Talk:Inquisition

For anyone wondering what is happening. I am editing this page under the guidance of the player of Liuri so that it reflects the actual state of the Inquisition and softening the rhetoric to make it less Salem witch trials and more accurate. Thanks! Player of Synamon 4/14/15

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)

I honestly think its okay to have the list on elanthipedia, perhaps not on this page, but somewhere. As for posting "negetive" infomation on PCs, I do not see this list as such. These are players who chose to play necros out in the open, they want to be bad guys, if anything being on the list increases the potential opportunities for their desired RP. And since simu does not object to it being posted on the boards, I can hardly see a reason not to have it on elanthipedia as well. Russell 18:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also players who don't want to be known and outing them through an OOC resource should not happen. This gets even more tricky on the Supporters list. Not only is there the question of do they care about being outed through an OOC source, but what qualifies as helping and can it be proven that they provided aided knowing the person was a necromancer arise. Does it matter if they knew the person was a necromancer? How much effort should a person investigate before helping someone? We would prefer that kind of discussion not take place on the page, especially in the form of edit wars.-Glimmereyes 20:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconding adding it to the Apostles page. It was originally posted on the play.net website in the IC folder, and as such should remain in some IC fashion. The Inquisition page here is for information about the NPC-run Inquisition, and the wiki itself is for OOC neutral POV information. Since the list was posted by a representative of the Apostles it should remain associated with the Apostles on their article. --Thilan 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Add it to the apostles page. Perhaps a compromise could be made to add a blurb to THIS page noting something like "A list is maintained by Order of Apostles, here. The accuracy of the list and the names on it are to be taken at your own discretion." or something. I definitely agree the list does not belong on this page. --Ysselt 21:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Supporters

While I'm not opposed to having them listed, how about changing the blurb from "Supporters: Players who are not under the command of an Inquisitor but support their work. " to something like "Players who are not under the command of the Inquisitor but support their work and choose to be identified here" because after all, it is a choice to put your name on Elanthipedia, and I think that there can be said to be a "reasonable expectation" that all characters at least outwardly support the riding of Necromancers. I just think phrasing it like this may provide an excuse for someone to say "Well, your name isn't listed as a supporter, so you're clearly a necromancer/supporter" or whatever. Feel there should be a clear indication that putting your name HERE is a choice. --Ysselt 00:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, makes sense to me. -Magan 00:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)