Talk:Robertdonald

Cleanup
Cleanup tag added as the tone of recent additions needs to be a little more formal, whilst retaining the new content. --Featherfin 12:37, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
 * Probably would be good to tweak the section name language a bit too. Unless OOO has made public the reasons for changes they've done, it's better to say something about how in general the playerbase attributes the changes/rules to RD's actions...only use clearer language than me :)  If there is a record of OOO stating things as such, then it should be footnoted for that particular change.  --Guppymomma 12:44, 26 June 2007 (PDT)

The word possibly added since no "proof" of connection is officially known. Anyone that played during that time would agree that several of these rules appeared after much tarting about RD doing this or that. --Av


 * I played during that period and was one of his targets. While I agree that it is most likely those rules were from RD's actions, unless it is corroborated by Three Rings it remains unverified.  --Guppymomma 17:29, 27 June 2007 (PDT)


 * Found a posting in the RD ban thread from TedV. He says that many design changes were made to combat RD.  While he does not point out specific examples, I think based on the thread it is in we can clearly draw reasonable conclusions.


 * I finally did a search for that post so we could footnote it. You've omitted something from the post, in the very first line, TedV states that that post is just his personal opinion and nothing official from Three Rings.  I'm sorry, but it still cannot count as official verification, though it does add to the body of evidence.  Here's the post in question. --Guppymomma 06:55, 13 July 2007 (PDT)


 * You level of proof requirement for this one wiki page far exceeds the level of proof for the rest of the wiki in general. If you desire this level of proof before making firm statements, I suggest you apply this across all pirate, flag and puzzle pages as a good majority of these pages contain conjecture stated as fact. Av


 * Eurydice doesn't seem to like the conversation about this page or the particular light it is painting on the YPPedia. Locking threads for supposed personal insults is errr ummmm insulting.  Once again... you don't have to wonder why the majority of pirates don't read or edit the wiki.  The actions around this one small page are quite telling.
 * I left your post up, though locked. Both my lock post on your previous thread, and your new thread, had links to this page and the RD article.  I trust that people will find their way here, since you yourself directed them here.  --Eurydice 16:01, 15 July 2007 (PDT)
 * Only a small percentage of pirates visit the forums regularly...even less come to the Wiki. I shudder to think of the actual number that know how to have a discussion about an item.  I clearly expressed my desire to have the discussion on the forums and redirected the question.  Perhaps you can answer why this particular subject is not allowed on the forums and/or clarify what you considered personal attacks (above and beyond normal parley) in the last page of the locked discussion. Av
 * In-depth, ongoing discussion of the content of a particular YPPedia page should be done on the YPPedia so that an uneditable record (edits are all logged, and pre-edit content available for review by all) is available here on YPPedia. It is not the subject matter that's a problem; anyone who is interested in the topic can easily view it here, free from the derailing and personal attacks that were occuring in the forum thread.  --Eurydice 16:20, 15 July 2007 (PDT)
 * Okay, 1. I will be restarting a discussion about RD and how he effected the game.  This discussion is not for YPPedia but to understand how some of the game design we hate got that way.  2.  You need to show examples of what you consider personal attacks.  The thread in question was very tame compared to most parley posting.  To pick one thread to enforce a tighter rule is inconsistent and lacks professionalism. 3.  Are you telling me we are not allowed to discussion anything in the forums thats already on the YPPedia???  Can the forum not inform the YPPedia... shall we just get rid of 90% of the forum conversation and move them here to this engine that was NOT designed for discussion? Av
 * So long as you restart the discussion without evading your forum ban (I only mention it here because you've made it public record by adding it to your pirate page), that's fine. As for your second point, I think you'll find that we've locked threads with similar degrees of personal attacks in the past. It would have been inconsistent to ignore this one, especially as I'd previously given an explicit warning in that thread.  I'm not sure what to make of your third point, except to say that of course the YPPedia isn't meant to replace the forums.  In any event, I look forward to seeing productive discussion of RD's article here.  --Eurydice 16:37, 15 July 2007 (PDT)


 * Cute... you don't like the discussion so you ban the person starting the discussion. Its clear that you are less than impartial on this subject and perhaps your posting should have said, people insulted friends of mine.  As a forum moderator, any thread that you are a conversant in you should recuse yourself as the moderator of said thread.  You were clearly a conversant in this thread and didn't appreciate how the project your in charge of was being painted.  To then step away as a conversant and put on a moderator hat to lock the topic is quite unprofessional.  To lock the second thread and ban me, well that action speaks for itself.  And so you are aware...  the Ringers are very well aware of my other posting account as I have used it frequently and with the permission of Ringers and other OMs.  I suggest you either ban this account as well or I will be posting with it.  Av
 * I didn't forumban you, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind, making sure to notify my colleagues as well. Cheers!  --Eurydice 17:04, 15 July 2007 (PDT)
 * Not buying it for a second but nice try. For those that don't understand my issue with Eury interrupting the conversation... I suggest her wiki page Eurydice and then do some research on the people that have received her dolls.  Who was RD waring with again?  .... smells fishy --Av
 * OMG CONSPIRACY -- Starhawk
 * Ow, too much indenting. Look Av, I'll keep this brief. You're out of line now in multiple respects. Insinuating that an OM is acting impartially towards you both in regards to your forum ban or in how you are editing the aforementioned Robertdonald page is not something that should be discussed publicly or made to look as a "call out" of Eurydice. If you feel she is in the wrong, email using the Support Form or PM another OM with your concerns. Do not place that discussion on the talk page of an article, this is not where it belongs. As has already been noted, this page carries with it a lot of controversy. I believe Guppy once noted that RD was top of the searches on the wiki second only to Cleaver so a lot of people see this page and expect it to be factual. That's where our concern lies in its content. If you have issue with this, please take it up with me in private channels, not on this talk page. I've also removed the lines at the bottom of your pirate page speculating as to why you were forum banned. I don't feel it's appropriate to have that type of opinionated information on any page. Should you choose to put it back up, I'll leave it to the admins to decide. --Muffynz 20:34, 15 July 2007 (PDT)


 * Bottom Line: She made it a public issue by openly discussing it here and being a moderator of a topic that she is obviously too close to.   And for you conspiracy theories out there...  look at the doll winners, then Muffynz's page and see how that ties together.   --Av


 * I'm a little slow. Do you have, say, a corkboard with all the guilty parties connected by bits of string that I could look at? -- Starhawk


 * I've fixed up the language to indicate that there are varied (and strong) opinions about how directly those changes were... Given discussion here and elsewhere I think that's pretty accurate.  Lets keep this clean please. --Artemis 12:48, 16 July 2007 (PDT)

Language Cleanup
The new content is fine, but the choice of words used is inappropriate. Language like "piss off island holders" lacks a certain gravitas. Also, please don't remove cleanup tags without first discussing them on the talk pages. --Barrister 14:15, 27 June 2007 (PDT)


 * You may not like the language but it is accurate and from the horses' mouth. Its a WIK and it should reflect what goes on in game, not be censored or edited like its a novel.  Next time you wonder why so many people don't use or edit the wiki, just reflect on the self righteousness of the messages above. Av


 * Perhaps you should look up the term gravitas. The request is not to reduce the content, but to tweak the language to be more encyclopedic.  That means casual terms such as "pissed off" should be switched to "anger" or another term.  The wiki is not a novel, it is meant to contain encyclopedic information and as such, should use appropriate language.  Because it is not a request to remove actual information, this cannot come under the category of censorship.  If you need some more guidance on what non-colloquial, encyclopedic language consists of, you can see examples of such language in encyclopedias and even your local newspaper.  If you need further clarification than that, feel free to ask.  --Guppymomma 18:15, 28 June 2007 (PDT)


 * And who decides what is appropriate? If its something to do with the game mechanics I might be inclined to agree with you.  Player pages however are a different thing altogether.  Shouldn't that character/feeling of the pirate in question be expressed as it was in game?  Shall we rewrite history is words that make you feel intellectually superior or can we write as it was? Av
 * Av, if you continue to make this a personal issue, things can only go downhill. The point is that writing the history "as it was" and writing in an encyclopedic style are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both, and that's what you're being asked to do.  That's all.  --Eurydice 12:17, 29 June 2007 (PDT)


 * Alternately, if the language is indeed accurate "from the horse's mouth," then it would probably be appropriate from an encyclopedia point of view, to simply quote Robert saying the bit of questionable language. For example, instead of saying "This was done to avoid "griefing issues" and to generally just piss off island holders," you could phrase it like this:  "This was done to avoid "griefing issues" and in Robertdonald's words, "to generally just piss off island holders."  While the article should definitely maintain a level of decor/gravitas, there's nothing to say that Robert himself has to, if quoted by the article.  From an "encyclopedic language" perspective anyway.  If there are issues relating to what constitutes acceptable YPPedia content in the YPPedia Policies and guidelines section, then those would of course have to be addressed separately, but since that's not the issue that's been raised by Barrister, Guppymomma, and Eurydice, you could probably comply with their language/style requests by including any questionable language in a direct quote.  Provided of course that you did get that info directly from RD, which I personally don't doubt.  --Looseweed 9:05, 13 July 2007 (EDT)


 * The language has been cleaned up just fine at this point. I do recall, however, that RD was a fairly good writer and tended toward pretty solid English.  Case in point, the specific phrase that Barrister mentions uses the word "piss" and a quick forum search shows that RD never posted with the word piss, except for twice when it was included in a quote from someone else's post. --Guppymomma 06:49, 13 July 2007 (PDT)


 * Are forum posts the only valid references for YPPedia entries? Do not forget AV was a hearty, surely has logs, may have off-site forum posts to reference, may have spoken with Robert on the phone, etc.  Also, I can attest that RD was not above vulgarities in crewchat.  --Looseweed 10:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Forum posts are the most verifiable thing. Quotes can be fine, but please keep in mind that YPPedia does have policies & guidelines that ask for encyclopedic language.  While I have no doubt that RD would use cursing in game and such, it also seems important to note that in his public face in the forum, he chose not to do so.  In which case, for a very public wiki article, I would think that it would be fine to uphold the same standard that he used for the forum along with the reason of the policies & guidelines here.  --Guppymomma 07:32, 13 July 2007 (PDT)

Clarification of Facts
I'm not entirely sure Jacktheblack was banned for dropping more than 2 shops in a week. In fact, based on extensive discussions with him and The Mad Professor at the time, I don't believe Jack even knows what he was banned for. Most particularly, Jack was not the governor who placed the shops, nor was he the monarch of the flag who controlled the island when the shops were dropped, and neither the then-governor nor the ruling monarch were punished in any way for dropping too many shops. The reference to Jack and the 2 shop rule probably needs some clarification, or at the minimum some additional ambiguity thrown in. --Looseweed 8:57, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

According to the Ringers, Jacktheblack was primarily banned for the shoppes - see http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/viewthread?p=369924#369924. That he wasn't the one who placed the shoppes presumably is the reason for the reversal of his ban. Also, when was the two shoppe rule created? My recollection that it was created after the shoppe placement, but I have no personal knowledge of any of it and can't find a Ringer forum post on it, though this post from Jacktheblack suggests that is correct: http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/viewthread?p=369454#369454 in which case the revised language on that is now misleading. ~ Sweetiepiepi

I do recall the 2-shop rule being in place before the JTB event. I do not remember when it went into effect. --Behindcurtai 22:56, 19 July 2007 (PDT)

Status as of July 16, 2007
I've just finished an edit that was intended primarily to improve the readability. I'm pretty comfortable with the current text. If anyone has any issues with what's currently on the page, please let me know. --Barrister 17:28, 16 July 2007 (PDT)