rank, seeing their guild name broadcast or maybe farming sigils, never in gaining favor for their realm really. It might have looked all right from the outside, but it was broken right away. The factions system is not "cool", but at least it is better than the WoW one. I often saw people say something like "lets win for luxons" or taunt the other side at the start of alliance battles. That almost never happened in HoH, because people didnt care about realms. --Xeeron 06:08, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Your characterization cannot be fully true. I have SEEN first hand matches where both teams from Europe sit there at the altat dancing waiting for the American team to make its move and kill it. This used to happen fairly frequently. During the time that Europe was on the rise in HoH, there was a constant and consistent effort to deny America favor. I have seen that on Observer mode, many times. So, you can't say they did not care about favor. --Karlos 07:07, 28 February 2007 (EST)

It didnt happen whenever I played. Granted, I got bored with HoH after a year or so and only came back for a bit when it changed to 6vs6, maybe stuff changed after I left. However if that story is true, it shows one more reason why the system is broken. --Xeeron 07:40, 28 February 2007 (EST)

When I played PvP in HoH it was common for realms to team up in order to keep favour. LordBiro 09:10, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Poorly implemented or not Karlos, The Factions Faction system isn't as hated as Favor, so maybe a wrong makes a right here in this case? I don't mind the Faction system, but Favor really annoys me (as it does most people), I can only see benefits to removing it as people said above, the "war of the worlds" system isn't what people fight for instead we've seen first-hand teams rigging games to ensure constant favor, this really isn't about the gods... it's just a joke. At times like this I feel frustrated at the people who makes the games I play... why don't they listen to their partons...? or at least give us the feedback we want to hear "we're working on removing the favor system, a replacement may take time, but we are doing something about it"... --Jamie 06:51, 2 March 2007 (EST)

No-one rigs games any more. I've heard of koreans paying american/european guilds to play under a korean name and take favour so they can get their FoW, and when we make groups and have a majority from x side we joke about having to play for x region, but thats about it. Jamie, i'm sure they know it sucks, but I asume they have more important concerns, and ANet isn't a massive company so they probably don't have the manpower to put to a lower priority concern like favour. — Skuld 07:33, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Jamie, Factions sysem is retarded and no one really "cares" about it. That's the difference. This week I was bringing my mesmer through Cantha and I was constantly annoyed by these NPCs telling me I'm too Kurzick or too Luxons to sell me keys or teach me new skills. I found it annoying, but that's about it. We were joking in my guild (which used to hold HzH) how annoying these pity little things are. Rezzing in the middle of nowhere cause the res shrine you entered from was held by Luxons/Kurzicks. Once you move to Nightfall, the system looks ridiculous.

However, the reason it does not cause much angst is simple... No one cares. It does not affect the farming of the most precious rare materials in the game. Jade and Amber are like 5 cents each now. So, players no longer care. It's also highly perceived (coorectly or not) that Jade and Amber will not be used again. So, everyone dumped their supplies to the traders, GG. Everyone complained like crazy about the Elite Mission access cause that's where the money was. What ANet did in Nightfall (in my opinion) is create a new FoW (for weapons instead of armor) and make it independent of favor and/or faction. It's very accessible and simply hard. What they fail to realize is that they can't just walk past the FoW and UW because not only do they supply the crafter, they are the only source for the two most expensive crafting materials in the game. Ectos are the high end currency of the game, that's why PvE'ers care about UW. I like the challenge of FoW and UW, but I can wait for Favor to do those. What I don't like is if I want/need to farm Ectos and can't do what I want in the game cause some random group like Skuld's is holding HoH. :P --Karlos 18:17, 2 March 2007 (EST)

While you might think the faction system is poorly implemented, how else would you depict a war for turf over two rivalling factions, I am sure there are many ways to do it, but really the system they put in place works. Unlike in HoH are the people directly contributing to the flow of the line the ones who are doing it because they want to own towns. Makes more logical sense than HoH/UW & FoW --Jamie 04:56, 3 March 2007 (EST)

My brother is in a luxon alliance that owns some town, I forgot which but its a fairly big one. Now I know where all the wammos went. I quote, "GuildWiki sucks cos it lets noobs get rich" :P — Skuld 05:05, 3 March 2007 (EST)

You're saying the system of Factions works because you can't perceive any other (better) way that they could have implemented it. I can think of many, not the least of which is how World of Wacraft is implemented (not to say that system is ideal or perfect) with the Alliance and the Horde. Everyone in my guild (and current alliance) to a T thinks that of the three chapters, Factions was, by far, the worst. In fact, out guild has a few members who stopped playing the game a month or two after Factions came out and have come back strong because of Nightfall. My personal observation is that it was a disaster for ANet, PvE wise. I think they noticed it too in terms of dwindling active logged in player base, which is why they kept instating those special weekend events. I have no numbers to support my claim though. However, I can tell you that DoA is a LOT more busy now than Urgoz or the Deep ever were. --Karlos 15:17, 3 March 2007 (EST)

A lot of people in my alliance see Factions as a success, me included, it has everything you could want, fast leveling for canthans, quick access to leveling for tyrians, it doesn't have any monotony to it, it gets you into the action and keeps it coming, it is a short campaign but it doesn't drag on like Nightfall does... Assassin & Ritualist in my eyes are far better than Dervish & Paragon having extensively played both. international district is packed in Urgoz Warren literally, even after almost a year of Factions being released. One word to describe Elona? brown. Cantha? beautiful. but that's probably a preference when considering design of both worlds. sorry to cut the discussion short but I have places to be... --Jamie 14:00, 4 March 2007 (EST)

How isn't Cantha monotonous? >50% of the campaign is in the Canthan streets, which got boring after the first two areas. The rest is either the Jade Sea and the ugly green areas of the Luxons, and the beautiful Kurzick forest. Although Elona is really monotonous too, the open deserts are more to my liking than the crappy looking streets of Cantha. Really, only Prophecies had a variety of landscapes. -- (gem / talk) 14:04, 4 March 2007 (EST)

I disagree there, Gem. For most of a gamer's time if they spend it resourcefully leveling on Shing Jea Monastery, there is that. Then the next section kaineng which granted is a fair chunk of the game, but me and my guildies can easily accomplish in two or so evenings, then the rest of the area is pretty nice to look at. Places like Nahpui Quarter with it's celestial foes are inviting to the eye which are really quite impressive to look at, this helps break up the dull of the city, then there is Tan' Temple which is much more like Raisu Palace and the imperial guild hall. the areas are more or less varied. --Jamie 20:53, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Granted, leveling in Cantha is faster than anywhere else, how does having fast leveling make it "everything that I could want."?

When I needed to level up my mesmer for her Legendary Survivor title, I took her to Elona, got her the basic 5 heroes, took her back to Kaineng, did all the silly city quests till I went up from level 8 to level 17 or so. then I went and moved through Nightfall's Campaign till I got Zhed and Whiskers, then went back and did missions in Tyria and Cantha to cap elites and gain skill points, and I got my title.

How does having a crappy, very poor storyline make Factions everything I ever want? Do you realize how many of the city quests are retarded "go to NPC1 who tells you to talk to NPC2 who sends you to NPC3 to cash in your reward?" They don't even advance any story? All they are trying to tell you is that Cantha is mired in beaurucracy. From the quests from Guardsman Pah to Paomo to Officer Chitaro to Bryan, they are great for leveling up... But down right retarded.

As for scenery... Istan is a jungle, Kourna is farm lowlands and Vabbi is simply gorgeous. The most beautiful area in the entire game. Jade Sea always looked cool, but too blue and lacking in any details. The city is just a dump and the Echovald Forest is too dreery. After a while it get depressing and you just don't wanna be there.

You do realize that you can't possibly tell me (specifically) how crowded or not crowded Urgoz was. I used to own the place for over 4 months. Your testimony on that matter, to me, is invalid. People still do the deep and they do it more than Urgoz and I am sure there are groups there every day, but it's nothing like DoA. I was in both at their prime and DoA is just a lot more hustle and bustle.

We'll both have to stick to our versions of reality, I suppose. However, given that ANet moved away from the two faction system, moved away from the weak shallow storyline system, moved away from the 10 missions and you're done system, I'd say they felt the same way I did. You can tell me your prerogative all you want, but the facts are that they moved away from all the things you seem to champion in Factions (except double damage bosses). :P --Karlos 01:05, 5 March 2007 (EST)

And how is kaineng city quest being dull related to favor of the gods? Hands "successful discussion kidnap" badge to all of the above ;-) --Xeeron 08:35, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I R Teh ween! *shines badge* --Jamie 03:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)

[edit] Question

Hi, I'm leaving this message here because I found your name on the Bestiary/NPC... formatting talk pages @ GuildWiki. We're currently trying to create a formatting guide for it here as well, but so far without sufficient response. I'd appreciate it if you could drop by and leave your comment(s). Initial discussion started here, but is continued here. Thanks in advance ;). --Erszebet 09:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)

[edit] Ban/Block

How do we flag candidates for a ban/block? User:165.21.155.9 seems to be making a lot of meaningless edits to some pages, especially to the Ogre-Slaying Knife -- Scourge 09:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Tag them with with {{Admin review|Reason}}. --Dirigible 10:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Admin noticeboard

Hullo, Karlos. Just letting you know of the admin noticeboard page. Since we killed the {{ban}} and {{admin review}} tags, this is the only way for a user to contact the admins (without writing on the talk page of each of them, that is). Just thought I'd let you know about this. :) Cheers! --Dirigible 18:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Muchas gracias, added to watch list. --Karlos 05:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Review

Salam Alekoem, could u pls take a look at this guy, he completly ingores warnings and keeps uploading images that have been deleted, shoekran ~ Kurd07:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Title temps

I was just wondering. What are these for? I are curious =P -- Image:Blackgeneralstar.png (General | Talk) 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

watch and learn :P --Karlos 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay ^^ -- Image:Blackgeneralstar.png (General | Talk) 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for porting those over, Karlos! —Tanaric 01:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know what they are now! Cool =D -- Image:Blackgeneralstar.png (General | Talk) 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not working as planned though. :( --Karlos 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] an apology long overdue

Hey Karlos, I'd just like to say sorry for the way I acted towards you however many years ago, I reflected on it a few months back and realize that I was in the wrong for doing so :) -FireFox 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all good, just leave your ectos at the cashier on your way out. All is forgiven. :P Not sure I recall what the issue was. However, I apologize if I offended you whatever the dispute was. --Karlos 04:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beg to Differ!

Most annoying NPC? Your nomination pales compared to mine: Wert, the peg-legged kiddie NPC from Diablo. I mean, what NPC is so annoying that they bring him back--dead!--in the sequel and give out his body parts as loot? :) --Gaile 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha... I beg to differ. Wert was not in the way, you could choose to ignore him all you want. Plus it was worth it to see Griswold whine that Wert is outdoing him.

Cespinar was placed in the teleportation hub of the game (kinda like the Guild Hall) and whenever you hopped in there, he'd be around saying annoying stuff ("I'm just a slave slaving away" or whatever)... On top of that, he could craft you some REALLY cool weapons, but only if you suffer through 100 dialog boxes of very poor humor in which he rummaged through all the stuff in your inventory one piece at a time... "A HOOD?! You're off to visit grandmother or something?" Even the funny ones ceased to be funny about the 20th time of going through the routine. :(

Deckard Cain served a similar purpose in Diablo... "Hello, friend. Stay a while and listen." "Just ID this junk, old man." :P --Karlos 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Who was the fat guy in Nashkel that followed you around, interrupting your actions every six seconds with a useless, auto-pausing remark? He'd be my second-place nomination, only because he was easily removed with a sling bullet to the head... —Tanaric 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Noober. I had to flee town the first time I met him... Then just learned to use him as a snack for Boo. :) --Karlos 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But if you really, really lusted after Godly Plate of the Whale, Wert was your guy. And with his greed, and his lack of charm, all you wanted to do was kick him in the pine-patina'd, Pledge-enchanced shin for all the good he did you. (Everyone else, please excuse this digression into in-jokes and avid-player references to non-existent goods.) :D --Gaile 06:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had pretty bad luck with Wert, every time I checked with him I had way better stuff from drops on me than what he had to offer for bazillions more. So I pretty much ignored him. Plus, as Adria says "Earthen walls and thatched canopy do not a home create." The kid grew up in a troubled family. I think Oprah should have a sit down with Wert. :) --Karlos 07:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Er

I'm guessing you haven't read GWW:USER. - BeX 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to the page length? Well, right now the page is broken. Not sure if it will REMAIN that way or not. I'm talking to Tanaric about it. Basically, all the character details are supposed to be folded and only open up if you click on a specific "show" button next to a char. So, as it stands now, the page is ridiculously long. I'm not sure if it's going to work or not. If not, I'll move the char details to sub-pages.

Any other violations I am not seeing? --Karlos 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied over there on his page without seeing this. There's also a size limit for images, but if you'll be moving it to subpages it won't matter. You should fix up the "Guildwiki" heading though. ;) - BeX 04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is ridiculous. I'll get back to work on it. Who ever came up with these arbitrary limitations?! My penalty for not being their to rain on their parade I guess. Hmm, this will take a while. --Karlos 04:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the discussion should be archived on the policy talk page. The arbitrary limitations were a compromise because two sides of the argument couldn't agree on anything. It may sound silly, but it's been working so far. - BeX 04:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not all relegated to the archive yet. I tried, but I wasn't too successful. -- Dashface 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleted redirect

Was there any particular reason you deleted the Shadow stepping redirect? It's something that a user might very well look for, as opposed to Shadow step. I don't see any record of anyone tagging it for deletion for any reason, and so far the conversation here seemed to include it as valid. I'd also have thought a delete tag would be in order to allow for discussion, given that it qualifies as neither R1 nor R2 of the speedy deletion criteria for redirects. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shadow stepping" is a misspelling of "Shadow step"?

I specifically checked the policy on plurals and verb conjugations. I found plurals (and though I disagree with it, I won't delete plurals, for now) >:), but I have not found grammatical derivatives in the allowed redirects.

The conversation you point to, between you and Biro is about misspellings. Like "Silver Armor" to "Sliver Armor" or "Ambrance of Truth" to "Armbrace of Truth" (every american in thegame says it Ambrance for some reason). But that is a completely different monster than redirect "Shadow stepping" to "Shadow step."

The monster in point here is the grammatical derivatives monster... i.e. "Kiting" to "Kite" and "Shadow stepped" to "Shadow step" and "Enchant," "Enchanting," "Enchanted," "Enchanter" to "Enchantment." This has traditionally been frowned upon because it is very easy to link to the proper word by correct placement of the brackets. i.e. [[Enchant]]ing, [[Enchant]]er, [[Enchant]]ed and then redirect [[Enchant]] to [[Enchantment]] (or vice versa).

So, if you are suggesting we as a wiki start doing that, by all means, feel free to porpose it on the same talk page you referenced. I would be against it, but overall, people in this community have been more open to having more redirects as the processing power, space and bandwidth here is stronger than GWiki. --Karlos 04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, you must have missed the discussion on this. Redirects actually ease the processing burden of the server by providing direct jumps from the search box. Please read from here down on the GuildWiki talk page to see why we changed our minds. —Tanaric 04:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've removed the delete notice from shadow stepping, as it breaks searching for that term. All necessary parties are discussing now, so having the tag there isn't helpful. —Tanaric 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric, what are you talking about? Have you seen this? All I am doing is enforcing it. Perhaps you have adpated the position of "every redirect is allowable and desired" but that page reads more like "every redirect other than THESE is not desired." If you too are suggesting a change to that policy, by all means, go ahead. In the mean time, are you also suggesting that it's a misspelling.

We're not discussing what redirects should be allowed here, Tanaric, the discussion is, does THIS specific redirect meet the current policy? I think the answer is a clear no. If you're gonna open the opic for debate (about widening/changing the redirect policy), then by all means. --Karlos 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And... If you don't prove, in your very next post, that the redirect meets CURRENT redirect policy on GWWiki (not GWiki), then I am going to replace the tag. Because right now, you have stripped the process from right under my feet. --Karlos 05:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can prove that very easily -- there is no redirect policy currently on GWW, and thus you have no grounds for this deletion. The link you've given me is merely a guide, not a policy, and beyond that, it's got a big "under construction" tag at the top. —Tanaric 05:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

BOGUS! It's as close as we have to policy right now. Why the heck override me on something we have upheld all along in BOTH wikis? We do NOT have grammatical redirects on GWiki or GWWiki. Instead of overruling me for upholding how we do things, how about you propose a change? You don't start policy on your own and start reverting and dictating it one edit at a time. That's extremely unprofessional. That talk page you directed me to is not even policy on GWiki. Ridiculous. I'll uphold your edit for 3 days, if you don't start a meaningful discussion for change to that proposition, I will revert your edit and we can take it to Biro whenever you feel like it. You can't just wing it like that. I just went to tell the guy we're all about policy and doing things in order and in comes Tanaric to tell the guy, we just wing it as we please. --Karlos 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, why are we discussing this like we hate each other? Last I checked, I'm rather fond of you.

More to the point, that style article you linked me to does not have the authority to justify deletionism. We do have a policy that mentions redirects -- Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention states that "Redirects are generally an encouraged means to improve navigation of the wiki. These can assist users who are using the search function to go directly to the article they are trying to find without the need of selecting an entry from a list of search results." There are no restrictions on this. The policy proposed to create such restrictions, at Guild Wars Wiki:Redirects, failed! Right now, no redirect requires policy support to be allowed to stay. The closest policy we have to support what you are trying to do is our Guild Wars Wiki:Deletion policy, which supplies immediate deletion reason R2: redirects for implausible typos or search terms. "Shadow stepping" certainly isn't implausible -- I've searched for it myself.

—Tanaric 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I still can't believe this. Read User talk:Dirigible#Redirects policy...

That's the source of my frustration. Your justification here, combined withyour justification there amounts to "arbitrary onthe-fly policy." I can't enforce that. --Karlos 06:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, I've been sleeping, but notice the conversation I linked to you, which included things like "Brother Mhenlo" instead of "Mhenlo". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just wow, seriously. o_O - BeX 12:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I've spent far too long deleting and restarting my argument here, so I will just try and blast through it.

• The particular conversation Aiiane pointed to was not really about misspellings. To quote my first comment there (and the second comment in the thread)

  "There is absolutely no harm in having 20+ redirects to one article. In fact it's very beneficial. Redirecting Brother Mhenlo, Brother Mehnlo, Brother Menlo, Mehnlo, Menlo etc. to Mhenlo is perfectly acceptable."

  While it is not about different uses of the word "step" it's clear that Aiiane was trying to show that I at least agreed that misspellings were not the only criteria needed to perform a redirect, i.e. Brother Mhenlo which was created by me.
• It has been a conscious decision not to produce a policy on redirects, as we only prohibit redirects that either redirect to the user or guild namespace or redirects that are inconceivable. I'll repeat this point: The official wiki has no policy specifically for redirects at all. And this is, to my knowledge, intentional.
• Without a specific policy on redirects we currently use other policies to manage those redirects that we definitely don't want. We definitely don't want redirects to the user or guild namespace, or redirects from inconceivable or ambiguous articles. This is covered in Guild Wars Wiki:Deletion policy#Redirects and Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention#Redirects. However, there is no location saying which redirects, specifically, are allowed.
• The formatting section consists of guidelines, these are recommendations on how things should look and feel, but they are not policies and do not govern what can and cannot exist on the wiki.
• As such you cannot "enforce" Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Redirects -- it is a guideline and not a policy. The document is only meant to explain which redirects should be categorised and how. If this is not clear then it needs altering. It does not say that redirects excluding the ones listed should be deleted -- and it should not since it is a formatting article.
• It has been consensus among many of us for some time that redirects for any purposes are acceptable since they improve performance. If you've missed these discussions then that's unfortunate, but the recent change in stance on the GuildWiki redirect policy is indicative of the change in consensus.
• There has never been any precedent that I am aware of for deleting redirects on this wiki, even if it has been long upheld on GuildWiki. If redirects have been deleted in this way then I would be very unhappy about it. Deleting redirects is typically bad practice, because deleting them costs resources and their existence improves performance. If you know of a redirect that has been deleted on this wiki and is not a redirect to a guild or user article or a redirect from an inconceivable term then please let me know and I will revert it.
• Tanaric was not "winging it". I think it might have prevented a lot of frustration if the deletion notice was not removed, and we just discussed this on the shadow stepping talk page, but Tanaric did not act outside of popular view, in my opinion. Redirects are a good thing and most sysops I know agree.

It is my understanding that Tanaric mentioned GuildWiki policy on Dirigible's talk page only for purpose of example. He did not say that Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Redirects was policy or that GuildWiki policy should be enforced here. I'm not sure if this has been misunderstood.

On this talk page above he also argued for the preservation of redirects as they aid performance. Karlos said the following on my talk page:

Tanaric likes a policy X (which is undocumented on this wiki) and when a situation arised where the written policy on this wiki coincided with X, he cited the GWWiki policy, and when one arised where it did not agree with X, he pointed out it was not actual policy.

This gives me the impression that Tanaric has cited something as policy when it was in his interest, and argued that the same article was not policy when it was not in his interest. As far as I can see this has not happened. He pointed out, as a matter of example, that GuildWiki had a policy enabling redirects, and then he pointed out that the official wiki has no policy regarding redirects. These two statements are both true, and don't seem to be at odds with each other, in my opinion.

Perhaps I have missed something, but so far I don't believe Tanaric's actions have been unfair, and I don't think his argument has been manipulative. I have tried to be objective here, but I am a huge proponent of redirects. As such if anyone feels that I have been biased in my analysis please don't hesitate to say so. LordBiro 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously reading:

I feel obliged to note that plural redirects are allowed under new GuildWiki policy a LOT differently than I am. I read that as a) there exists a policy, and b) that it's pretty binding. I obviously assumed that link I was directed to was the policy. Lo and behold, the policy is unwritten, yet is approved by consensus. Wow.

In any case, I think some serious rewriting of Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Redirects is in order. I have not seen that "general consensus" on the talk page of that policy (not denying it exists, just saying as a guy trying to apply policy, I can't easily identify it), so I'll write what you just summarized in here, and hope that gets approved so everyone knows what the majority consented to but chose never to write in words. --Karlos 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep on talking about Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Redirects as a policy and it is starting to really frustrate me. It is not a policy! It will never be a policy! It is just a guide on how to categorise redirects!!! :P You probably won't see any consensus regarding the removal of redirects on that page because that's not the page's purpose.

Regarding the quote of Tanaric's, I guess we do interpret it differently, but I think I know Tanaric quite well, and I don't think he would have meant what you inferred. I read it as a) there exists a policy on a completely different wiki and b) people there seem to like it.

I don't know what you mean when you say "the policy is unwritten"... which policy? As far as I'm aware no one other than you has said that GWW has a redirect policy. If Tanaric or I have implied it at any point, could you please say where as I'm really at a loss to understand what you mean. We don't have a redirect policy because we don't restrict redirects. I didn't think we needed a policy for things that we categorically allowed. LordBiro 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think Help:Redirect is policy. It reads pretty much like policy, and the link at the top of Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Redirects pretty much says it is THE page to consult on How to use redirects. Why would you have a help page that instructs people as IF there is a policy and then say to each other, nah, there's NO policy. --Karlos 22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Redirect also uses extremely inclusive language, so I'm not sure what your point is. It's certainly not policy, as it's not nearly specific enough to be enforcible - just like the formatting page, it's a guideline. Notice "encouraged to conform" - but not forced. I really don't see how you can say it "reads like policy" when it has such loose language. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but yes, I was agreeing with Aiiane:

Help:Redirect is a how-to article. It exists because many people felt that we needed a Help section for new users to learn how to use the wiki, and since redirects are not particularly intuitive it made sense to produce a help article on redirects. I don't believe it reads as though a redirect policy exists, and I don't believe it reads like a policy article. It doesn't tell you what to do, it tells you how to do things. Not to mention the fact that it hasn't gone through the policy proposal process. LordBiro 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It reads very much like policy in terms of which redirects to make or not make. It says go ahead and make redirects that speed up searching, something that formatting policy does not say. In any case, I got my answers and I think I understand the policy situation now. If you are saying that even now there IS no policy to enforce, then I disagree, I got my policy in Help:Redirect and I will enforce that (which is pretty much to allow all but the most illogical redirects). I wish there was a GWW:REDIRECTS that says that plain and simple, but at least I have a page to redirect others to. If anyone reading this finds that my understanding is wrong or threatening to them in any way, feel free to correct me, but I plan on at least using that as policy.

As for the rest of the stuff between me and Tanaric, it's just that, between me and Tanaric. We go back a long way and I have a lot of respect for him that redirects cannot overcome. I felt he acted pretty John Wayne, I still feel he did. That's the end of that. --Karlos 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I really can't see what all the fuss is about, what's the harm in having a few extra redirects that help a user get to where they're going? -FireFox 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no harm ,and no harm was ever calimed. The entire dispute was about how this was communicated. --Karlos 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, LordBiro interpreted this comment as I intended:

I feel obliged to note that plural redirects are allowed under new GuildWiki policy.

I was indeed referring to the GuildWiki, not the official wiki, but perhaps I should have made that clearer.

I still feel I acted mostly appropriately, but perhaps I should not have reverted your delete notice. I'm sorry if any disrespect was implied, as it certainly wasn't intended. Beyond that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

—Tanaric 23:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to just make it clear, however, that I'd strongly prefer the the deletion notice be placed there the first time, not only after the page has been recreated, given my understanding of GWW:DP. That was my biggest concern with all of this. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. —Tanaric 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify that, Aiiane, it wasn't that my edit as an admin was more important than your edit as a regular user. It's that I THOUGHT I was doing a routine policy edit while I believed the redirect was an "obvious" break of policy. So, I was wondering why you'd revert something so obvious (which obviously was not so obvious), and so that was my confusion. By no means was I advocating that straight deletion of an article/contested delete is the better course. I thought what I was doing was fairly routine. You'll notice that as once you contested it, I went the route of the template, because it was obvious now that it was not a striaghtforward "speedy deletion" anymore. --Karlos 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And my point was that GWW:DP makes it rather clear what qualifies as a "straightforward speedy deletion", and even without the debate, I didn't see it listed there. Either way, I think we're on the same page now. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Image: Character-Saifuddeen Kenaani.jpg

The image you recently uploaded (Image:Character-Saifuddeen Kenaani.jpg) does not comply with the Guild Wars Wiki user image naming policy and has been tagged for deletion. Feel free to re-upload the image under a correct name. Thanks, — Rapta (talk|contribs) 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Err... I'm not going to bother with the other character images. I think you know your way around this wiki better than I do. =) — Rapta (talk|contribs) 02:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up. --Karlos 04:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hola

Hey Karlos. Just noticed that you'd added me to the list of candidates for the bureaucrat position. First of all, thanks, it really means a lot, especially coming from you. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline. Primarily because my levels of activity on the wiki have been steadily decreasing, due in equal parts to being busy in meatspace and dissatisfaction with how several core issues are being handled here on the wiki. And until at least one of those factors is resolved (and it doesn't seem likely that'll happen anytime soon), I think it'd be inappropriate for me to even consider running for that (or any other) position. Once again thanks, though, appreciate it. :) --Dirigible 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Not sure if you have a strong opinion on this: Talk:Species#Shall we adopt this?. --Rezyk 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canthan Paragon?

Oh I would SO like to know how your Paragon originated from the Factions campaign.  ;) Counciler 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's easy. Copy and paste error. You can even make Tyrian-born Paragons this way. :P --Karlos 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :)

I left you a reply to your last post on my talk page. Just FYI.  :) ~ J.Kougar

[edit] 4th Koabd title?

Looking at your character pages, I though you might be able to contribute here with the next rank. --Xeeron 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you wish me to contribute? There are no labels to 4th rank and beyond yet. --Karlos 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cant you see the number of titles you need for the 4th tier? --Xeeron 11:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it just says it is the highest tier in that track. — Skuld 11:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page

GWW:USER strikes again. I don't know if you were told about this before (I think you were) but you page exceeds the scroll limitations of the user policy. You might want to break some of that information off into a subpage.

Also did you know that User:Hidden stole parts of your page! o_O - BeX 08:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

O_O They could be brothers -- Scourge 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Or a flawed clone. -- ab.er.rant 09:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hidden is in my guild, and he's been trying to copy my page I believe. Not sure how that's going.

With regards to the three screen scroll thing. I frankly find it lame, and have deliberately kept my page at 3.5 or 4 scrolls to see how far you guys wanna enforce that silly stuff. I fully agree with Tanaric that it's a ridiculous policy. I removed the images and significantly reduced the scrolling. I won't abide by centimeters and inches. Not because I am an admin or think the page is too important to be reduced or whatever, but because I am a user who thinks someone was overzealous in their GWiki experience and brought some ridiculous over-management into here.

So, put me on notice, inform an admin about me and ban me for it or go ahead and blank my page. Frankly, I think you should find something better to do, Bex. --Karlos 09:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your page is well over the limit at 3 and a half at 1280 res (it allows for 2 scrolls in the policy). As an admin I would think you would hold policy, whether or not you agree with it, as something to be respected and upheld. And as for having something better to do, look at RC - one small edit to your talk page is lost amongst the hundred of other edits I've made today. - BeX 09:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to go the whole nine yards on this one, Bex. I'm not budging on this. It's an oppressive policy and I think it's my duty to actually fight it.

I am not outside the realm of policy, and I am certainly subject to it like everyone else. However, my loyalty is to the wiki, not necessarily to the laws and edicts that sometimes we fall in love with.

My first significant edit on this wiki was when I checked it one day and the "community" (a few zealous invdividuals) decided to place a big sign on the main page that says "Please refrain from adding any content until we formulate basic policies" and I stpped in and removed it. Didn't even read talk pages, nothing. It was simply common sense.

In retrospect, everyone who is anyone would tell you that was one of the best things anyone ever did to this wiki. It was stagnating, and then boom, the flood gates opened. All those involved later on acknowledged that I was right to act outside of edicts agreed upon.

I may well be wrong on this one. But this is the precedent I am relying on here. Not that it's my right to break policy, but that it's my duty when I see lousy policy to protest against it. If I am wrong, the other users, admins, bureaucrats have all the power they need to bring me in line.

It's such a sound policy that I don't even know what happens now. Do you tag my user page with "This user is a Hard Drive hog" or something? Do I get banned for 5 days? What is the enforceability of this policy exactly? Feel free to point the attention of other admins here as you see fit. --Karlos 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about you breaking the policy, it's pretty irrelevant to me unless somone goes and makes a 10 scroll page with a 1400x resolution. However, I don't like it that you go against a policy by breaking it instead of discussing the policy on it's talk page. We have had major conflicts at GuildWiki due to people fighting against a policy instead of trying to change it through discussion and I would definitely not like to see anything similiar on this wiki. -- (gem / talk) 10:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I find it disappointing that admins don't care whether policy is broken or not. - BeX 10:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that anyone would bow to this policy. — Skuld 10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bex or Gem, I am not daring you or making my request in jest. If you truly believe that as an admin I am overstepping my authorities, please bring it to the attention of any authority you like. I've asked Tanaric and Biro to chime in. Let's see what they think. But I truly find this policy unhealthy, too restrictive and based on some EXTREMELY bad assumption in terms of what rights and freedoms users have by default. I see that policy as stemming from: The user has no rights, and we shall bestow the following upon him. Whereas I think the right approach is: The user has all right, and we shall limit the following for him. There is a fundamental shift. --Karlos 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Karlos... You talk way too much for a Arab, not use too ~ Kurd 12:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurd, what has Karlos' nationality got to do with anything on the subject? -- Scourge 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kurd likes to keep the Kurd-Arab rivalry alive, how ever inappropriate, I think, lol. — Skuld 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... /ponder *THINKS* uuuhh *THINKS SOME MORE* uuhh... nothing? ~.^ ~ Kurd 12:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, I'm not taking this too seriously and I hope you understand it. -- (gem / talk) 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Karlos. Who gives a shit??? — Skuld 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with Karlos is irrelevant. He is breaking policy.

That said, a preventative block does not seem appropriate, as he is not actively editing to make his page longer. Punitive blocks have no backing in policy on this wiki -- even the proposed blocking policy does not suggest punitive blocks unless mandated by the arbitration committee. The only thing remotely suggesting enforcement is the following line from Project:User page:

Content in your user space that violates policy may be removed by an administrator.

I believe that since the line uses the word "may," enforcement of this policy is purely discretionary. I do not think Karlos's offense is egregious enough to warrant my intervention upon his space. Naturally, I will not oppose any other sysop action to remedy Karlos's violation of policy.

I will not comment here on whether his behavior is appropriate for an administrator -- that is a bureaucrat concern. If somebody wants to enter that discussion with me, my talk page is always available.

I will not comment on the policy itself here, but I will remark on the policy talk page.

—Tanaric 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

/signed for Karlos, this policy is crap. It was made by (as Karlos said) overzealous editors who wanted a policy simply to to have a policy, not because the policy is useful or actually solves anything. I'll post on its talk page about this; hopefully this nonsense can be undone. It'd be a pity if a few radicals ruined the wiki for everyone else. -Auron 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having considered a lot of things in those policy discussions very little opposition, I resent that somewhat. MisterPepe talk 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the policy is completely flawed. And I blame myself as much as anyone for having that hideous thing there. I should have been paying more close attention to these policies back then. It was those kinds of unneeded and ridiculous policies that kept me away, and I am seeing every day that I was wrong. All these weird principles established as canon. The user's space is a courtesy? It is restricted by default? I prefer a much looser form of regulation where issues (people totally abusing their user space) are dealt with as they arise, not speculatively and overzealously. --Karlos 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Bro, what are you doing? Bex, Gem and Aberrant are all good people. If I remember correctly, the last time I had a brain implosion you set me straight. Well I'm going to do my best to try and work this out because I know you'd do the same for me if it came to the crunch. I really am asking the question of why you're doing this. We're not talking about Michelangelo finishing the Sistine Chapel and some politicians deciding that actually, the thing is a bit big really, we're going to lop the last third off. It's just your user page. And yes I know your civil disobedience campaign is hardly destroying the wiki as we know it but we both know this says a lot symbolically. When I read your comment to J. Kougar, it was probably the most intelligent thing I've seen here and it basically explained that there's a way to go about things, so what is it that you are doing here?

On a different tact, the comments on Gares' talk page were just wierd, as someone who followed it but wasn't at all emotionally involved, I found your comments a little odd. The impression that I got is that Gares' really wasn't that worried about any of the issues you raised on being modest, egos, how skillful someone is etc. etc. Which is not to say that he didn't have an opinion on them, just that he wasn't taking it all to heart the way you were and it was strange to see you get so worked up about it. Which makes me wonder if maybe you need to clear your head a little, before pushing on.

Why tackle this issue like this, in such a non constructive and damaging way? Why bring LordBiro and Tanaric into it? They're running in the bureaucrat elections, I'd say they don't need something like this. I've seen far greater injustices occur back on the GuildWiki and I don't recall you ever calling for civil disobedience. I don't disagree with you, in fact I think the user page length policy is pretty stupid. My user page is on the very limit of the max length so I've got a small section that's commented out, I could have just removed it but it's my very very small way of expressing my frustration. I guess I don't feel about it as strongly as you do but do you really need to go this far?

I hope this is of use to you, you've said some helpful things to me over the years so I hope that I can return the favour. As you've told me before, if you feel strongly about it, you should do what you think is right even if others think you're wrong. (*Cough* Supporting the Utah Jazz *cough*!) I just hope that you take a bit of time to reach a decision and that you're both doing it for the right reasons and with a clear mind. Best of luck old friend. --Xasxas256 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Xasxas.. Wanted to talk to you last night on the whole Gares thing in-game, but you were not on when I was on. I wanted to pick your brains on that. PM me next time you see me on.

Well, you seem to be tying these things together and the only thing they have in common is that I was pretty straightforward (and somewhat confrontational) is all these exchanges. I cut to the chase and I call things as I see them. I try not to offend anyone but at the same time, I will not cut anyone any slack in a debate.

I have been very respectful to Bex, Aberrant and Gem. I have nothing but respect for all three. Just because I am calling out their logic on an issue or questioning their judgement on a policy does not mean I dislike them nor does it mean I have personal problems with them. I like Aberrant a great deal, in fact.

The main reason I did things the way I did is to bring it to the forefront. I have mentioned that I find this policy bogus before, Tanaric has, this seemed to generate no emotions on the part of the "leaders" of that policy (Aberrant, Bex, Pepe) and basically they needed to be challenged. I have been planning to write a diatribe on that policy's page and when Bex came knocking on my door, I saw an opportunity. I wanted to see how delusional we are as a community.

This is a serious test now. I honestly truly believe that this is a VERY bad and oppressive policy based on some SERIOUSLY flawed logic. I think it is very bad for the wiki to adopt the view that users are to be told how to run their user pages because it's best for all. It's a totalitarian elitist view that assumes the tastes of Pepe, Bex, Aberrant and several others are "correct" and that other tastes as "bad."

I would not recommend "civil disobedience" to change policy as a matter of course, obviously. But I felt this policy is so weird, and so poorly written (ans so harmless to violate) that challenging it was the only way to make people wake up and look at it. I'm not saying that's justification, but it's my reason.

It may well end up I lose my admniship over this or get banned or deleted or whatever, but I have always been one to fight for what I believe and to call things as I see them. This policy and the mindset behind it, must go.

One last thing, about Biro and Tanaric... What better thing to test their worthiness of their seat than to see them exercise their judgement? I frankly don't see this as an issue even. It's not like they will win or lose based on how they handle this. Well, unless Eloc shows better judgement than they do. :P --Karlos 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dupek the Mighty

Hey - Dupek the Mighty really means in polish "Mighty Asshole" - [See link] :) --Gret 09:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why assume it's Polish though? Do you have reason to believe the devs wanted to put a cuss word in another language in the game? If not, then why not put all the othe rmeanings of Dupek in all the languages of the world? --Karlos 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Becouse I'm polish and i can assume it... --Gret 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Asking emily about it ~ Kurd 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok this solves it ~ Kurd 11:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My views on sysops

I don't know whether this discussion should be part of my reconfirmation or a separate thing and I don't mind so I'll let you decide whether we keep the discussion here or on my reconfirmation talk page. I intend this discussion as a general one about what the sysop status is and what it isn't.

You said: "I do not believe adminship should be a reward for being active. I thikn admins need to show a certain amount of leadership and I have yet to see Gem convince me of that. " I agree that sysophood shouldn't be a reward of any kind. I think that the sysop status is just what a regular user status with the addition of tools that can't be trusted to the hands of every user. On GuildWiki sysops were a lot more due to the way the wiki was run and built, the sysops were effectively the bosses of the wiki with only bureaucrats above them. On the official wiki we have gotten away from that as our policies don't give special leadership to anyone except the bureaucrats. Sysops don't have the powers to do what they want and they can't override the decisions of the community. People are still sometimes thinking of sysops as some kind of leaders due to the policies at GuildWiki, but I think we should get away from that mindset as soon as possible as it's not the case on this wiki.

I admit and hope that I haven't shown any 'leadership like qualities' on this wiki since that's exactly what I think sysops shouldn't do. -- (gem / talk) 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to back up gem on this. Of all sysop he is maybe the one comming closest to what our policies aim for, namely sysops that act as enforcers of policy, without much discretion. Whether you agree with those policies is another matter, but you cant fault him for trying to follow that spirit of the admin policy. --Xeeron 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't fault him, nor hold it against him. But I don't necessarily agree. I don't even quite get the multitude of admins being promoted on a monthly basis here. I don't know we're doing that, but I admit to not have followed things closely and as a result, I know I can't really complain. However, my view is that an admin needs to show a certain level of wisdom and maturity. Gem had a little bout with Skuld earlier that showed me he was still not there. --Karlos 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, sysops on this wiki are glorified janitors. The more we have, the quicker messes get mopped up. In theory at least, there is no sense of sysops being "above" regular users. This is very different than the GuildWiki.

While I would support your criticisms of Gem on that wiki (no offense intended, Gem), he is quite a good sysop here, in my opinion. —Tanaric 05:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you're saying that we have reduced the model of leadership in here to three people? Biro, Rezyk and Dirigible? All others are janitors and senior janitors? --Karlos 06:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The concept is that it's not essential to have specific centralized leaders for all aspects of the wiki (and yes, that is a core difference from GuildWiki), apart from a rare few cases (in which case the bureaucrats serve their purpose). It's not so much "reducing the model of leadership" as it is using a different model that doesn't revolve around leadership. I should note that Wikipedia trends towards this latter style, rather than one centered around leaders. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane has expressed it quite well. We lack any sort of centralized leadership, in general -- when the need arises (and so far, it hasn't), the bureaucrats can serve in that capacity. I realize this is at odds with our sysop/bcrat/ANet mailing list of which the general public is unaware. —Tanaric 06:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, what I find odd is that experience in leadership/conflict resolution and so forth is not required in an admin, and that people like Xeeron (or yourself) think that's ok. I think that's inherently incorrect. If you step into a conflict (and you will be summoned by the admin noticeboard) you must exercise logic, wisdom and maintain a vision of the wiki as you step in. You can't just say "User X blanked a page... Vandal... Block." As Dirigible noted on the J.Kougar issue, much could have been avoided with more wisdom. I think Gem is a bit too trigger happy and impatient when reviewing actions and taking disciplinary action. I think that's a flaw. He's very diligent in scanning pages tagged for deletion and unused images but not responding to conflict situations. --Karlos 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The sysop position here is specifically written to remove the impetus of judgment from the individual sysop whenever possible. I'm not saying it works perfectly yet. I'm also not saying it's better than what we have at the GuildWiki -- we have an excellent team there and the authority vested in that team works marvelously, in general. I'm merely attempting to point out the differences. That sysops are No Big Deal is the closest thing this wiki has to a foundation policy, which is ironic considering the vast majority of our foundation came from the GuildWiki!

So far, I think the system is working well. It's definitely more sustainable -- if any significant portion of the bureaucrat/administration team at the GuildWiki left in unison, the site would become headless and would not run very efficiently. Here, we can wipe the entire administration staff without causing much fuss. There is significantly more emphasis on community control of its own destiny. Whether it'd be better to have someone like me calling the shots is a matter of debate. I can appreciate both methods.

—Tanaric 08:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You still ignored that admins DO exercise judgement on a daily basis whenever there is conflict. They can CHOOSE to punish violators or just warn them or even let something slide. This is a choice that SHOULD be rooted in logic, wisdom and vision of what's at stake. Not in a robotic manner. --Karlos 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly intended to type a "At least, this is the theory." somewhere in there. I'm not saying it works perfectly, and I'm also not saying that admins can be totally clueless -- if they could, we wouldn't need an RfA process. I just think the bar for entry is much lower here than on the GuildWiki, and there's absolutely no reason to restrict the sysop pool to a smallish number, like we did there.

If it's relevant, I may have overstated my support for Gem. I support his sysop status, but only weakly. —Tanaric 08:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that atleast some people share my view of the sysop position on this wiki and that's all I needed to know. I didn't intend this as a discussion about me and my sysops status, but that's what it turned into. :/ -- (gem / talk) 09:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gem on this one. Sysop's on the OGWiki are at a lower level than the GWiki admins. Its simple fact. There will be more sysops here, because sysops don't have the power that they do on GWiki. That is just how it is. You cannot carry over your role from GWiki, as that is not your role here. And it may never be. I honestly think they shouldn't have people be sysops for both sites, as they tend to think they have the same powers on both sites. They do not. They are there for mediation, but with more mediators then people that need it, its useless. You may think differently, and I respect your opinion, but you need to realize these are 2 different Wiki's, with different Sysop's requirements. --- The Imperialist on GWiki --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:76.166.205.40 .

[edit] Applying the user page policy

I find your comment on the user page policy talk page "I said I will not enfore the policy on my user page and told Bex to go the whole nine yards on this. Block me, edit my page, sue my parents... Whatever the policy says should happen. Something that until now, has yet to happen." incredibly unfair towards your fellow sysops. One thing every sysop should try to do is calm discussions down, not further aggravate them. No sysop wanted to apply that policy because the situation was already heated up enough without further actions and because we were all hoping that the issue might be solved without having to go that far. While I personally would love to see the policy changed, and while I think it is kind of a moot point, because it likely will be changed, I am editing your userpage now to confirm with current policy so we can bury above mentioned agruement once and for all. --Xeeron 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what it is exactly that you found unfair. That sentence you quoted says: "I did not object to my page being made to adhere to policy all I did was refuse to do it myself, and then as a way of showing how weird the policy was, I told Bex to go ahead and take it to the next level, whatever that level may be." What exactly do you find to be unfair to you and other admins? That I said that no one has done it. I was making a point that no one has cared enough to do it.

Go ahead and edit my page as you see fit. I am hoping to get the new policy passed very soon. At least no one can complain that it was changed without much fanfare. --Karlos 08:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't particularly like losing all that information, so I added a link to the old version of your userpage to the new placeholder. Naturally, you can revert if you wish. :) —Tanaric 08:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The part I feel is unfair is the "no one has cared enough to do it" one. We all cared a lot about this, as can be seen from the exploding talk page. There are reasons other than not caring for not doing something. PS: I already edited your user page to comply with policy. --Xeeron 08:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a mischaracterization. If you felt something should be done, but not strongly enough to do it, then you did not care enough, I think. In any case, I edited your user page as well. Though it was tongue-in-cheek because the current policy says I can. :) --Karlos 09:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:/ -Auron 09:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for two hours -- tongue-in-cheek vandalism is still vandalism. And, besides, I need to unflinchingly apply policy, right? :) —Tanaric 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty ridiculous block. I understand why you did it, I don't think, however, that it is actually supported under current policy. Current policy says that other users can edit your user space all they want and the "convention" is that they'll tell you about it. I was not going to leave his user page like that, I wanted to tease him then revert it, but everyone was wound up tighter than a bunch of heket last night apparently. --Karlos 16:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Current policy" would also generally include not vandalizing pages. Just because the user page policy does not explicitly disallow vandalism does not mean that it implicitly allows it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to belittle policy, and I know that fighting vandalism makes sense, by default... However, I am serious. Check GWW:POLICY and tell me exactly which policy would Tanaric be enforcing. --Karlos 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GWW:NPA. Specifically, making a threat