User talk:Mike O'Brien/Archive/2009c

Proposal for accepting suggestions and feedback, part 3

Hey everyone,

Thanks for providing a thorough analysis of all the options. After considering everything you wrote, here’s what we’d like to do. We’d like to move forward by creating a Feedback namespace on this wiki, with separate licensing terms from the rest of the wiki. We’ll use that namespace to move forward with collecting the types of structured feedback we can collect from a namespace. It won’t solve every problem – it specifically won’t solve userspace suggestions – but it’s a concrete step that we can take today. We’ll get experience working with the community to collect feedback.

After taking this step and building experience together, we’ll all be in a better position to evaluate whether we should be deploying a separate feedback wiki, or another alternative solution, in the future. Since all feedback in the Feedback namespace will have its copyright assigned to ArenaNet, we can easily move it to a separate wiki if it becomes clear at some point that one is needed.

Thank you all for exploring the ramifications of every available option and helping to build consensus about the right path forward.

--Mike O'Brien 22:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine for me; but too bad that we didn't thought about a separate license when we added the ArenaNet namespace (that way we could just keep that - now we have to start all those bug reports etc. things again :S).

But what do you think about additionally adding something to mark pages as multi licensed so that we could make single user pages available to you, too? poke | talk 07:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you guys have an idea in mind as to how you want the feedback namespace to work, or will you leave that to the community to decide?.--Fighterdoken 08:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I am surprised that suggestions may have to be in a seperate wiki if deemed necessary. The most logical solution would be to have a forum/bulletin board surely not? After all, that is what BB's were devised for. Most companies have this in some form. (Would it also not take up less space on the server, as wiki's keep each page edit?) – josəph 09:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's been mentioned many times before, but for some reason I don't understand, they don't seem very interested in it. It may be because they would be unable to have a shared user database so the inconvenience could lose contributors. Misery 09:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This idea sounds good to me. How about implementing the new license to ANet employees' user and talk pages too? A lot of suggestions get posted there, obviously incorrect, but I fear those cannot be moved under the current conditions. On the other hand, I am in favor of a strict formatting policy for suggestion pages, so moving suggestions from the talk page to the Feedback: namespace will probably not work out anyway. — Why 14:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I casually brought this up before, but would it be possible to combine user-responsibility with a new namespace by having subsections reserved for each player? Like, feedback.wiki.guildwars.com/users/JonTheMon ? --JonTheMon 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I just reserved mine --> Feedback:Misery. We can order the new namespace however we like, in fact, those discussions are probably going to start soon, yay! Misery 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We should probably decide about a good place for those discussions then.. Guild Wars Wiki:Feedback (namespace)? Also, Why, it would be better to strictly disallow suggestions anywhere else and "force" the people to edit it in the Feedback namespace from the beginning (no, moving is not possible). Also I have asked above about the single pages licensing.. Too bad Mike just responds by doing page archives + new comment :/ poke | talk 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya guys! I'll pop in and try to answer a few things for ya :)

• Poke: Yeah, we've chatted about your suggestion to differentiate the namespace from others visually, so this is something we'd be fine with. What do you guys think the best way to do this would be? I was initially thinking that a namespace wide header (like the dismissable site notice, except not dismissable) may work best, but if there are other suggestions, we're open to whatever style you guys want.
• Fighter: I think we want to leave the operation of the namespace to you guys. As long as the proper licensing is in place, we're not going to step in and manage how it looks or is set up.
• Joseph: As Mike mentioned before, we're still looking into other options for things like this. That stuff takes time, though, so this is the best interim solution :)
• Why: I don't know if we can retroactively apply this license to staff pages, since they are not going to be in the new namespace. This means that the old content on those pages would be under a different license, so it would cause the same issues that prevented us from just applying the new license to the ArenaNet namespace. I think that we just need to be diligent and make sure that people know that suggestions can only be posted in certain places, and those posted on staff pages (and pages not in the new namespace) can't be read or answered. It may be a learning curve for some, but with guidance, I think it's the only option.

Hope this helps a bit! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clear answer Emily, and poke, agreed. — Why 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought about a similar page layout as on MediaWiki.org to make it clear to the visitors that it is a completely different licensing. Also that can be applied simply via css (there is no need to change any code). My other idea was to implement some tag to mark single pages as (multi-?)released under that license, that way we could allow people to still publish their ideas in the user space and make some detailed lists in the new namespace. Of course we couldn't affect existing pages with that, but we could for example move the complete history (for example a staff member's talk page) to a subpage/archive and restart the talk page with that new license (and the same visual distinction as the feedback namespace). poke | talk 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I like that idea poke. Seems like it would be simple enough to implement. Also, Emily, any ideas on when the new namespace will be added? --Shadowphoenix 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Emily, and answering my puzzlement. – josəph 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) No problem! Sorry my responses are delayed...I'm in and out of meetings today :)

• Poke: That's cool that those style changes are just made via the common css. That will make it a lot easier for you guys to go in and make the pages look as different as you'd like them to. For your second suggestion, I think the concern is still the confusion factor for folks. We'd like to keep things as simple as possible, and keep the license changes isolated to one particular area for this reason. Here's my half attempt to explain how I see it, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding something:
  • If a user posts in the feedback area, any dev can look there and see that the suggestions are clean to read and use. There are no caveats or things they have to look out for and know in advance before they read. While some folks around here are super wiki savvy, there are others that are at different skill levels. The simpler and cleaner the solution, the more chance there is for devs to read suggestions (which is the ultimate goal for all of this).
  • If a user tags a subpage on their userpage as "multi-license", the simplest thing that could happen is that there's functionality built into that template that pulls a link to that page into a category elsewhere (presumably housed in the feedback namespace?). This poses a few problems:
    • A dev interested in reading suggestions would need to browse to this category, and will be pointed to a place that isn't in the feedback area. This leads to ambiguity for many reasons. One, people can place that tag anywhere they'd like. We can say no, don't put it on anything but a blank page, but there will inevitably be cases where people don't understand that and plop the tag somewhere it shouldn't be. That could land us in hot water, and may discourage people from reading those pages because they aren't sure if they are allowed to.
    • Submission language HAS to be modified for anything feedback related. I know we specify separate submission language based on namespace, but I think it would be overly complicated to try to say that this new submission language also goes on pages with a certain template on it too.

In general, people need to repost all of their suggestions anyways. It's going to be smoother to just have them do that in a clean and fresh namespace. In the long run, if we come up to a situation where we need to strip suggestions and put them elsewhere or on another wiki, having them in one clearly defined, separated space is going to be a lot simpler than trying to figure out what's posted there and what's posted with multi-licenses across the wiki.

I'm not saying that your idea is invalid or bad, but from the discussions I've observed around here, diving into an additional layer of complexity for this is something we'd prefer not to do right now :)

• Shadow: I believe we're getting the language ready for the submission text, so as soon as that's ready to roll we can implement. I don't have a specific timeframe for that, though. I'll do some investigation on that for ya.

Again, hope this helps! :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can understand that. Sounds like we can go for it. :) — Why 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as such a tag would require an extension anyway there could be something implemented that prevents people from simply adding that tag to pages without knowing what it does or it is just enabled for normal users when all previous revisions are made by that user. And we could simply describe it in the language that the affected page are marked directly as such without talking about the actual content there (that might allow you to later publish things that shouldn't be GFDL and that are not related to feedback). But it's your decision :) poke | talk 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Emily, did you and/or Mike and Co. happen to have a chance to read through this section in the previous set of discussions? I'm sort of disappointed that you chose to go with a namespace (as opposed to another option like templates) because honestly, it suffers from just about every problem templates do (even if it might not seem like it) and is less flexible overall for legitimate uses. For instance, you stated that you're worried about malicious (or simply uninformed) users adding a "okay for feedback" template to pages, but that's not really any different than the same user copying content from somewhere outside of the "feedback namespace" and re-posting it without permission inside that "feedback namespace". Either way the potential for human error is there, and the namespace approach is even less noticeable to a wiki-novice user - quite a lot of them don't even know what a namespace is or its significance. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why poke is going to leetly CSSify it. It should end up pretty obvious and looking very different. Misery 18:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point. "Looking different" can be done with other things besides namespaces, and the other things offer far more flexibility. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a single page solution can include a whole namespace but still additionally allows single pages.. or to keep some pages out within that namespace (like an overview page for the namespace, that is community-driven). poke | talk 22:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the namespace solution, but it has to be spelled out clearly, and every staff member who is in any way active on the wiki has to be on the same page. A universal notice for staff talk pages directing people to the new namespace for all feedback/suggestions, etc. If even one staff member comments directly about something it can create chaos. -- Wyn 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if we can't include staff usertalk pages under the new licensing terms, we should probably redirect them to talk pages in the new namespace (with the associated non-talk page redirecting back to their userpage. Probably less headaches for everyone. - Tanetris 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, we just delete suggestions posted in the wrong place (given how the staff usertalk pages aren't the proper place for suggestions), ban those who keep adding suggestions there, and make it clear to people that they have to understand how the wiki works, instead of doing whatever and having someone fix their mistakes for them. It's one thing to fix a mistake in an article documenting the game, it's another to fix a "1 li3k mudk1ps, 4dd th4m plz!!!111" comment on Linsey's talk page. Erasculio 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because I was not involved in cleanup, but "ban those who keep adding suggestions there" brings a lot of bad images to my mind. (unless you are referring to harassment cases) Vili 点 10:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to ban people who make a single mistake. Rather, I believe those who make a mistake, are told about what they are doing wrong and how to fix it, then make the same mistake again, are again told about it, and then continue to add suggestions to the wrong page - I think those individuals are not a good reason to change how the wiki works, rather that they should understand (and be made to understand, even if it requires temporary blocks) how the wiki works.

To make an analogy, we know people will break NPA from time to time. Yet we haven't changed the policy to allow people to insult each other, we just ban people to keep breaking NPA so they will understand that the wiki does not allow that kind of behavior. Erasculio 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have another example. If someone tries using an article as a talk page or creates a user, guild or player character article in the main namespace once or twice, it would be reasonable to assume that it's an honest mistake. If the same person continues to do so in defiance of repeated warnings, it would be reasonable to treat the behaviour as vandalism. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to troll or anything, but when suggestions aren't allowed on this site anymore, doesn't that also apply to suggestions on how to handle this issue? 145.94.74.23 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, because this wiki is released under the different licensing to Guild Wars. The problem is they don't want GW under the GFDL, not the wiki. Misery 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Heya again, guys! Let me try to answer some more stuff for you:

The decision to use a separate namespace instead of a templating solution came about after a bunch of discussions here. Here are the main reasons why we prefer to go the route of a namespace instead of allowing users to flag suggestions anywhere by using templates:

• For legal reasons, we HAVE to keep feedback separated into an area on the site governed by a clearly different license. To be able to look at feedback and use it in the game, it cannot be GFDL. Here are some reasons why a template solution just complicates things:

• We need to have separate submission language for feedback pages. While you can do this with a namespace, it would be too complicated and confusing to try to apply this anywhere else in the main namespaces.
• We can't risk muddying the suggestions pool by allowing folks to stick suggestion templates anywhere across the site. The application of those can't really be absolutely controlled, so it would be simple for an uninformed person to put one on a page that has content that was submitted under the normal wiki GFDL license. This would result in another situation where devs aren't 100% sure that they can use suggestions flagged as such.
• We want to make it as simple for devs as possible to be able to go to a certain place and read suggestions. We like the idea of having a completely separate namespace on the site that can be styled differently and have different submission language, because this is a clean and clear way to make this happen. Since the namespace is a fresh start, it would mean that anything in that clean partition would be able to be used with no issues. Everything from the submission language to the look and feel of the area would be tailored specifically for this purpose. Granted, we need to be careful that people know they can't just copy and paste suggestions that aren't theirs into the new area, but in general, I think it would be much easier to keep under control than just having templates for folks to attach to the top of pages anywhere on the site.
• Having content in a separate namespace with the proper license applied to it would make it much easier for us to pull suggestions from this section and dump them into a new wiki if we see down the road that it would make more sense to have a separate suggestion wiki. We'd be able to do a straight export/import.

I can see everyone's arguments for both sides, but the complexity of absolutely needing clear and separate submission/license language for suggestions makes the template idea pretty much impossible. You can't have two different submission languages in the same namespace :(

For Tanetris's thought about staff pages: What if we had a solution that keeps the staff pages where they are, but we build some kind of a template or a graphic that basically says "Have a suggestion? Tell us about it!" and have that link point off to a landing page on the namespace? That way, we could put that on all of the staff pages and other suggestion hotspots. People that don't really understand the concept of wiki namespaces wouldn't have to even worry about it. All they'd see was a place to click to post suggestions, and that would take them to where they needed to go. I think that we could come up with a solution that cuts out a lot of the complicated explaining and boils down to just directing people to where they need to go in clear and easy ways.

On the topic of what to do with people that post suggestions in the wrong places: I would be really careful about banning people for making mistakes, since wikis are really foreign concepts to a lot of people. We're not going to step in and tell you guys to admin, though, so this is more of me personally hoping that admins lean on the side of patience for cases that clearly are stemming from confusion. You guys already do that, though, so I'm just being Captain Obvious on this one :) I'd just be cautious about openly talking about giving users a time out for doing things wrong, because that could discourage more timid users from even trying.

I think that covers everything. Again, we all really appreciate the work and thought you guys have put into all of this. I'm sorry that things are so complicated. As we mentioned before, this is new ground for us (well, for ANY game company, really), so we're moving forward with caution. As time goes on, I'm sure things will change and evolve (as they always seem to).

If anyone has any more questions, let me know and I will try to help. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

While it is of course completely your decision and I really have no problem with restricting it to one namespace, still one more comment about the templating idea: My idea was based on a magic word that is built into the wiki parser; this would allow multiple server side restrictions to be implemented, for example to prevent normal users from tagging pages that others than theirselves have edited (and then add a right to sysops so that they can tag all pages, if all authors agree on the publication). And I don't see how changing the license so that the affected pages are a bit more general is such a problem, for example we could simply apply that new license to "all pages within the feedback namespace and other affected pages that are marked as such". After all we don't have such a clear line about the ArenaNet images inside the File namespace either. It just says that there are images by ArenaNet and each image then is marked separatetly as such - same should work with suggestion pages as well.. poke | talk 20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussions for how this namespace should be structured are currently underway here. At the moment consensus seems to be leaning towards everyone having their own suggestion space inside the feedback namespace for long-winded reasons detailed in the discussion, but basically so everyone can just take care of their own suggestions to reduce workload for admins and other wiki-goers. Other feedback such as bug reports would be done in a manner similar to now on a common page by type. Emily, you might want to step in there if you want to add something of a FYI page for devs (i.e. Suggestion page for Linsey, suggestion page for Joe etc, etc.). While I am sure if devs open their own personal suggestion space to be edited by anyone no one will object, you might want to consider the rammifications of having collaboration on such a contentious topic. At the moment the discussion is heavily biased towards how regular wiki users are prepared to police and manage the area. Personally I don't care how useable the final system is to you guys, but I suspect you might, so if you have any problem with the direction things are going, now is the time to put in your two cents. I see the appeal of the straight link from staff pages to a suggestions page for them to peruse, but I see disadvantages too and wikis are horrible places where we are supposed to iron out these kinds of things before they happen. Misery 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions based on non-NCsoft games

Should suggestions based on non-NCsoft games be off limits for legal reasons, or would it be okay to post them? If they are off-limits, should suggestions based on all NCsoft-published games be presumed to be okay, or does NCsoft publish some licensed or third-party games which it doesn't own all the rights to? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Heya Gordon! I'm not 100% sure that I'm understanding you right on this one. Are you asking whether people can post suggestions like "Hey, you guys should do X like in Y game"? -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What are the legal issues?

As I understand things, and I am NOT a lawyer, the issues are:

• The various Guild Wars products are commercial and proprietary. They are covered by copyrights and a license is required to produce derivative works.
• The discussions of Guild Wars products are derivatives of those products and are covered by a license from ArenaNet.
• While 'fair use' would allow some simple exceptions to the license requirement, ArenaNet has provided a fairly broad license to the Guild Wars community allowing fairly wide latitude in using game content for discussion. They set the GPDL as the license for that discussion.
• GPDL, as it stands would require any works by ArenaNet derived from the discussion be covered by the GPDL, This is unacceptable to AreanaNet.
• A modification to the license that allows ArenaNet to modify their products based on suggestions here without having to put those products under GPDL is desired.
• ArenaNet can prospectively change the terms of the license they granted, but can not change it retrospectively.
• It is desired that this WIKI continue to operate and its contents be preserved and expanded. Further, it is desired that most of the content be freely interchangeable with other WIKI using GPDL.
• It must not be easy to argue that suggestions to ArenaNet were not intended to be made under the modified license terms. The assumption has to be that there will be malicious persons with intent to cause legal difficulties making suggestions. (This does not in any way mean that the usual WIKI participant is malicious.) There have to defenses against such entrapment.

--mtew 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to go through this point by point.

• Yes and yes. The latter is in fact true of any creative work which is not released into the public domain (a complicated topic itself, but unless it was published before 1923 or specifically released into public domain by the author, assume it's not)
• No. This is not true in any way.
• The license for the wiki is GFDL, not GPDL. That aside, nothing from ArenaNet is licensed under it; only original contributions from wiki editors. ArenaNet-owned content is used with their non-transferable permission with all rights reserved (basically, they say we can use it for this, but they retain the right to say we can't use it for something else or to say that someone else can't use it).
• Again, it's GFDL, not GPDL. Otherwise, this is more or less accurate.
• This is mostly accurate, except for the base assumption that the license is coming from ArenaNet. It is the editors who are granting license to use their contributions (i.e. suggestions), which is the whole reason ArenaNet can't just change it. By editing the wiki, contributors agree to the licensing terms expressed on the submission page. By changing that language, new contributions will be licensed under the new terms, but it can't affect old contributions.
• Generally, yes.
• Legally, we can't assume anything about the intended license of previous contributors. While the most likely case is that no one would ever raise a fuss about their suggestion being used, the slimmest possibility that one angry player who decides they have a chance to hurt Anet, or opportunistic player who decides they have a chance to make some cash, is not worth the risk. It would also make it harder for Anet to defend their own copyright on Guild Wars if they don't completely own all parts of the game.

- Tanetris 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am not a lawyer, but just a concern regarding the things that are being discuss here, especially the last point about Malicious Users. I don't know how to explain this but I think Wiki's policy and Terms of Use cannot cover Arena Net that tightly, I look for Terms of Service, and Terms of Use with the wiki search function and came up with nothing, so I look under FAQ and find that the policy cannot cover Arena Net at all if anyone wishing to be malicious is lurking here. For example [1], a license agreement that users have to agree to when signing up to use TheSims2 BBS/Forums where they have a special Thread for Suggestions. please refer to Item 3, 4, 5, and 6. (I hope linking to that Agreement here is allowed, if not please delete the link, its not a suggestion or anything, just an example) I am sure a lot of you, and Arena Net's Lawyers, already realize that, but since it was not mention, I thought I made a reminder.

• also I am not sure why Arena Net cannot add a new section to their website [2] after GW Wiki (3rd tab, top left of webpage), add another Tab: Suggestions and Feedback. I am sure you've already paid someone to maintain the website, right, so have them add a suggestions and Feedback section. How it works: go to the Suggestions and Feedback section, login with the users name and password as we would do the Xunlai Tournament house, sign the agreements, forms comes up, players key in feedback and suggestion, click enter, agreements comes up again, users sign. I know this will eliminate the "community discussion" of said Suggestion and Feedback. Theres a way around it. Any Suggestion deem "good enough" to be consider will then be posted by the community manager in a couple of the popular forums for discussion. Is that possible? Pumpkin pie 05:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright licensing issues are covered under Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights and the submission terms that everyone agrees to every time they hit the Save page button is displayed just above it on every editing page, but can be found here: MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning.

As for adding feedback/suggestions to the primary website, ArenaNet has not made that an available option while they have been open to adding to the wiki or even adding a new wiki. I believe ArenaNet is looking for a more interactive participation in suggestions than simply everyone submitting their ideas without any discussion, which is what would result from your idea Pumpkin. They cannot use the "popular forums" because they don't own them, and therefore do not hold the copyrights on anything submitted by users of them (sound familiar?). -- Wyn 07:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Confused

I feel really confused about this situation and saw the word "ban" mentioned a couple of times in the discussion. Can someone point me in the direction of a FAQ that explains this in a bit more detail or take a step back and answer the following questions: 1. What exactly counts as a suggestion? If a user who doesn't work for aNet comments on another users page (who also doesnt work for aNet) with "They should let us have mohawks on characters of any profession", does that count as a suggestion? 2. Does this mean we can't use Joe's talk page to communicate with him in regards to non-suggestion related things? 3. Some users have "GW Wishlists" or "GW Predictions" on their pages, how will these be impacted if at all? Sorry if I'm a little slow on the uptake with this, just want to make sure I don't contribute to a problem in the future. Pkohler01 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You can continue contributing the way you like (as long as you stay within the policies), but you need to know that currently suggestions cannot be read by ArenaNet members (due to the licensing issues that are discussed here), and later when we have a solution implemented only the affected places like the new namespace dedicated for suggestions can be used as an appropriate place for suggestions. That doesn't mean you cannot post suggestions somewhere else but just that ArenaNet members won't be able to read them anywhere else, so you can be sure that your suggestion won't make it into the game then.

And with suggestion we mean feedback and suggestions that is for the game, not the wiki. poke | talk 13:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as follow-up on this, when are we going to see the finalized license wording to recognize the namespace method? I assume the orignally proposed license will have to be amended in some way to recognize that it only applies to the feedback namespace... (Satanael 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Heya Satanael! This is currently being worked on, so I'll follow up and see how close to complete it is. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Emily! (Satanael 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Hi, thanks for the great input. I have one final question - does this mean that the suggestion threads such as the Sardelic Sanitarium on the Guru will be an inappropriate place to post a suggestion once the new namespace is implemented or does the licensing apply only to other places on the wiki? Thanks! Pkohler01 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Anythink on the official wiki will not affect any other site. Guild Wars Guru is a different site, so it is not part of this discussion and of anything we decide here. poke | talk 13:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What Poke said is right, but just to add to it I don't think the licensing on Guru (or any other site, for that matter) allows ANet to use the suggestions any more easily than GFDL does (although I haven't looked at it closely). So to answer your question, once the new namespace is up, that will be the only sure fire way to make sure ANet can use your feedback. (Satanael 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

Sorry it's taking us a while to prepare the updated language. We've all been working super hard on Guild Wars 2 these past few weeks as we prepare for a product development review next week. After next week, things will return to normal, and we'll work with the community to get the new Feedback namespace implemented. --Mike O'Brien 23:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How did all of this start?

ArenaNet announced an official wiki site and all was good. Now after a considerable amount of time has passed by, suddenly we can't even post anything that even hints at a suggestion regarding a possible direction for the GW games to take, both minor and major. I'm confused as of to why is this happening now and why is it an issue now? Is there any simplified explanation somewhere that I'm overlooking? Thanks! – Barinthus 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's been an official explanation for this new atmosphere of caution. Some of us suspect it's due to the Worlds.com patent lawsuit. Another possibility is that NCsoft's recent restructuring, which included the formation of NC West to manage NCsoft's American and European subsidiaries, improved communication between ArenaNet and the legal department. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like either a software or business method patent. Several recent court decisions have cast deep doubts on the validity of these kinds of patents, but East Texas, where this particular suit was filed, is notorious for encouraging patent trolls. It is very likely that as a result of the suit, the lawyers reviewed the entire legal situation and found a potential problem with GFDL. I will refrain from comments about lawyers, but patent trolls are vicious... --mtew 09:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

SPOILERS: You're being lied to and this is just their way of making the players shut up so they can do whatever they want to you. 68.193.113.198

Cool, I'd like players to shut up. Misery 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too! Personally, I'm tired of the know-it-all whiners that can't just enjoy the game. -- Wyn 21:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But seriously, my opinion on what started this was our persistent questioning of ArenaNet to reply to us regarding the suggestion page restructuring. With a large portion of the wiki and forum communities screaming that no one from ArenaNet ever commented on their suggestions, or would provide any answers about how useful any user suggestions were pretty much forced them to take a closer look at all of it. -- Wyn 21:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The recent copyright issues ArenaNet had are probably not unimportant for their decision to be a bit stricter on this either.. poke | talk 22:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

An official explanation, though I don't see it coming, would be nice. 000.00.00.00 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I really wouldn't be surprised if this was just to get the community, that is on wiki, to be quiet about the constant, never ending, always repeated tenfold, suggestions. But if that is the case, wouldn't it be easier - although a bit more cost effective - to hire someone or add to someone's current job to read and respond to suggestions? (and in effect create a list of the bigger suggestions in a similar method to an FAQ *FSS - Frequently Stated Suggestions?* and just redirect to there instead of constantly responding the same way? Meh, wall of text but yeah... Anyways, I'll be glad once this licensing gets through to some suggesters' brains... Yay for less repeated and/or idiotic ideas which don't include the possibleness or work of coding? x) -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you missed the part where this indicates they are legally not allowed to comment on suggestions... Misery 15:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not allowed is probably just a bit too strong a way of expressing the situation. Very inadvisable (and maybe not that very) is closer. But in any case, the developers have apparently received orders from on high... --mtew 16:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

IF anyone has actually played Worlds.com, it's a terrible mess that has nothing to do with GuildWars aside from a 3d chat room. There are more similarities to games like Second Life. Why would they go after Anet and THEN Second Life?68.193.113.198

@Misery, I meant that if this deal is because of all the massive amounts of suggestions being proposed, like Mr. 68.193.113.198 "speculated." Do not take my rambling as serious to the immediate action and situation, but instead of thoughts on why those actions and the situations occured. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@wynn "know-it-all whiners that can't just enjoy the game." that's really funny because anyone who says or dose anything on this wiki acts like that Especially you wynn. -- Zesbeer 20:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks folks for trying to help to clarify what's going on. – Barinthus 01:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I detect sarcasm (atleast I hope I do). Also, I doubt Wyn was "only joking". ...that said, No Devs from any Studio should ever comment on user suggestions from anyone who is not on their pay-roll, ever. Doing so risks giving indisputable proof of origin of said Intellectual Property & copyright/invention ownership. Even open-source companies like VALVe must literally "buy back" the User-Generated code/artwork their own fans make whenever they include that content in a major marketable update. If all of A-Net's Devs didn't want suggestions posted, they'd simply ignore everyone like Izzy started doing --ilr 19:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

a ironic suggestion

i don't know if this has been suggested before but with the current suggestions i feel that they should just be placed in a temporary archive and then when this hole issue gets sorted out have reminders sent to the talk pages of the people who suggested them in the fist place to have them repost it in the new space or have them do what ever is necessary.-- Zesbeer 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike's page is not the place for this, and that has been completely covered in the discussion that has been going on for several months now. The temporary archive is called their userspace. -- Wyn 01:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

then wynn you need to change your tag for deleltion. because if your just moveing it to there user space then the tag needs to reflect that.-- Zesbeer 06:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For new suggestions, people can just archive them by themselves by putting them in their own user space. Totally not Wyn's or anyone-else-who-is-tagging's responsibility. Misery 11:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

missery im refering to this tag

This Suggestion can not be commented on because of the current licensing as noted at the top of this page.
It should be moved to the poster's userspace or it will be deleted on Tuesday, 12 May 2009.

-- Zesbeer 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the tag? - Tanetris 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

clearly she changed it sence the last time i read it.-- Zesbeer 23:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User:Linsey_Murdock/suggestions&action=history. Note how the first version mentions moving to the person's userspace and the deletion bit is added afterwards. - Tanetris 23:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Note how i didnt know you could look at where a template was stored.-- Zesbeer 23:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Zesbeer, I want you to know, any suggestion that has been posted on a staff talk page by a registered user since this began HAS been moved to their userspace (most often by me). The deletion clause only affects suggestions posted by unregistered users who do not HAVE a userspace to post them to. Again, I encourage any user to move their own suggestions to their userspace if they get tagged, or better yet, STOP POSTING SUGGESTIONS ON STAFF TALK PAGES until this is resolved. Also, I would like to note that adding a clause to your signature that anything you post is free for ArenaNet to use is pointless and has no legal validity, and does give your suggestions any commentary privileges. -- Wyn 07:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

whatever wyn-- Zesbeer 10:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know that GW is rotting away?

The last update was really bad. Nothing game-breaking got fixed, balanced skills got nerfed or buffed. Do you (arenanet) still want us to play the game after what the GWLT had done in the last year (completely messing up game-balance. the last updates can't even be called balancing updates)? I'm just curious. Boro 10:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No you are not, you are just trolling. You are behaving like a poorly informed version of Shard and it is inducing many facepalms. Just STFU and stop parroting and bitching on every talk page. Misery 10:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Misery on this one. Many many facepalms. -- Salome 11:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr O'Brien's a very busy man and likely the wrong person to address this to. I'm not agreeing with that horrible Misery person (it likes company), Just pointing out that efforts could be made elsewhere to make this point more constructively. --ilr 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New Wording

Hi Mike/Emily, any update on the new wording? Last we heard here was to wait a week or so, but that was a couple weeks ago. Any update would be helpful. Thanks, Satanael 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Heya Satanael! I just got an update from our legal team, and it looks like we're shooting to get the wording to you guys in about a week or so. Once it's up, we'll wait a few days and then push it live across the site. So, unless something crazy pops up, this should be done done in the new few weeks. Yay! :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Any chance to get some ANet input here before then? Misery 23:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree (am I really saying that??) ...The overlap between skill feedback/suggs could cause a feedback loop and overwhelm both 'Wyn & Lin' assuming Lin takes over some of the skill burden from still-solebalancer Izzy like she said she plans to... Something should be coordinated there to ensure parity and equality (and most of all: organization) between these areas. --ilr 23:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)