Talk:Idon Raiders

Neutrality of Idon Raiders Article

This article reads like an advertisement. It could use a rewrite with a more neutral point of view. I'll abstain, however, since it's known that I have conflicted with some of the raider's players in the past, and any changes I make might be viewed to have been made with malicious intent.
--Prime-Lorzelophia

Ditto. Consensus back when we started putting up articles on player-run groups was that pages about them were to be general, standardized outlines, not what this article currently has. Something tells me if I try to fix it someone is going to bitch petulantly because it's me, so it would be nice if someone else would fix this. Reene 15:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've modified this page somewhat to try and present a more neutral viewpoint. I am not the one responsible for maintaining this page, so all changes are subject to approval. However, feedback is appreciated. --Dinran 22:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A definite improvement, thanks for taking the time to get it done.--Prime-Lorzelophia 17:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am doing everything i can to NOT make this a battle ground. I have tried to contact Caraamon via his talk page. I simply take down the opinions that are bashing. I am NOT Ragran nor am I trying to hide a thing. I simply think that constant bashing is not necessary considering there is nothing to back up the opinion. One person has constantly posted negatively. One. There were problems when it was first put up but we promptly and quietly fixed every issue that was given to us to fix. Without anger or any kind of conflict. Sarkranis has worked on this and Im simply asking that the bashing stop and understand that more people than Ragran are involved with the raiders and are working their bottoms off. We are ok with being the only player organization with a banner announcing that people shouldnt trust what is said.. We just want it to not be a constant bashing ground. Thank you. The Webmaster of Idonraider.com--IdonsWebmaster 22:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry been a tad busy and I rarely give out my email. The reason you have that banner is because you're part of a group that is surrounded by problems (whether you cause them or not matters not the slightest to me). Like the issue with Veyne's Rings, I put up the banner to let people know that this is an INFORMATION site, not a place for bashing. I am going to contact Fenance, and if he/she cares enough to provide proof of his/her statements, the post will return. Till then, I don't care.

I'm going to restate this: My personal feelings for your group and/or it's activities will not come into play. What determines my actions will be how much of a headache this PAGE causes. If it does cause a problem, then whoever causes it will receive the response. If it's the operators of this group, it will be deleted. If it's another person, they will be blocked from posting. If you have issues with this, post here or on my talk page. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the bright red you gave us.. adds a little pizazz to the page! And if Fenance wants to back it up .. by all means let him. Im sure he has a list of all the reporters that are currently in our group who have reported since being a Raider.. and that he can also provide a list of people who also are mentioned in the 'many see it as a joke' as Fenance continually mentions. Thanks again for being so fair! And if there needs to be a place for opinions then we will surely provide anyone with enough space to 'opinionate' (its my new word) away here --IdonsWebmaster 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the big bright red banner is funny. i get the text, but its like a toxic zone warning. I know other sites have had it put up Veyne I think. thanks for taking fenance's opinion down. some retard kept puytting it up over and over after it was taken down.
Frankly, i dont care if it's there. I just needed to know the e-process. do people graffiti groups' wiki's? apparently. So, im not surprised. At first i was irate, but that cuz when someone has me by the balls i always seem to react the same way (not always a great idea) take mine back, then cut their's off.
It's nice you can tell the difference between intranerd stalking (caelumia, fenance) and legitimate wiki additions. I don't know you well, cara, but you haven't struck me as a tard.
The way I see it is like this: if they could win IG, they be happy enough with that. If they could win on the play.net boards, they'd sit back in a state of self-exultation. But they can't win. So they screw with the wiki. lol.
We must be doing something right :) -Ragran

Fenance has provided me with a list of posts that he feels as evidence for his additions. He will be posting them here for a reasonable discussion on whether they are accurate. Please keep it civil.

Also, since you all are intimately involved in this problem, please read my suggestion for the policy for these situations. Until it is fully discussed, I will be relying on my own judgement. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, im starting to feel hassled by the wiki. Might be time to pull it. We shall discuss. I think Wiki is awesome. But we have a website, so...if the info here wont be accurate, cant be relied on for disseminating accurate information. - Ragran

Keep in mind, that while you may maintain this page, that does not mean that it will be deleted if you stop. You are more than welcome to contribute your opinion or disagree with others in a civil manner, same as everyone else. The page will remain whether or not you do. I'm sorry if you feel something is unfair. I am trying my best to be as even-handed as I can. In fact, I have alerted all the other SysOps to this debate. If you feel the problem is with me, please talk to them. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 23:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

lol. YOU REALLY WANT US AROUND! MWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAH! No problem with you, man. I dont even know ya. Just that seems like a pointless endeavour to have a source of information that has exposure to creepy intrastalkers. No comment on you, since again, i have no experience with ya, but you should know "many find them a joke" is...a...joke. lol. just common sense. Also, i have heard that lots of pages get locked when too m uch silliness goes on. I havent asked for that, but this seems pretty silly. You would like a debate between we and out stalker now? If that's fun for you, then i know somethign abnout oyu. If you would like to maintain a mature source of information you will just leave the page as it is without the silly "joke" comment, and lock it. But, again, I have no experience with you. Do you feel our page is so unweildy that we need to be hassled like this? I think its pretty standard myself. And the intent by the person that produced it was pure...all she wants is to make stuff and give them to other people. She doesnt need a fenance ruining her vibe because he is a scourned something-or-other. - Ragran

Evidence for Fenance's Edits

Citations listed below. So Ragran, it looks like you've admitted that yes, you indeed did spam, you did indeed have people in the Raiders at its very founding who were well and widely known reporters. So why are you trying to hide it? Fenance 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence: Idon Raiders/Posts

I have personally taken the time to follow Fenance's links and have answers for all

I have highlighted my responses to his accusations by being a bit lazy and coping and pasting ..

As to the Forum Spamming, Ragran admitted he did it on the forums (see Conflicts Folder, "Fenance Frokken" thread). **** HERE he admitted and immediately STOPPED.. he wasnt intentionally spamming nor was he asked to stop by any mod on those forums* As for the the reporting, see here for just one example (Skilair, in this case). It's quite well known that a select group of Raiders are known reporters.***I think here you need to find an instance when she reported AS A RAIDER.. and please leave her alone this girl has taken so much crap on this and has never once reported as a raider NOT ONCE Hereby making DR a much better place because the raiders have in the name of Idon converted her to a non reporter This was in March of 2007***** Fenance 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter that you stopped nor that nobody asked. You did it anyway. And again, you knew that the person was a reporter and you brought her on anyway. And as for "converting her to a non-reporter", show me proof; I can name you a dozen people who will say otherwise. I think you know who they are already too. Fenance 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruling: The actions previous to inclusion in membership are not relevant to this discussion.-Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Here, the send from GM Acanthor referring to Ragran having reported as well. Note I'm not referring to the report in response to the Send, I'm referring to Acanthor's mention of Ragran having reported in the past. Or, see also here, discussing Skilair and Khalikryst's predilection for reporting. Fenance 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC) *** that was not ragran admitting to reporting nor a gm saying he reported a pvp conflict.. that was in fact ragran showing a log of himself pvping and asking to make sure he had proper consent... and AGAIN WAS IN 2007 there were no raiders in 2007 ***

Read again. The GM is referring to your "first report" in the matter, i.e. when you complained. You reported. It doesn't matter whether you didn't have raiders at the time. Fact is, you were a reporter. Just like others in the raiders. Fenance 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

See previous.-Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh finally, one more where an Idon Raider admits that their members report. [1]. Fenance 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC) *** and here was removed FOR reporting as we have always stated.*** no need to point out the obvious here when we in fact have said time and bloody time again .. IF YOU REPORTED BEFORE OK BUT DONT DO IT AS A RAIDER OR YOU WILL BE REMOVED... and we've stood by this and will continue too. This is getting quite old**--WebmasterIdonraiders 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you removed the person. They still did it, knowing what the policy was; and they had a history of doing it that is widely known, and you brought them in anyway. So you obviously aren't very serious about your policy, which is indeed the point I am trying to get across here. Fenance 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruling: The listed policy on this page is that reporting results in being ejected. This is in line with the listed information.

It is a verifiable fact that the Raiders have this no-report policy. It's a verifiable fact that they have had people who broke that policy. It's a verifiable fact that there is a reputation out there that the policy is a joke. These are all verifiable facts that should be archived on the page just as you suggested Isharon. Fenance 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of the nature of these pages, until the community decides otherwise, I will place the burden of proof on the "accuser" (i.e. innoncent until proven guilty). What you have suggested is that at least a significant portion of the Raiders don't follow the rules they have set down, and I have only seen evidence of reporting prior to becoming one, and that one member has been ejected for violating policy as it's listed. If someone breaks a rule and is punished, then you cannot say that is evidence that they aren't following the rules. The unfortunate truth is that any group will have people breaking rules. The number of them doing it and whether they receive the punishment that they have laid down for it, that is what determines whether a group is following it's listed "laws." I'm sorry, but I do not see enough evidence for your modifications. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions Allowable?

This really doesn't seem like the proper place for opinions. Now that the article is more wikified, and the banner maintaining that it IS a player run organisation is up, I don't think it has a place here. Otherwise where is it going to end? People could start putting OPINIONS on every player page (ie. I don't like Joe because he reported me once. Sally spams the forums, she sucks!), on every militia page and so on. The best place for these type of opinions and conflicts is going to be the play.net boards conflict folders and making your opinion known through word of mouth. --Ysselt 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ysselt that an organization's Elanthipedia article is not the place to criticize how the organization is run.

I recognize that Elanthipedia is a wiki, and therefore, it is impossible to eliminate all statements of opinion. Nonetheless, I still believe that Elanthipedia was intended to be an archive of factual information about DragonRealms and not a forum for players to discuss their personal opinions of people and organizations.

Prohibiting personal opinions on Elanthipedia would not significantly decrease players' ability to air their grievances. There are several other outlets for players who want to discuss such issues: the Play.net forums, third-party forums, in-game, etc.

I understand that Caraamon, as a moderator, will sometimes have to make difficult decisions about the type of information that is suitable for Elanthipedia articles. However, I think that allowing negative opinions with sufficient "proof" puts Elanthipedia on a path down a slippery slope. Such a policy would detract from the overall purpose of Elanthipedia and encourage people to resolve their interpersonal conflicts by editing Elanthipedia articles.--Sarkranis 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not there to criticize how the organization is run. It's there to point out that the organization says something that isn't exactly the case. I should point you out that Elanthipedia was intended to be an archive of factual information; it wasn't intended to be an advertisement of the Raiders either. I'm trying to present neutrally the multiple points of view regarding the Raiders rather than solely the one Ragran wants to display. I don't need to be told how a Wiki works; in the real world, I'm a sysop with almost 17,000 edits on Wikipedia, and do media relations for Wikimedia. I know how wikis work and I understand what Elanthipedia is all about. My edits further this goal. Ragrans do not. Fenance

Nothing on the article is untrue. The Raiders' policy is that current members cannot report for consent violations in PvP; the no-report policy does not render people ineligible if they reported in the past, so long as they do not report while they are Raiders. The Raiders have a zero-tolerance policy for the reporting of consent violations; reporting even once will result in the person's removal from the Raiders. (Khalikryst was removed for reporting while he was a Raider.)

On the other hand, Raiders are allowed to request clarification on the consent policy. Even though the Raiders don't report consent violations, they are expected to follow the consent policy for those who set their profiles to Guarded or Closed.

Your edits would not be as objectionable if they were phrased more objectively. For example:

Your statement: Several Raiders, however, have a history of being reporters and policy-players

Neutral revision: {Name} reported a consent violation before joining the Raiders.

Your statement: the no-report policy is viewed by many to be something of a joke

Neutral revision: Some people have expressed doubts about the extent to which the Raiders enforce their no-report policy.

Your statement: The Idon Raiders, particularly Ragran, choose to advertise their group by spamming the Play.net forums.

Neutral revision: Some people have criticized the extent to which the Idon Raiders -- in particular, Ragran -- have promoted their group on the Play.net forums.--Sarkranis 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Isharon, this wiki is not about opinions (with some exceptions). This issue that I'm trying to address right now is that there is a desire by someone to post information that the information that is listed about the Idon Raiders not reporting is false. See the suggested policy page to continue the discussion on the general principle, so as to not clutter up this page.

To return to this particular subject: At the moment, I do not see evidence that contradicts the statements made on the article page. Fennance, if I'm missing something, please lay out your arguement for me. The minimum criteria that I am looking for is: a confirmed Raider has reported to a GM about a conflict during their tenure as a Raider. At the moment, and perhaps I'm missing something, I do not see evidence of that. Also, what an alt character of a Raider does is not relevant to this discussion. I would like to think this wiki attempts to support RP, and thus, in my opinion, what alt characters do is no different than a separate player's actions. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Scroll right on up Caraamon -- Isharon just said "Khalikryst was removed for reporting while he was a raider". Whether he was removed or not does not change the fact that the much vaunted raider "no-reporting policy" was broken, and is rendered less accurate by perceptions (widely held) that the raiders do accept people widely known to be reporters. Fenance 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit concerned the extent to which people believe that the no-report policy will be enforced, given that "Several Raiders . . . have a history of being reporters and policy-players." The fact that Khalikryst was removed for reporting is evidence that the Raiders enforce their policy.--Sarkranis 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A) We cannot deal with "common perception" because it is never as common as people think and there is no way to truely check. B) The current page reads:

The Idon Raiders are have a strict "No Report" policy as a means of resolution to In-Character conflict. The 
policy of the organization is that once a member has joined, the reporting of a consent policy violation is 
prohibited and will result in the removal of that member from the organization.

Nothing you have said is counter to that.-Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not actually what it said at first; as for common perception, you can quite easily check it. The fact that there were as many people talking about it as I've mentioned on such a small community as DR verifies it. Fenance 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Cara. I been speaking with ysselt. This isnt a great place for orgs because of the problems that you mention. And for the reasons you point out, we would appreciate it if you removed the page. Or we can change it to simply give a blurb and direct to the website. This is silly. We'll take good care of Sarkranis for this hassle. seriously i feel like im dealing with 2 year olds.- Ragran

Actually, I'm not sure I agree. I would very much like to see it set up so that there can be information about a group besides what the group says about itself. If we can come up with some guidelines to avoid squabbling, then perhaps it can happen. I'm not saying it's realistic, I'm saying it's what I would like. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've included the opinions as a new section based on Sarkranis/Isharon's suggestions. Fenance 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally as one of the founding members of the Raiders (I am in fact not Ragran despite popular belief .. I had to walk him thru using wiki .. he is not the webmaster) I'd like to see our Wiki page stand as it is now. Basic facts that we have redone to suit what others asked us to do. Sarkranis (Isharon) puts in alot of work to make this page nice. I drop in sometimes to make sure the website is up to date with this (she's more updated than i am sometimes) I ask that it stays and Fenance Im sorry .. really that you have problems with some of our members. I truly hope us all being adults that this can be put aside and you at least try to understand we mean you no person harm. And we have stated if you wish to have nothing to do with us we are ok. Thank You Caraamon for taking time out to deal with all this. I'd like to point out we have a feed back page on our website if anyone would like to express their anger towards us in a more private manner without disturbing the hard work of so many other people. I personally promise to respond in a proper manner.

Webmaster ~the tired.

i dunno if im missing but sometimes half, sometimes all that i posted is removed. if its you cara, you have just the right sense of what should not make it past the filter haha. it is an aweful lot isnt it. Yup. It's me.-Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 02:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because multiple people are simultaneously editing this page. I refresh the page just before posting to prevent the loss of other people's comments.--Sarkranis 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Had you bothered to ask you'd find I have nothing against the raiders, but due to my job I have a very anal-retentive attitude about accuracy on Wikis. I'm PVP open on all of my main characters when I am online. Webmaster -- please try to keep Ragran in line. He's making a dick of himself, and he's making you guys look bad. Fenance 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've included the opinions as a new section based on Sarkranis/Isharon's suggestions. Fenance 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This i strongly disagree with. You say you know Wiki. Then perhaps you can start your own page about Opinions on different organizations. We are simply asking you leave our member page alone. Thats all. Nothing more. We are not advertising. We are stating the facts about our player ran organization. Please simply leave it alone.

Why would I make a new page? People want to go to one single page to find out all they can about the organization. It's not your page, it's Elanthipedia's page, and by extension it belongs to the readers. Fenance 02:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not my place to keep anyone in line. He is a man with a voice and if he wishes it to be heard i will not stop him. And to use language that way on a public wiki isn't very professional of you at all. Apparently the way you feel about this subject has clouded your judgment and impaired your ability to type rationally. At this point i think its best everyone takes a step back and relax.--WebmasterIdonraiders 02:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What language are you talking about? Fenance 02:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Had you bothered to ask you'd find I have nothing against the raiders, but due to my job I have a very anal-retentive attitude about accuracy on Wikis. I'm PVP open on all of my main characters when I am online. Webmaster -- please try to keep Ragran in line. He's making a **** of himself, and he's making you guys look bad. Fenance 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So because I used the word dick I am not typing rationally? Perhaps I don't consider myself bound to American prudish ideals on vulgar words that grown-ups sometimes use. As for "professional".....this is a wiki about a game. There's no professionalism -- that's something that exists in a work environment. Fenance 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok im not going to bat this back and forth you are professional and want wiki to remain accurate... you are debating a game.. either way. This argument is over as I refuse to get this locked down because I made it a battle ground. I will bow out now and hope for the best. Fenance i truly wish you well. I remember you from long ago.. and im sorry you are so upset now. Good luck and remember sometimes its best to just walk away when things upset us so. Webmaster ~the sincere.

--WebmasterIdonraiders 02:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of opinion section

Want to explain to me why you did that Caraamon? I used almost exactly the suggestions from Isharon, with a few modifications. I included the fact that Khalikryst was removed and their policy enforced to balance it out. You yourself said you'd want to see opinions included. So why the removal? Fenance 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My revisions were not an invitation for you to edit the Idon Raiders article but merely a demonstration of how you could reword some of your edits to improve their neutrality.--Sarkranis 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You said "would not be objectionable". Fenance 02:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I simply stated that your edits would be less objectionable if they were worded more objectively. I did not say that they would be unobjectionable. "Not as objectionable," does not mean "unobjectionable."--Sarkranis 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You can change the wordking to anything you like as long as people are led to believe thatr the idon raiders stand for no reporting, and that a raider has reported while being in the group and left as a result.

I have no problem with that. Fenance, it looks like you are worked up over "Raiders enforce their rule", when in fact, you would report that you are worked up over "Raiders have it within them to report." Of course they do. That's why we need a policy that expels them if they do. - Ragran

Ragran, now we're getting somewhere. What I want to include does not dispute that the Raiders enforce their rule, in fact it will highlight it. What it will include though, is that some instances of the rule having to have been enforced have occured. I also want to include (though it's less important and probably more controversial based on Caraamon's rules) that when the raiders were formed some of the founding members were known to have been reporters (and so it should have been seen coming). Would those two changes be acceptable to you Ragran? Fenance 02:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No they would not. At least from my stand point. The first is definitely true and ok. the later no. 'probably' should have seen it come isnt a fact it is an assumption. You want facts. Ragran lets end this now. Fenance "Caraamon examined your evidence and decided that your modifications were not warranted. Please drop it." --WebmasterIdonraiders 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll input the first one and we can debate the second one. As for it being an assumption, how is it an assumption? It's verified that Skilair and Khalikryst were reporters; there were logs of it happening. What would be non-factual about saying "some of the founding members of the raiders were prior reporters"? Fenance 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked over your objections to the page content and I feel you lack the evidence to support it. Until such time as you have more, I do not feel it is warranted. In addition, I do not feel a page about a PC group should have opinions. Please do not attempt to add them. Until additional evidence is provided, this subject is over. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Caraamon, I'm not adding opinions. I'm adding facts supported by evidence already agreed to. Pay attention please. Fenance 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As another moderator here, I have to say, that the phrasing used in the majority of this was opinion, not fact. And assumption not fact. Fact cannot be predictions of the future, nor speculations on what might have been. Perhaps you need to read up on what "verifiable fact" truely means, just my opinion. On each and every point Caraamon made a ruling on above, I agree with his ruling (so no need to edit each area). --Callek 03:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, please pay attention. What part of "In at least one case, the Raiders have had to enforce this rule on one of their members who reported a consent policy violation." is opinion? I'll be waiting. Fenance 04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, you would make a great opinion columinst - no sarcasm. I think that yes, your angle on the raiders being an open group, inviting all to play, has its downside. Alas, this is a source of facts. I think, because you are motivated, if you could remove sarcasm, malicious turns-of-phrase, and if you were mindful not to come off sounding like there is nothing you'd like better than to do some good destruction, I really think you;d have a lot to contribute.

Im not sure wiki is the best place for one person to start an opinion column. Its your speculation that gets me. "Raiders are a joke" "...should have seen it coming". This isnt reporting journlism, this is opinion journalism. I do think you should spend some effor ttrying to find yourself a venue to express your opinions though. You definitely have opinions! :) - Ragran

Ragran -- all I changed was to add this "In at least one case, the Raiders have had to enforce this rule on one of their members who reported a consent policy violation." That's nothing to do with opinion journalism. Fenance 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

PS as for opinion columnist, yes it's something I've done in the past in print journalism. Fenance 03:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And that edit should be among the last for the night from me. Fenance 03:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what you changed, but that sentence is beautiful. - Ragran

Other Issues

Jhime, Phii, and Tyrun occasionally fought against the Idon Raiders during the war. They are not listed on the Goose Kill Leaderboard, because they are not in the Goose family. Their motives for assisting are unknown, but there is no formal alliance between the Goose Family and the Flying Company (Tyrun) or Rippentropps (Jhime).

--Sarkranis 03:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither Jhime, Phii nor Tyrun were assisting the Gooses during that war; none of them were parties to the war. They may have been having their own separate issues against the raiders, or simply against the individual raiders involved. Either way, it's a misstatement to say that the Gooses received assistance from them, any more than to say that the Raiders received assistance from the GMs because Vanmar reported. It happened on its own, entirely out of that side's authority. Fenance 05:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They may have done it for their own reasons, but they occasionally fought alongside the Goose family during the same time period and in the same location. Some members of the Goose family even acknowledged their assistance but denied the existence of a formal alliance. I clarified this in the summary of the event by adding "for their own reasons and not as allies of the Goose family."

--Sarkranis 06:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's a fair compromise. Fenance 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

lol @ fenance. you're our biggest fan now. the others all have something of their own to be proud of - you are now alone in this regard dalbin (i mean fenance). The simple fact is, in every single conflict we've been in, in shard, or crossing, or haven, pickup raid or calendar raid, uninvolved people have come to participate regardless of who the primary antagonists are. People enjoy battle, so the often attend in the same way as if they heard a massive tourney was underway.

The gooses did just fine on their own, they didnt need help. However, there were more than just gooses tooling around during the conflict, and if they pulled a trigger on one of the raiders, causing their death, they get credit for attendance on the wiki. once again, you realize you are now alone in your empty work here with us. all our other adversaries have moved onto to doing something i actually think is cool.

Please go quit again Ragran. I had a great time in the war with all of the other raiders, including Ternith -- you seem to be the only one who holds a grudge and acts like an asshole, and you didn't even participate in the war. Fenance 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fenance (dalbin), if you are going to watch our wiki like its your mission in life, you need to know what actually happens during our events. I did participate. I signed in and warred with the raiders for a short time. i killed goosen. how can we trust you to nitpick our wiki if you dont even know i was in the war? I had 2 days left till the account expired. How is it you werent aware of that? you just lost all credibility pal. sry.

Once again, please keep it civil. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Ragran, I was there. Your participation was logging in once, dying (I'm 99% sure it was from Gothus), and then logging out again. If you killed anyone, I didn't hear anything about it. Again, just let it go, please. Everyone else in the Raiders seems to be able to be a decent enough person; why is it that you can't be the same? Fenance 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I originally added those three names (Jhime, Phii, and Tyrun), because someone in the Raiders was taunting the Goose family for calling them to assist them. During the first day, while I was in triage, one of the Geese seemed to acknowledge outside participation but confirmed that there was no alliance between the Geese and the Flying Company (to which Tyrun belongs).

I asked some of the other Raiders, and Phii didn't take part in the fighting, so unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, I am going to remove her name from the list of participants.

Jhime attacked at least one Raider, but fortunately for the Raiders, his participation was sporadic. However, because Jhime did participate, I think that he should be given credit for his role.

I'm not sure whether Tyrun engaged in any combat during the war. However, according to Erixx (a Raider), Tyrun gave preferential treatment to the Geese during triage: "During that last night he pretty much told me if i killed anyone else infront of him he would get involved but had no problem lettin goose do their thing. Well and the fact he rez'd them but drug me off and left me soooo ya."

--Sarkranis 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I killed Thetos. I cheated and logged in for under 5 mins. was my second-to-last day. gothus and krugler camped me in jail and nailed me in the chamber of justice as they should have - since we hadn't agreed to not camp - i would have myself. im that kinda guy too ;) - ragran

Edit of page: i did a bit of editing.. cause the Shananananan infiltrating group (aka NaFianna ).. infiltrated our wiki and theirs read almost exactly like ours.. so i changed it so it didnt make Shanananananan look bad! If anythings is not on the up and up please let me know kthx! --IdonsWebmaster 22:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)