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)