Talk:Endless Round MUCK
Oh boy. Controversy? I wouldn't know where to start /or/ end. =P What about how the headwiz banned members from the MUCK and forum after they expressed their dislike for the way he handled matters? What, exactly, are my limits here? What crosses the line between fact and libel? Spaz Kitty
- I would say if you can reference it with some sort of public post or discussion and it's something that can be worded with appropriate (pseudo)-neutrality... well.
- I'd like a reference for the unsolicited pages, though I'm not sure where to find such a thing; that was my own experience on a number of occasions. -- Sine 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did the best I could, making sure to document all my references. There's also some discussion about how Ed has become worse than his oft-verbalized opponents, the wizards of TLKMuck, comparing his banning actions to being a step further than what they did to him after he caused trouble there (log posted by Xyanth after sent to him by Ed: http://tixli.ath.cx/junk/edkettego.html). I wasn't sure if this should be added, however. Spaz Kitty
The Violence and Sex areas are on a now smooth run. And even if we used the email systems, so do others. I am disappointed in the fact that some folk think it nesscessary to demean a MUCK because of bitterness. As a Wizard, I can only really ask that people know the facts, and I have put up factual information. Both sides of one mass exodus must be represented. Juggernaut 27 June 2006
- I'd like to note that I didn't add the initial controversy section. And as far as I can see, we did use facts: actual threads and quotes from the forum. Spaz Kitty
I'd like to come to a compromise on this, If it's humanly possible. Juggernaut
I've added a reference to Where did you hear about ER from? which touches on e-mail and paging of guests, and on the website address. I'm not sure about referencing individual posts within that thread (technically or in terms of ease of reading), and I think a template for reference to a forum thread would be good, as they're currently inconsistent. I'll do some searching and see if I can find a style. -- Sine 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- In Juggernaut's defense, I have seen other MUCKs paging players from similarly-themed MUCKs. Regardless, the other parts are unique to Endless Round and should stay IMHO. Spaz Kitty
Is it possible for us to add a disclaimer to the Controversy Section? One such along the lines of, "visit, and then make your own conclusions, do not base your choices on controversy?" on that, I would be open to any or most edits, because of the disclaimer. Juggernaut
- I think it being titled Controversy is enough of a disclaimer, if I'm following how I've observed that section used in other articles. Clarity on what happened when is important; do you think dates should be specified in the text as well as within the references? -- Sine 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me, Sine. I'm not familiar enough with Wiki-Programs to do it well, but I will try to. I'll have a chat with some others on this later, though I think how it is currently may be fine, along with the dates of course. Juggernaut
- I'm happy to continue fiddling with the wording. We can discuss changes and I can impliment them, if you'd rather not keep futzing with the article yourself. I'm going to track down an appropriate reference format, as mentioned above. -- Sine 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, not much luck on that search. Both APA and MLA style get all complicated, plus aren't designed for citing a whole thread rather than a specific post. I'll make up something readable and consistent, and add dates (where known) to the text while I'm at it.
- By the way, Juggernaut, it would be easier to follow discussions if you sign your additions with ~~~~. This automatically shows up as your username with the date and time you posted. -- Sine 23:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a fan of the bit on June 2006 added now at the end, if that can be kept there as a sort of marker. Any more such controversies, I'll try to remember to add as they occur, if such a thing does in fact happen. Juggernaut
Howdy gang, Ed here. On a completely random impulse, checked the page, read through the discussion and the new entries - I think a comparison of the previous text with what I've now edited-in will show a respect for the simple facts that all involved can be content with. Furthermore, I've added another incident to the appropriate section, as its lack was inexplicable if it's now the policy of Wikiwhatever to air everybody's dirty laundry. ;) j/k wikifurries dont zap me :~] anyway, the only real deletion i made was SpazzyKat's line about what unsolicitated emails/pages are considered - everybody already knows what they, personally, consider those to be, so rather than leading people to regard them as simple spam, I tried to just flesh out the whole situation with more facts about what was done/said, and when, and how many times, and by who, etc. if people still consider it spam, that's fine - but if wiki runs on facts and not judgements, i think this is the proper way to elucidate the facts of any given matter. p.s. im not a furry Undermyfurimpeople 13:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Wowzers, and then all mine get deleted by SpastiCat. ;) Well I'll never out drama-edit a full-blooded furry, so you guys can have your way I guess; meanwhile I'll be, uh, doing things that matter? :P Undermyfurimpeople 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you'll look at the history description, I was removing POV and other fluff phrases, like talking about emails resulting in the "enjoyment of a number of past and current players". That's opinion, not fact. Other things were moved or else rephrased. Not much was deleted from what you added. Spaz Kitty 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
All the reference links now lead to nowhere. Will they be left for... well, whatever purpose one would leave dead links up? I'm still feeling my way around WikiFur, so if the answer should already be known and I'm just being silly by asking, ignore, ignore, ignore! XP Shinda 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- We usually leave the links for archiving's sake, but have (defunct) listed next to them. I plan on cleaning the article up soon. Spaz Kitty 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
October 2006 section and this article as a whole
The October 2006 could do with a little rewording to tighten up the language; it's a little emotional-sounding, if not quite slanted, in spots.
I think this is a strong article and a great example of detailed information gathering (including documenting events as they unfold, from references and the perceptions of editors), compromise, and collaboration.
-- Sine 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I actually found out about the situation from Xyanth's edits on WikiFur, since I haven't kept up with Endless Round since the summer after I resigned. However, I think aside from a slight lack of NPOV, this is a good example of recording factual (if slightly biased) information while an event takes place, even when the MUCK has been dismantled in the process. Once the POV is cleaned up, I think it would make a good featured article candidate. Spaz Kitty 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)