Talk:Inquisition

Not convinced that the list should be part of the Inquisition page.
-Glimmereyes 22:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glimmer, I do not yet see a good reason why it should be part of Elanthipedia. Until a good arguement can be made, I'm removing it. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi^(talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I was asked to correct some errors on the Inquisition page and to add to the content. As the e-pedia is "A collaborative project with the mission of indexing and archiving as much information about the online text-based rpg DragonRealms as possible." I felt this information needed to be posted as it deals with the Inquisition. I believe it is justified because this information is not a secret but would be public knowledge to anyone in the game trying to attain it. Inquisitors and followers/supporters offer out their lists to anyone who asks and Lancel has made a posted list IC'ly on the forums placing the list at every major city gate for anyone coming into the city to read. Magan 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd have to agree with Magan on this. If it has been posted on the play.net forum and the Mods haven't removed it then it is already readily available to anyone willing to visit the play.net forums and we have all sorts of play.net forum posts up. If the Mods can't justify removing it from the play.net forums I don't believe it should be removed from here. Lbslcasey 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with both Magan and Lbslcasey. There was a list posted IC a month ago and an updated list posted again this past weekend neither of which were removed from the play.net forums and neither of which I was asked to not post again. While Elanthipedia is NOT IC much of the information accumulated here is and is used IG. What is the differance if the list is made easily available here or on the Play.net Forum. Which BTW an updated list will be going up again in another month. -- Lancel 23:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because it's considered "IC information" and available from other sources does not mean it needs to be on this specific page. The information could be offered on the Apostle's page, for instance, if it needs to be here, Elanthipedia, at all. Posting a list of players without their consent on Elanthipedia is a different thing then making an IC post on the play.net boards. This is an OOC resource and people are unlikely to treat the information as such. It will only support metagaming and harassment of those players.--Zamara 00:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Zamar on this. While I don't care for lists accusing players of things, there is precedence with Veyne's Rings and Sandbagging, and if this list is accepted it will be similarly regulated. Although unlike those two instances, this is not part of a IG story line or part of a definition.

As for the list being posted on the Inquisition page, its only connection to Inquisition is that it concerns necromancers, who are disliked by more than just the Inquisition. The list was created and maintained by a PC who, to the best of my knowledge, has no official position within the Inquisition let alone one that provides the authority to speak on behalf of the group. The list should should be added to the Order of the Apostles page, or possibly it's own page if you can make a case that this is significant enough.
-Glimmereyes 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My concerns are thus:

• I am generally against any article that gives out negative information on PCs. The purpose of this wiki is enhance the experience of the game, and as many people do not view conflict as enjoyable, I'm reluctant to be part of it.
• There are always issues of verification and opinion, as evidenced by several articles that required arbitration such as the sandbagging article. Barring a convenient mechanism, it's not worth the staff's time to have to regulate it.
• There is an unfortunate tendency to blur the line between the OOC information here and IC information in game. I am uncomfortable with us playing accessory to the already present problems with Necromancer harassment due to OOC information. Yes, it may be gained in game, but that's where it should be gained.

As a side note, while the policies and standards of the forums and other websites may be useful as a guide, but the goal of the play.net forums is not the same as that of Elanthipedia.

Having said that, I've talked it over with the other mods, and we've come to a decision. The list must be moved a separate page that makes it clear that the list is a player/character's opinion and not anything established as fact by either DragonRealms or Elanthipedia. The page may be updated as desired, with the understanding its existance is predicated upon it not becoming an issue. Should it become a problem, we will most likely extend our existing secrecy policy on Necromancers to PCs as well. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi^(talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's your website, we'll have to yield to whatever you think. It'll be moved to another page. Magan 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)