GuildWiki talk:We are not ArenaNet


 * Archived discussion of implementation of this policy can be found at GuildWiki talk:We are not ArenaNet/Archive 1

Article name
Shouldn't this be "We are not ArenaNet" instead of "GuildWiki is not ArenaNet"? &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 15:11, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Agreed. &mdash;Tanaric 15:13, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I also agree. Both because it should address the community "We" rather than the site; and because it's already in the GuildWiki namespace, so saying it again in the article title is redundant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:24, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Done. &mdash;Tanaric 15:48, 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)


 * Disagreed. We cannot be responsible for what people do with information that can be misused. I think the potential good of our scams article outweighs the potential bad, and history has verified this sort of full-disclosure-friendly outlook via the repeated security fixes with online-enabled computer software. &mdash;Tanaric 15:19, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * My view was the other way around. Why have that in the GuildWiki is not ArenaNet. I know it's not solely there to help people scam but still.  I think the line "advice on how to scam other players" is contradicting what we actualy have in the wiki.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  15:28, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * To me, the key word is solely. While the scam article could be used to scam, it's purpose is quite obviously the opposite. Keeping the sentence in the policy is important because it illustrates that articles like, say, "Guide to DDOSing the Guild Wars Servers" will not be allowed, as there is no positive use for such an article. &mdash;Tanaric 15:42, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * The line doesn't say anything about hurting Anet. So a ddos attack aint coverted by that, well maybe the eula does say that you aren't allowed to attack theire server.  Anyway the only problem is only this part : "advice on how to scam other players".  The page about scamming is oviously important and that everytime that someone post how to scam people it will only be change to fit in the "don't get scam by this" format.  That part of the policy will never see any use.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  16:10, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * I agree with Tanaric that the line should stay a it is. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Fear of reprisal
"We will not penalize users for acts against the EULA. Editors can boast about selling accounts for real money, or utilizing exploits in-game, without fear of reprisal." - just to make things crystal clear, perhaps this should be changed to "We will not penalize users for acts against the EULA. Editors can boast about selling accounts for real money, or utilizing exploits in-game, without fear of reprisal from GuildWiki."? --NieA7 19:08, 3 February 2007 (CST)


 * Eh...but what if a user of GuildWiki decides to report someone to ANet based on such boastings? True, GuildWiki itself is not the one doing the reprisal, but still... Entropy 19:10, 3 February 2007 (CST)


 * That's kinda what I'm getting at. We ain't reprising, we're just telling tales - it'll be up to those that listen to carry out any reprisals. Bearing in mind that "Any allegations of breaches of the EULA are likely to be reported to ArenaNet immediately by multiple editors." is already there I don't think there'd be any ambiguity. Basically, if you brag of an exploit you can contribute to GuildWiki just the same as before, it's only your GuildWars account that's in danger. --NieA7 19:21, 3 February 2007 (CST)