Talk: Acorns

Screenshot or it didn't happen. ;-D --◄mendel► 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to AGF, but this just seems ridiculous. I don't even think there are any oak trees in the game.--franc likes tacos 02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus, considering things like that are all but impossible (Hall of Monuments is the only place anything except quests changes the area), having a personal tree is just stupid.Entrea [Talk] 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest having a sense of humor for two days and then moving the page elsewhere.... --◄mendel► 02:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly doubtful...no doubt the "rarest item in the game" quote unquote would have gained some repute prior to now. Left a note on the IP's page. - Ad Victoriam 03:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For a second I thought this person was claiming to have gotten a 'chestnut'. Now that would be a rare item to have. "They've begun calling the strange brown boxes 'chestnuts.' We've discovered that when we place them on the stone pedestals they light up." - Found southwest of Augury Rock. Then again, since the icon image was eventually reused for Powerstones I think they would have removed them from the game even if an alpha tester still had one (ignoring the inventory wipe on launch too). Ezekiel [Talk] 03:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an extremely easy way to check this. Simply go with one of the two people who claim to have grown a tree, then check the exact same spot alone. If the tree's not there when they're not there, they grew it. 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mestara Adalet doesn't exist. --Macros 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Entrea, the acorn action could be a quest, with a specific spot to drop them. Though, as I said, I believe that's unlikely. --◄mendel► 13:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, This is just another hoax page. I Q.Q 'ed at it for a moment, checked the names (No luck) and passed it as a hoax. PossessedLinebeck 13:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

tasty acorn is tasty

kk. ♥Misfate♥ 04:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Adopt-a-page program

When it is decided that proof won't be forthcoming, please move the pages to the redirects in my userspace, unless the real author steps forth (no, it is not I). --◄mendel► 13:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, just delete this crap. It's so blatantly obvious this is total rubbish. -- - talk 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. PossessedLinebeck 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with them. The burden of proof should not be on us, the wiki community - it should be on the editor who added the information. The anon who created the article has no other contributions on the wiki and has not responded to any of these comments. Furthermore, how could something like this be completely unknown to the GW community at large (Guru/GWO/etc.)? If two people can find it, then two more people can find it, and eventually it would be mentioned on some fansite. If the claim is true and the players had to wait a month for the trees to grow, then I find it extremely unlikely that no one else would have found an acorn in that time and posted on Guru/GWO to ask, "WTF is this?" —Dr Ishmael 14:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Actually, given the vanity level of the average GW player, I would've expected people to be all over Guru shouting, "HEY LOOK WHAT I GOT!!!" rather than simply asking what to do with it. —Dr Ishmael 14:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think GW:AGF would at least extend to not assuming these two players are not the very pinnacle of humility. If people want to post "exclusive" information here first, we should be grateful, not suspicious. Nonetheless, it's very dubious information, and I'm working to verify or disprove it in-game. 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for (re)deleting this. Mendel is just about the only person who actually thinks this has value. It's not even that funny, it's just a guy making up stupid bs about an "easter egg" in the game that no one else has even heard about. If there was even a hint about it actually existing, there would be a hundred threads about it. Miniature Polar Bear, anyone? Even though there were only a few in the game, there were wild discussions about it all over various forums. Special items that let you grow a tree? Not a word. This is just stupid keeping a page like this because one person thinks its funny and a couple more are insistent on proving its existence one way or another (which, by the way, can't be done, as the people who "found" the acorns don't seem to exist). Let's just get it over with and delete this junk.Entrea [Talk] 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr Ishmael, of course we're waiting for some comment. How long do you think is a reasonable wait in this case? It's been only 15 hours now, not even a whole day. My suggestion was (and still is) to wait a reasonable period, in this case 1-2 days; we expect no proof to be forthcoming, so then we can delete. The argument arises only because some people want to delete earlier, but I don't see why it is necessary. The wait shows our assuming good faith, there is an end to that as we have made it clear via this talk page and the delete tag that we don't believe the information as of now, and that it will be deleted (or archived, if I get my way) if it remains unproven. So what can we gain by being hasty in deletion? It's not as if there's a flood of spoof pages at our door. (What's the last spoof you've seen outside user space?) --◄mendel► 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The primary reason there is no flood of spoof pages is we are usually quick to revert vandalism and delete foolish articles. Quite frankly, Mendel, you've shown a bizarre and very irritating propensity for defending things that ought not to be defended. 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So we agree to disagree with anyone who supports the acorn? I say we have a good argument against it considering NOONE has ever really reported seeing one before, no forum posts have been made and those who supposedly found one do not really exist. All in favor? PossessedLinebeck 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I bet the anon is getting a kick out of this. --Macros 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I had to do it :P

This user claims to have found an Acorn!

PossessedLinebeck 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Seth Bairen is a real user, let's give him a day or so to get online. 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't real about 4 hours ago...PossessedLinebeck 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See, now this is the kind of thing that prompted me to propose my over-wordy AGF addendum so that bureaucracy didn't require us to keep things like this on the wiki for any length of time (as it may mislead people browsing the wiki for information - not something we should be doing). Can't some sensible admin come along and use their er, 'arbitration' rights to settle disagreement over this. I wouldn't want to be lacking in er, "good faith" or anything, but seriously, acorns!? - bullshit-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we've sucessfully killed the oak tree on which this acorn grows....PossessedLinebeck 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone did settle the issue, but someone else complained that it might be valuable, so Auron undeleted it. MAYBE six hours was too short a time (personally, I think it was more than enough), but 15 hours with no further word about these two nonexistent people who found an "ultra rare item" is plenty for anyone except Mendel.Entrea [Talk] 18:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

...and as such consensus and common sense should win out over one user, surely?-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Auron we're talking about. Even he thought it was ridiculous, though. He wanted more discussion, we've discussed it more, and just about everyone but Mendel agrees it should be axed.Entrea [Talk] 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it again in the spirit of preserving the accuracy of GuildWiki. I'll leave the talk page so that discussion can continue and any results of in-game research can be posted.

Mendel: (or archived, if I get my way) What you want to keep in your userspace is your business, I don't have a problem with you archiving this. —Dr Ishmael 19:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Cobalt: "as it may mislead people browsing the wiki for information" - how is anyone going to find this article? almost everybody who reads RC has posted here, the article is not linked, and if you find it via the search box then you have just encountered an Acorn in-game (think about that one). Plus there's a big box at the top that basically says, "don't believe this".

"15 hours with no further word" - given regular online times the user would have to be online over the space of 9 hours to be online now if he is online when he posted that. Many people aren't.

You are also assuming that the user knows about talk pages, and that he has the same IP address when he logs back in.

"Spirit of accuracy" is the norm, then? --◄mendel► 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mendel:I'm sorry, hosting lies in mainspace still seems wrong, despite the unlikliness of a user stumbling across it. And tbh, - "acorns", seriously now-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it unprobable

• GW is instanced. You won't grow anything in an instance, and have it when you return
• 2 people found an ultra uber megaly imba rare item, and dropped it on the ground
• They returned one month later, to find a tree.
• Noone else, in one month, found another acorn
• They both knew each other, conveniently
• Neither of the two bothered to tell anyone
• It has absolutely no use at all. Besides, if they'd have trees grow, they'd overpopulate and probably some asses will completely block off areas with trees. ANet isn't that stupid.
• Addendum: They decided not to tell anyone, yet an anon found out about them and teven knew their IGNs.
• Addendum^2: This anon knew they wanted to keep it a secret and shouted it about on a wiki. Go to guru for that crap.

Case closed? It's so unlikely, and nonsensical... --- -- (s)talkpage 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I PMed the seth guy, and he had no idea what I was talking about. Lord of all tyria

This is the most sense I've seen all day. Especially in this topic. PossessedLinebeck 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We agree it is unlikely. It is not impossible, though. If there is a new (or undiscovered) quest where a player gets an acorn and instructions to plant it in a specific spot then I could imagine something like that working in GW. There would be a single tree in that instance, so no overpopulation. The two characters could be 2 accounts of the same player, or close friends, one of whom told his discovery to the other. They did not decide to not tell anyone, reread the article. The unlikely thing is for something as elobarate as that being in the game and so badly publicized that noone knows about it - if you produce content, you want players to be able to see it. --◄mendel► 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article says that the players are willing to show people their trees. If Lord of all tyria is correct, the Seth guy doesnt even know what were talking about. How does that work out? PossessedLinebeck 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Chat log or it didn't happen? I agree it is a piece of evidence, albeit circumstantial. --◄mendel► 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

anyone wanna chat with the guy again and tale a screenie? btw i lol'd at the see also pages on a talk page. Roland Cyerni 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Loat's post cinches it imo; I didn't get a chance to PM whats-his-face, but that was really the only hope Acorns had. 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone hasn't done it already, Ill go ask the Seth dude when I get a chance, and ill take a screenie. PossessedLinebeck 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Chat log or it didn't happen?" oh im sorry, the irony is just painful though. You are willing to accept that 2 players who both knew each other found a mysterious new game-mechanic defying item that A-net have said nothing about and then decided that they best not tell anyone, on the basis of absolutely no evidence, yet you demand screenshots for an entirely plausible player denial of the afformentioned acorn finding before you beleive it. Really, which side of AGF are you on here? - you cant choose both-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure that most of Mendel's comments on this page are tongue-in-cheek. — Powersurge360Violencia 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but he still appealed on the admin noticeboard to have this undeleted. As such i will contest this because this whole acorns thing is just manifestly ridiculous and if were going to keep it, it should be in a userspace (i know it already is) with a guildwiki humor tag attatched-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I smell opportunity.PossessedLinebeck 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cobalt, please read more carefully what I write. I am sure I have written at least thrice that I think it is unlikely the information in Acorns is/was true. You make it appear that I am willing to accept it on the basis of Acorns alone: I am not and never have been. Read my very first line on this very page! I am, however, prepared to accept that I may be wrong, and because of that I want to give the author a reasonable chance to bring convincing proof. I would have been willing to wait for this proof for two days, and if there wouldn't have been any forthcoming, a deletion would be fully justified. It is also my belief that waiting for two days does no harm.

Maybe the misunderstanding stems from the fact that I do think that noone has so far convincingly proven that Acorns is false. My thought currently is, "It's highly unlikely, but I don't really know for sure". If you reason "mendel doesn't think it's false, hence mendel must think it's true", you are victim of a logical fallacy.

I extend good faith to LoT; I have written that I accept his post as evidence that some information in this post is currently false, which his circumstantial evidence toward discarding the post altogether. (Could a name have been misspelled?) I would have liked to see the chatlog to form my own opinion of what this "Seth" person wrote, hence my slightly tongue-in-cheek (marked doubtful by a question mark!) comment.

I have appealed, it has been undeleted, this talk remains undeleted, and Dr Ishmael has claimed that the "spirit of accuracy" allows breaking GW:DID. I can see that consensus is against me, so I have not called for renewed undeletion, instead I have proposed that GW:DID be repealed or substantially modified to reflect this. --◄mendel► 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But in cases such as this, surely the responsibility for providing proof falls upon the editor who posted the information in the firstplace, not the rest of the community. Also, in this particular case, the evidence against the existence of these acorns is massive - Anet haven't said anything about them, nothing on GWW etc etc, as such, this can perhaps be considered semi-intelligent vandalism, rather than a well-meant contribution. Also, i think that now, even if not when the article was first posted, sufficient time has elapsed for the poster to provide proof, and as none has been forthcoming i think it should stay deleted. Also, i love your edit summary - "telling cobalt i don't beleive in acorns", oh dear, do you beleive in spoons? :P-- - (Talk/Contribs) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Does leaving one vandalism edit seriously degrade the wiki? No. But if this one has to be left for two days, then under what principle can any other insertion of false information be reverted within two days? All that a vandal would have to do is to assert that something only rarely happens, and then it would be impossible to prove it false.

Of course no one can prove that acorns don't exist. Proving such a universal negative tends to be impossible. Can you (which can be taken as the reader, not just mendel) prove that you're not a serial murderer? No, you cannot, which is why we accept a complete absence of evidence as sufficient. Quizzical 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Acorn fiasco doesn't end soon I can prove I AM a serial murderer. PossessedLinebeck 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, well done, have some rhetorical flourish points :P-- - (Talk/Contribs) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, *improbable. Secondly, I truly, honestly cannot believe this ridiculous discussion is still going on. 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cause its a fun ridiculous discussion.PossessedLinebeck 19:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find stupidity "fun." :/ Hypothetically speaking, if the maker of Acorns came back, realized what a hubbub his little fictitious drop caused, and also realized how amusing it is to confound and irritate other human beings, what would the result of that be? You guessed it, folks; a whole bunch more idiotic, fallacious pages. With mendel defending each and every one. 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I truly believe that if Slorking Nackbuster were created, Mendel would not rest until he found one in Dragon's Gullet. 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry, I don't find stupidity "fun."" - get out. Seriously though, who cares what the original poster thinks, he provides us with opportunities for amusing debates which is one of the better parts of a wiki as far as im concerned xD-- - (Talk/Contribs) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Screw contribution, I joined for the discussion X3 jk of coursePossessedLinebeck 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Felix, that made me laugh out loud. :D 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See also

• MP47 talk
• Admin noticeboard
• GuildWiki talk:Don't immediately delete
• User:m.mendel/Acorns