GuildWiki talk:We are not ArenaNet/Archive 1

Section 0
This does not touch the issue of deleting article history, which as LordBiro pointed out violates our own license agreement. --Karlos 08:56, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Deleting the entire history and recreating, as was done with Talk:Guild Wars Nightfall, is a possible violation of the "by" portion of "by-nc-sa". Only the history from the leak and beyond should have been wiped. (This can still be fixed by restoring all revisions up to the leak, then all revisions from the recreated page and beyond.) However, deleting specific edits that leak information protected by NDAs is just good sense. As was pointed out in that guru thread, there have been instances where prosecution was brought against persons not under an NDA simply because they were serving as a medium for a leak. Why should the wiki risk prosecution? (Not that I think NC Interactive would be stupid enough to bring a lawsuit against their biggest fansite.) 199.77.130.14 09:03, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * There are levels for how that should have been handled:
 * a) A comment like "Skill X is rumored to be getting stronger" is not even worth talking about.
 * b) Serious leaks warrant that contact be made with ANet first. I would WANT them to ASK us to remove it. It maybe they don't care. I would not go about removing parts of an article history for any lesser reason than that.
 * c) Such an act in and of itself does not constitute an act punishable by banning. However, if the user is told that such content is unwelcome and he keeps posting it, then he is in trouble.
 * --Karlos 09:07, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * That's an alarmingly common-sense approach - keep up talk like that and we'll have to drop all the polemic and side taking, and then where shall we be? However, for what it's worth I completely agree with 199.77 - keep as much of the wiki and its history intact as is humanly possible, but leaks from closed alpha/beta/whatever tests are not something that should be hosted or linked to from here. I don't see why "we" shouldn't take it upon ourselves to remove NDA protected content, but if other users would prefer somebody to contact ANet first (as Karlos suggests) I don't see why that couldn't work, so long as ANet are contacted as quickly as is humanly possible. --NieA7 09:11, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * The reason is that the precedents in which history deletion was used were BAD precedents. The posting of gossip and rumors is NOT forbidden in talk pages. On the contrary, I WANT to see such rumor and gossip and I frankly don't care if it's based on an actual leak or not. --Karlos 09:16, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * You may not care but that's beside the point from ANet's point of view - if it weren't for ANet et al we wouldn't have Guild Wars anyway so I'm always inclined towards them rather than the players (many of whom seem to have nothing better to do than slag ANet off in the first place - some of the comments people make when skills are changed are beyond belief). The trouble is for those not in the know it's impossible to tell the difference between a leak and a rumour, which is another point in favour of contacting ANet first and contacting them about anything that smells like a leak (at least that way the onus shifts onto them to determine what is covered by an NDA and what is now). If that was the policy that was adopted though it would require very careful monitoring on "our" part (I put these things in speech marks as I have no intention of becoming one of these monitors). --NieA7 09:22, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

The histories of Talk:Guild Wars Nightfall and Talk:Elona should be restored, except for the edits that contained the "leaked" maps. There is no justification for wiping the entire history of a page such as Talk:Elona with a long history full of important precedent-setting discussions. 65.111.168.40 10:08, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I was thinking about starting this myself, and then I noticed it was already here. It's a really good document Karlos, I can't think of anything to change at the moment. Good work :)


 * To NieA7 and 65.111.168.40, I don't feel there is ever an excuse for deleting history, not unless ArenaNet ask for it, and even then only if we as a wiki deem it a reasonable request. I'm not saying this is the admin's decision or anything, I don't want anything removed from the site indefinitely unless the wiki is ok with it.


 * Equally I think contributors should be able to discuss rumour freely, as long as it doesn't spill over into articles.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:25, 16 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I just restored the history of Talk:Guild Wars Nightfall which did not contain links to the leaked maps. It looked like the history of Talk:Elona already has only non-leak containing history in it.
 * As for policy - I have no problem allowing discussion of alpha rumors. If someone wants to claim that they heard such-and-such and even claim that they heard it from an alpha tester, let them.  If ArenaNet wants it removed, they will need to request it.
 * My only concern are links to alpha screen-captures, as those represent direct violations of ArenaNet copyrights - such as the detailed map of Elona that had been pieced together from radar images. As part of the Guild Wars fansite program, there are expectations that ArenaNet has established, one of which is to abide by the terms of service.  Those terms have two relevant quotes:
 * First, in response to if Alpha testers can post in-game images: "All in-game images are the property of ArenaNet, and during the Alpha Test, all images will be released exclusively by ArenaNet or its parent company, NCsoft."
 * Second, in regards to fansites and the use of copyright content: "You may not use our content on sites that contain or link to sites containing ... Objectionable content, as determined by ArenaNet."
 * Based on their stance towards alpha testers leaking information, I believe it's reasonable to believe that they would consider hosting or linking to such content to be "objectionable content". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:14, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
 * In the case of such images, I agree we shouldn't host them. But that in no way means we should be purging revisions from article history.  It means we should delete images uploaded to the wiki.  A link should stay unless ANet requests removal (upon which time we decide or have a policy already), since the "objectional content" is not on our site and the copyrighted material is not on our site.  --Fyren 21:34, 16 September 2006 (CDT)


 * you cannot link to sites that conatain the Objectionable content -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 21:49, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
 * No:
 * To disallow and remove links or promotion of adult (pornographic) sites, sites that provide or support software hacking or piracy, sites that support, advertise or offer in-game items for real currency, and sites that encourage game cheating.
 * "Objectionable content" is not on the list. We can't know if something is "objectionable" until they tell us, anyway.  "Objectionable content" is only mentioned in the terms of use for where one can use ANet's copyrighted material.  --Fyren 21:55, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Our site uses a great deal of ArenaNet's copyrighted content. Therefore, their statement in terms of service is relevant to us.  It clearly states "You may not use our content on sites that contain or link to sites containing ... Objectionable content, as determined by ArenaNet."  Based on their attitude towards Alpha testers posting screen images, it is quite apparent that they consider making that content publicly available is objectionable to them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 16 September 2006 (CDT)

On this article, bullets one and three are contradictory. Exploiting a flaw in the game and ruining the economy is against the Terms of Service. &mdash;Tanaric 03:25, 17 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I did not interpret points 1 and 3 as being contradictory. Is documenting a flaw in the game the same as encouraging users to exploit that flaw? I'm not really certain.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:57, 17 September 2006 (CDT)

I thought GUildWiki is not an encyclopedia
Have I always been wrong, or has that changed lately? I was so certain of it I thought there might've been an article GuildWiki:GuildWiki is not an encyclopedia. - 00:08, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Is this what you meant? It seems we're not a lot of things ... getting some negative vibes here ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:10, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah that's probably one of the places I got my impression from. - 01:33, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Who else thinks we should start GuildWiki is not a pipe?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:28, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Despite us not being a pipe, the policies should be consistent. --Xeeron 04:58, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

"Portray negatively"
The policy "We will not censor content that may portray any aspect of the game negatively ..." should be reworded. It sounds like a slap in the face for ANet, as it is quite clearly in conflict with ANet's expectation: "Members of the Guild Wars Community Fansite Program webmasters and all site staff members agree to [...] assure that site content reflects positively upon the company and the game." As far as I understand, the main point of the paragraph is about documentation of ingame bugs / design flaws and possible exploits. The first sentence of the paragraph should make that clearer. -- 05:24, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * May I suggest the following wording:
 * "We allow for documentation of ingame design flaws and bugs (as long as the neutral point of view is maintained), even if such design flaw / bug can be exploited. For example, if an objective of a mission can be bypassed, we will not remove such instructions from the respective walkthrough. We believe that, if ANet do not endorse such an exploit, the bug should be fixed, rather than hidden."
 * Does that sound okay? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:38, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, that makes sense.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:51, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, I was trying to avoid saying so in the discussion about linking, but the expectations/terms of use are somewhere between draconian and stupid. Here are some situations regarding the expectations:
 * Let's say there's a bug that allows users to say something in public chat that will crash every client that receives the message. Let's say ANet doesn't fix it and we have a page describing the bug (even if it doesn't provide enough information to cause the crashes) and that says "the bug was discovered on the eleventy-third of Octvember" and it's now three months later.  ANet can tell us to remove it (as does not "reflect positively" on the company or game).
 * For linking, let's say we link to a site that links to a site with something ANet find very objectionable and ANet knows it. They will tell us to remove the link.  What if that site is google.com?  What if Google's cache actually directly contains "objectionable" material?  Do we make it policy to not link Google because they might cache something bad?  Do we make it policy to not link anywhere since we can't control content on other sites?  ANet gets to define objectionable material at any time, to boot.
 * Sites have to "meet standards for quality and design." ANet can tell us we have a bad color scheme and to remove all copyrighted content.
 * Moving on to the first section of the terms of use, which describes when you can use ANet content on a web site:
 * You can't "alter" any of their copyrighted material. I think we just might have an image or two that we've "altered."
 * "The content must be used in a noncommercial context for private, personal use only." Nice private, personal wiki we have here.
 * Most succinct is that "you agree that ArenaNet has the right to request removal of our content at any time, for any reason."
 * TAs if the others didn't give you the hint, they actually say it straight in the last point. They can tell you to remove something at their whim.  Now, I doubt ANet will act on these terms, yet the terms are there.  Some lawyer's line of thought was "protect everything at all costs and don't trust anyone" when they were writing that up, I suppose.  I guess we can deal with this in a few ways:
 * We pre-emptively make policies and jump through hoops and trust they don't tell us to pull material because they feel like it.
 * We ignore the expectations/ToU and make policies as we see fit. We try to make sure we don't do something stupid.  We deal with things according to our existing policies.  Until page histories had revisions deleted (the wiki actually still contains the data, even though only admins can get to it now...), this is effectively what we were doing.
 * We purge ANet's copyrighted content where we can't justify it as being used under fair use, ignore the expectations/ToU, and don't have to worry about anything since ANet no longer has the ability to order us to essentially shut our site down.
 * It's their game, but leaving the fate of our wiki in their hands is not appealing to me. Changing things so we act how we imagine will please them isn't any better.  I suggest continuing on as we have and make new policies when there's a problem (such as ANet saying "remove this") and not before.  I don't think I could get a consensus for the third option, so I won't even try.  But I don't think we should make changes simply due to fear of ANet telling us to pull content when that content might be factual, useful, interesting, or a good topic for discussion.  --Fyren 08:07, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * You can always take requirements and exagerate them to the extreme. First, the linking policy only goes to you may not post or link to a site that posts.  There's nothing about linking to a site that links to a site that links to a site, etc ad nauseum.  Second, unless you're proposing a complete redesign of the site, then we've met the meet standards for quality and design long ago.  Even then, there's nothing phrased elsewhere to clarify what would be objectionable on this point, so we would have freedom in this aspect unless they came back later to complain about some aspect.
 * Last, the comments I and others have made are specifically trying to satisfy your proposal that "We try to make sure we don't do something stupid". I suppose you could say its the word stupid in that sentence that's up for discussion here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:57, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * We will portray aspects of the game negatively, not just report bugs. We will say that Alesia using Healing Touch on party members is a dumb idea. We will state that Eve running to give Little Thom a little energy (and get herself killed) is "bad behavior" and we will point out when a game update causes clients in Europe to be unable to connect for 12 hours. It's the simple truth. I think what you guys are trying to say (and it's something we could spell out) is that we will not blast "the game" as a whole or ANet. We are not a gaming magazine with critics, we are an reference for the game. If someone wants to write an essay when ANet is evil because they nerfed Boon Prot, they will need to find another site (or do it on their user page). It is not acceptable on this wiki to write in the update notes: "The stupid game crashes every 10 minutes now," but it is acceptable to write: "The game is reported to crash every 10 minutes for many users." Both statements portray an aspect of the game negatively. The first slams the game, the second does not. --Karlos 09:30, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I still support changing the wording, not because it means we will act any differently but simply because it is more diplomatic to use Tetris' suggestion.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:33, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * The Google example has a case where Google's servers are the ones with the content. Ignoring their "do as we say or we'll take our ball and go home" clause, I have no doubt that ANet would say a link to objectionable content is also objectionable content itself.  So then, we can't link to the link.  But the point is none of these are exaggerations, only worst case scenarios.  "Exaggeration" implies it isn't truth.  It's not like we're engineers making a product and considering "well, what if an elephant steps on it," we're considering what if ANet wants to do what they actually set in writing.
 * It's not about really about whether they will or won't do it, but that they can do it. We've got a site and ANet has the ability to effectively shut it down. ANet has a sign on the wall that says "GuildWiki" and below it is a switch labelled "on/off."  The last of my three ideas is like saying "we assume ANet is evil and might flip it," the middle is like "assume they're not evil and won't actually flip it unless something really screwed up happens," the first is "let's kiss their butts to make sure they never flip it."  Short of information about how to modify the game client to your advantage (and perhaps in-depth descriptions of certain kinds of bugs), preventing any relevant, non-incorrect information from being added should not be a policy. So, allow posting "alpha leaks?"  Yes.  If they ask us to remove it?  Say no.  If they say remove the info or remove all material copyrighted by ANet?  Then we'll think about it (and probably remove it).  --Fyren 10:36, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with Fyren. The legality of a site such as guildwiki is precarious. Technically speaking nearly everything in guildwiki that is not original content is potential copyright infringement. This includes all screenshots, game text (skills, quest, NPCs, etc), images and dialog. None of this is distributable under CC because GuildWiki does not own the original copyright to these items. Because guildwiki is recognized as an official fansite, the best it can claim is that these copyrighted materials are "used with permission" or covered under fair use. Therefore, as a practical matter it is important for guildwiki not to ever piss NCSoft off. To prevent potential legal trouble, I think it is better for guildwiki to be proactive in removing any material that can be perceived (by NCSoft) as damaging to them. Basic cya. 65.111.168.40 11:30, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I do not and will not accept the notion that ANet would be "pissed off" at our side simply because some user mentioned on a talk page some leak he heard somewhere. The nature of our site is different than a site where the content is controlled and provided by a small subset of people. In order for us to deal with this scenario, I need someone to provide us with a statement from ANet in which they are telling US that they would be mad at US in such a situation. I think Fyren's point (which seems lost unto some people) is that it's practically impossible to "guarantee" ANet will never be mad at us because the letter of the law gives them a lot of scope. It's also not in our interest (nor good for our own self-image) to engage in butt-kissing. We should engage in common-sense dealing.
 * I also think that we are not whimps here. We provide ANet and the game with an invaluable service. This service has become so successful largely as a product of how WE decided to run the wiki. We should not go about changing policies (or adapting bad ones like history wiping) for "perceived" threats to our relationship with ANet. There has to be a REAL threat. i.e. contact between them and Gravewit or one of us admins. And even then, we should discuss it with them and among ourselves, not just run about like headless chicken abandoning every protocol we hold sacred.
 * As far as the wording itself. I am a LOT more concerned with clarity, than with the elusive "offending ANet" issue. --Karlos 11:43, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

So is it ok if I put that map on my userpage?-Onlyashadow 08:41, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Not yet, at least. --Fyren 10:36, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

Legal Issues
Legally, there is nothing lawyers can do to force you to change anything here. For slander/libel/defamation cases (the ones where 'negative portrayal' is a factor) the best defense is the facts. The Truth is a 100% impenetrable legal defense. As long as alpha leaks are clearly labeled as rumor/speculation/incomplete there should be nothing to worry about. If they wanted to sue you for copyright infringement based on showing guild wars images or maps, they will have to prove that they have been financially hurt by such an infringement. This is likely never to happen, especially for fan sites (which by definition promote the game), so any intelligent company wouldn't waste time or money suing you on those grounds. Keep in mind that just because something is included in an End User License Agreement does not mean that it is legally binding; especially in cases where it conflicts with federal or state law. Software companies have this odd habit of putting anything and everything in those agreements as if writing them down magically makes them a law. To summarize: there is absolutely nothing to fear. Spayced 21:49, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * Other than the removal of our Specialty Fansite Status, and no longer being listed as a fansite on their site. It's not so much legal concern, more of one about publicity and official recognition, which is a form of endorsement of the wiki.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:21, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * moral :) Xeon 00:26, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Breakdown of issues
We should probably break this discussion down into subtopics. Each person has their own focus so far, and it's getting obvious to me that it's causing quite a bot of confusion as to what people are actually arguing. The way I see it, the various questions are if we allow conversations about potential alpha-leak material? Do we allow conversations about bugs / exploits? Do we allow screen shots of alpha-leak graphics? Add others if I missed some. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:02, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

How to handle conversations about potential alpha-leak material
I say let the conversations take place in the talk pages, but don't post it in the articles. It's rumor and speculation, and I see no problem with this in talk pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:02, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

Do we allow conversations about bugs / exploits?
I see no problem allowing statements mentioning that these exist. I would suggest that it's a bad idea to have instructions in how to exploit a bug - but even then I see levels - an exploit to finish a mission / quest without completing the main design is no big deal to me. While instructions on how to exploit a bug to get the upper hand in an arena would be more serious of an issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:02, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

Isn't the 55 monk a bug/exploit?-Onlyashadow 12:03, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the question should be: "Do we censor" not "Do we allow"? We always allow, especially when it comes to talk pages. The issue is do we want to censor and police certain discussions. I say no. --Karlos 12:15, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * There's a difference between exploiting intentional skill mechanic and AI, vs expoiting bugs. - 12:19, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It might be difficult to see the difference, and only Anet can finally decide it's the one or the other. I'd not label invincimonking as exploiting *intentional* skill mechanics (I'm sure the devs were quite surprised when they learned about it), but since Anet has clearly refused to patch it away, it's not bug-exploiting either, but using an officially sanctioned feature. Would you have allowed description/discussion about it before Anet's stance was clear? Would you allow the following bug descriptions/exploitation instructions?
 * Protective Bond is currently bugged so that it will not end unter certain circumstances, even if it should.
 * ...It will not end when combined with Essence Bond.
 * ...which is currently massively abused to create near-invulnerable players in PvP
 * ...and most GvG teams doing that look something like this: [...]


 * Even if the skill description seems to imply otherwise, Protective Bond will never end when combined with Essence Bond, since Essence will add it's energy after the loss from Protective, but before Protective's expiry check.
 * And how would your opinion change if this bug had surfaced
 * just now
 * yesterday, and now it's commonly seen on observer matches
 * more than a week ago, and every pvp player knows about it?
 * 134.130.4.46 06:46, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

Do we allow screen shots of alpha-leak graphics?
I am against linking to or allowing the posting of alpha-leak graphics. As I stated above (cut and paste time) as part of the Guild Wars fansite program there are expectations that ArenaNet has established, one of which is to abide by the terms of service. Those terms have two relevant quotes. First, in response to if Alpha testers can post in-game images: "All in-game images are the property of ArenaNet, and during the Alpha Test, all images will be released exclusively by ArenaNet or its parent company, NCsoft." Second, in regards to fansites and the use of copyright content: "You may not use our content on sites that contain or link to sites containing ... Objectionable content, as determined by ArenaNet." Based on their stance towards alpha testers leaking information, I believe it's reasonable to believe that they would consider hosting or linking to such content to be "objectionable content". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:02, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Objection on the reasoning. I would remove an alpha-leak image for ethical reasons. It's like allowing a thief a to fence his goods. The text you are quoting above is too general and not specific to Alpha leaks in any way. It also applies to my ele's picture on my user page. So, I am against basing any policy on that over-controlling passage which, as Fyren says, means they have the off switch under their finger.
 * Such conduct encourages breech of contract with ANet, which we generally oppose, such as scamming, getting other users' passwords, buying ebay money and so forth. We don't need to devise new policies for that.
 * If someone posts a link to an image hosted on an external site, depending on how bad the leak is, I might delete that link (from article or talk page) or keep it. If the leak was exponentially bad, I might consider tampering with the pages history. --Karlos 12:14, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * What are some of the factors of consideration when you use the word "bad"? just wondering. - 12:23, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't have a quantitative description right now. Just something that I (as a gamer and a software developer) would look at and say "ANet would REALLY wish no one found out about this yet." An easy example would be someone posting what happens in the storyline (I think Alpha testers don't get to play the REAL storyline but anyways). I am sure they would hate that and I would help them keep it unknown. --Karlos 12:29, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Here's an easier example... If some were to post a screenshot of some cool armor's crafting materials and it showed that ectos or shards or spiritwood planks would be abundantly needed. I would wipe that out. Why? Because it would mess up the economy for that item, while, if players find it out when the game comes out, it would be after ANet had adjusted drop rates in Elona to compensate for the demand. As they did with material drops in Cantha. That would be a bad leak. --Karlos 12:39, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Lovely example, thanks. - 12:41, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

My idea
This languished quickly, but I think it's a good article. I've written a slightly more neutral, less confrontational version of this article here: GuildWiki is not ArenaNet/Suggestion1. Please let me know what you think. &mdash;Tanaric 01:41, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Don't know if we're supposed to comment here or there, but I much prefer it. Personally my ideal would be more on ArenaNet's side, but I could happily sign up to what's given there. --NieA7 03:22, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * That depends on whether you accept Tanarics other idea or not ;-)
 * I like the new formulation, but how about changing the category in the top note to Category:Policy proposal or something similar. Unfinished pages is not fitting. --Xeeron 05:05, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * What has come of this policy? I like Tanarics version. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * I support Tanaric's GuildWiki is not ArenaNet/Suggestion1. It cleans up much of the confrontational wording, while still keeping the intent. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:48, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * No one has opposed this for a long time. Should we implement the Tanarics suggestion in a few days if no one opposes? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * Yes.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:45, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * Listen to that guy, he's the new Tanaric, he knows the score! No seriously I'm up for implementing it. That said it does it cover what PanSola did? (The Alpha Leaks sig), I personally found that templated sig to be totally against what we're about here, done without consultation and I'd like to see it never repeated. --Xasxas256 07:04, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Didn't the sig policy clear that up? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * Did it? There's been a couple of things that have occured during my time here that I really didn't like, PanSola's alpha leaks sig was one of them and I regret not speaking out against it a bit more at the time, so I'm probably bringing up an irrelevant point here. I don't really remember reading anything in the sig policy that say it's ok or not allowed, I might have to browse over it again. --Xasxas256 07:12, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * I don't think the sig policy covers what PanSola did, and I don't think the sig policy should be the place to cover that kind of thing. The reason that I felt strongly about it was not because it was a signature, but because it went against the principles that I believed the wiki stood for. We are dedicated to documenting the game, and if someone wishes to post information garnered from a closed alpha or beta in a talk page then I do not think that they should be stopped.


 * Those people who worried that we would lose our Specialty Fansite Status because we published details from a leak obviously do not realise how utterly unimportant fansite status is!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:30, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * P.S. Out of interest, I would be curious to know which other events you felt strongly about with regard to the wiki Xas. If it's not relevant here, you could post on my talk page or send me an email :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:31, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * The sig policy doesn't cover the content of PanSola's alpha leak sig - but it does cover items that would make it difficult to do again via a sig in the future (sig length, and no use of inclusions). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:51, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * That's exactly what I meant. Without abusing signatures for such campaigns there isn't too muc that a user could do to distrupt the wiki. For example if PanSola had only put a large note on his user and talk pages, no one would have been disturbed. And the policy suggestion of Tanaric makes clear that although the wiki as a community does allow exploits and boasting with illegal acts, users as persons might report them. It's also made clear that the wiki does not allow content which is only used to break law or harm others. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * I support this implementation suggestion. :) &mdash;Tanaric 14:36, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * lol...  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:48, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Implemented today based on discussions above --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Scamming
"We do not retain any content that exists solely to help players violate the license agreement of the game or take advantage of others. This includes in-game prices, advice on how to scam other players, or information on botting." Don't we have a entire page about scamming. I know that is about helping people not getting scam but I'm sure it must have help more scammers find ideas then help people not getting scam. &mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  14:58, 1 February 2007 (CST)