Talk:Eleventy

The following is an exact copy of the discussion that took place on Hohumdiddly's talk page at http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/User_talk:Hohumdiddly:

Eleventy Blockade History

Please do not remove constructive and objective additions on the Wiki that are backed by orgininal sources. If any facts are in dispute, they should be discussed in these talk pages. ~Matinicus, Feb.-14, 2009

It's personal bias that what Eleventy did was griefing. Matinicus is part of the flag that lost Tigerleaf to us, so he has a natural bias to us and has been looking to discredit us in any fashion. We are fine with our history of blockading and losing two Tigerleaf blockades, but to call it griefing is speculative and an opinion based argument. I just wanted to remove it until a fair post could be agreed upon. Unfortunately Matinicus has muted me in-game and we cannot discuss it except here to come to an agreement. ~Hohumdiddly, Feb.-14, 2009

Agreed on "griefing" as this is a potentially bannable offence; the fielding of 2 sloops by Eleventy, in contrast, is a fact that is not in dispute and thus should stand as part of the record. I also provided a link to the forum discussion as this a source for these events. It may also beneficial to refrain from personal attacks and accusations in these talk pages. ~Matinicus, Feb.-14, 2009

Edited to show Art of War's request to end the blockade early as other player's request would not matter. I also edited out the link the forum as it didn't pertain the player complaints that it looked like it was in reference to. ~Hohumdiddly, Feb-14 2009

False, petitions were flying, complaints were flying, blackspots were flying. OceanMasters respond to the petitions, not "requests." They furthermore do not like to intervene in player-let events like blockades, so this was hardly the event that ye try to present.Also, please refrain from removing undisputed material (2 sloops) as well as a sources (Y!PP forums). Both are, I believe, in violation of Wiki editing standards and policies. The forum thread (started by yer flag) is a historical source that discuss a wide range of perspectives on this event, including yer own. For this reason it should stand as is. Please consult to the current policies on how to edit the Wiki. I also wish to thank ye for refraining from personal attacks in these pages. ~Matinicus, Feb.-14, 2007

Explain to me please what the issue is, here. Back-and-forth editing isn't going to solve anything, but I'm not clear on the specifics of your arguments, so please explain. Preferably without resorting to personal attacks. I'm listening. --Belthazar451 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---Eleventy fielded 2 sloops after dropping a war chest on Tigerleaf Mountain, a large island on the Cobalt Ocean. Eleventy, the #1 flag on the ocean, conceeded the blockade after less than 10 minutes (Hohumdiddly had an auto-response active after (I can dig out the chat logs, if this is in dispute). As a result, OceanMasters received multiple petitions and complaints by a large number of people (myself included). OceanMasters stopped the blockade to prevent 100+ jobbers from having to sit flags for another 2 hours. None of this is in dispute. As a source I provided a link to the original Y!PP intend thread of Eleventy posted. This forum thread provides diverse perspectives of the politically active pirates on Cobalt. Hohummdidly, Monarch of Eleventy and Governor of Tigerleaf Mountain wants these events described in language that does not implicate Eleventy by using vague and obscure language when precise facts are available (2 sloops, conceeding after 10 minutes). Furthermore, I find it unfair that Hohumdiddly's biased and weasly version of this history is allowed to stand as this Wiki entry is locked with his biased version intact. For further information I strongly recommend a third party to fact check my claims by reviewing both the history section this page as well as the references that I provide that Hohumdiddly removed on more than one occasion. ~Matinicus, Feb.-14, 2009

The link to Eleventy's original Intend Post [1]. Matinicus 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

When page protection is put into place due to an edit war, it does not imply that the protected version is the version endorsed by the YPPedia administration (or however you want to put that). It is only done to stop back and forth edit warring. --Thunderbird 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

--My feelings are that Matinicus is trying to add unnecessary aspects into the facts to distort the history of what actually happened in the situation. We did in fact field two sloops and then we pulled out. There are no facts to say that a large number of people actually complained(which Matinicus shows immediate bias by saying he himself complained because he did not approve of the actions.) For one, you'd have to show proof that a "large" number of people actually complained about these actions. Just because a few people on Vent said they were unhappy and would complain means 1) they actually did complain 2) that the number of people that Matincus thinks is "large" is actually large. Secondly, the complaints of people outside of the flag "Art of War" really have no merit because only flag members of "Art of War" can petition to have a blockade stopped due to lack of an opposing fleet because they are the ones that would need to pay jobbing pay, fill the ships, and put ships on the board.

That is why I wrote it in a manner that Art of War petitioned to have it stopped and it was. Having Matinicus add himself into history when his complaint had no effect on the situation is pointless and adding to the bias that everybody opposed this situation. The link was removed in my latest edit because the reference was pointed straight to the middle of the thread where there was arguing. If Matinicus would've liked to put a reference to this, he should have put it to the Original Post in that thread, not to where there is more disagreement than agreement. Furthermore, are the opinions of the forum going crowd the actual voice of the people on the ocean? Many players do not visit the forum and only 5% of the ocean actually go the forums to post on a regular basis. So to point the thread as a voice of what is actually going on does not accurately portray the opinions of the ocean as a whole.

I feel my wiki edit puts in the parts of History that is a "neutral" point of view that concedes that we did pull out after one round, yet doesn't put a bias into the reader. If they want to get the opinions of those after reading the wiki page, they can feel free to talk to those involved directly (which is not Matinicus until a few weeks later.) As you can see from the previous discussion, Matinicus has never liked us, didn't approve of our actions, and his posts and edits indicate this bias toward us. If you look at the Flaming Rosebud wiki page and look at the history, there have been comments of bias made by Matinicus just recently that have been edited out by his own royalty members because there was no necessity of it and showed bias. Thank You.

~Hohumdiddly, Feb. 14, 2009

--Thank ye, Hohumdiddly, for agreeing that only 2 sloops were fielded after a war chest was dropped by Eleventy Tigerleaf Mountain, a large island. Thank ye also, Hohumdiddly, for not disputing the fact that I, as well as well as Willelmus of Art of War fieled petitions to OceanMasters to terminate the blockade of Tigerleaf Mountain by Eleventy in Nov.-2008 after 1 round. Hence yer changes to my Wiki entries of these undisputed facts are confusing at best and biased at worst, as, it appears, we are agree on the facts. The reference to Eleventy's orginal intent post on the Y!PP forum constitutes a most relevant primary source of this much disputed history. The facts, as we appear to agree on here, speak for themselves. Matinius 03:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can a third party please advise Hohumdiddly on the relevance of "feelings" with regard to factual Wiki content? Considering that the present dispute relates to the aftermath of the ill-fated 2-sloop blockade of a large island, I think that a reference to Eleventy's intent post to a place dated AFTER the blockade is most appropriate. This skips through the usual propaganda moving to discussions to provide proof and source material for my claims and factual edits. Matinicus 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

---Oh Mati ... I know you feel the need to be part of history, but your relevance in the AoW-Eleventy blockade is not there at all. Your petition, along with anybody who was not in AoW is worthless as only AoW petitions to end the blockade are relevant in history. Hence, why AoW petitions should stay to end the blockade but the large majority should not as they have no relevance. While we agree on the facts, I want to question why you care so much about this? Is it hard feelings that you lost the island? You have a natural bias to hate us, we don't care one bit about your flag page, why should you care so much about ours? The facts are on the page, there is nothing on the flag page that is not correct factually one bit. You eager desire to discredit us and what we have achieved should warrant some basis on this decision. I know you want to seem neutral, but time after time you have shown you are out to get us. Let the facts be facts and don't add any additional speculation that may or may not be true. I thought the Wiki was about solid facts and the forums were about tarting. Apparently some people can't grasp that idea. It saddens me to see somebody care so much about a little stupid flag page that he's willing to fight for it for hours. Just let it be Mati, the facts are there.

~Hohumdiddly, February 14th, 2009

Ok mateys, you've presented your cases. Give me a bit of time to do some research on this and I'll get back to you. --Belthazar451 09:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps reflection on http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/YPPedia:Policies_and_guidelines as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg may improve future edits and discussions of Eleventy's actions at Tigerleaf in Nov.-2008. ~Matinicus 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okies, I've had a read through page histories and had a look at posted thread. Before I post what I think, let me stress that I'm just another normal user. Being an administrator lets me lock and delete pages, but that's it - I'm not passing a judgement from on high, but rather I'm giving my opinion as a fellow user. Essentially, you're free to reject it, but I'd rather you didn't, as then my attempt at mediation would be rather useless. =)

It seems to me that both of you agree on the following points, which is unsurprising as both of them are verifiable.

1. Eleventy fielded only two sloops in the blockade, which were sunk quickly.
2. Seeing as that was it, the OMs ended the blockade in the first round.

The disagreement comes from the specific wording of things, and more specifically in Matinicus' accusations that Eleventy's fleet in the blockade consistuted griefing, and that "many people" complained about the blockade. Note here that neither of these points are verifiable. That is, it may be the case that Matinicus believes that Eleventy's showing constituted griefing, but this is simply a belief held by a person. To use the Hierarchy of Disagreement image Matinicus posted above, you're both in the yellow zone, but continued discussion sends you both wandering into the orange zone, and occasionally red.

In addition, Nemesis told me that the blockade would have been ended by an OM judging on its own merits, and not on the number of players who complained or petitioned, thus making the number of complaints (if any) irrelevant. Petitions simply draw the OM's attention - the decision isn't based on them.

In the end, use of hand-waving and emotionally-laden words like "griefing" and "lots of people complained" aren't really suitable for an encyclopedic tone. It's easy to couch even cold, hard facts in language that makes them appear in a completely different light. A quick read through any newspaper shows some good examples - "allegedly" is a favourite of journalists the world over.

So here's my suggestion: write the paragraph using the known, verifiable facts that both of you agree on. Word it formally, in a tone suitable for an encyclopedia, and leave the highly-charged things like accusations of griefing and whatnot out of it. And guys, don't take the other person's comments too personally - it only makes things get unpleasent.

That's my opinion. --Belthazar451 12:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your valiant mediation efforts. I already conceeded that the word "griefing" was inappropriate on these and Hohumdiddly's talk pages prior to this mediation. I conceed that the phrase "many people" is not verifiable and, as per OceanMasters policies, irelevant. I insist, however, to include the undisputed fact that Eleventy's blockaded with 2 sloops only. This was the essence of this blockade. This event is characterized rather well by Eleventy's original Y!PP intent post and a link to that post serves as a primary source for both the conflict and the politically context within it took place. For future conduct on this Wiki, it would be very helpful for me to learn where I may have slipped into the red zone of "name calling" or the orange zone of "attacking and questioning the authority of other writers without addressing the argument." Matinicus 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the last 2 versions before the page was locked, I think there is only one sentence that needs to be shortened and here is how I now propose it should read:

1. This was in response to Eleventy's concession of the blockade after its 2 sloops were sunk in the first segment[2].

Note that the reference now points to the start of Eleventy's original intend post. Matinicus 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this 3rd party response. While I am fine with the thread being referenced, I think in that sentence the reference seems to infer that it will point to a concession that we did not do in that thread. I think if you want to add reference points to each blockade, we can do them to all three blockades at the bottom underneath the paragraph. An example could be:

Eleventy's Intent thread for Tigerleaf V: <insert forum link here>

Eleventy's Intent thread for Tigerleaf VI: <insert forum link here>

Eleventy's Intent thread for Tigerleaf VII: <insert forum link here>

So here is my proposal for that paragraph...

Eleventy has blockaded three times in it's existence, with Tigerleaf Mountain being the target on all three occasions. On August 15th, 2008 at Tigerleaf V, they lost against What The Falchion in 3 non-sinking rounds. At Tigerleaf VI on November 8th, 2008 against Art of War, Ocean Masters terminated the blockade after the first round when both of the sloops attacking were sunk with Eleventy ending up on the losing side. At Tigerleaf VIII on December 13th, 2008, Eleventy won Tigerleaf Mountain decisively in 3 sinking rounds against Flaming Rosebud.

Eleventy's Intent thread for Tigerleaf V: [3].

Eleventy's Intent thread for Tigerleaf VI: [4].

Eleventy's Intent thread for Tigerleaf VII: [5].

~Hohumdiddly, Feb 16th, 2009

I think the following contains all the information more concisely without introducing anything new or controversial:

1. Eleventy blockaded Tigerleaf Mountain three times. On August 15th, 2008 at Tigerleaf V, they lost against What The Falchion in 3 non-sinking rounds[6]. At Tigerleaf VI on November 8th, 2008 against Art of War, Ocean Masters terminated the blockade after the first round[7] when the two attacking sloops were sunk. At Tigerleaf VIII on December 13th, 2008, Eleventy won Tigerleaf Mountain decisively[8] in 3 sinking rounds against Flaming Rosebud.

Lets agree, get this done, and try to be more respectful of each others edits in the future rather than just hit the "undo" button. We can always shoot at each other on the High Seas ... more fun.

~Matinicus 13:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually give me until tonight to write up a new paragraph. I think to put the 2 sloop blockade into context, I'd want to introduce our theme of 7 deadly sins that led from Tigerleaf VI to Tigerleaf VIII. It's a big part of Eleventy history and worthwhile putting into the flag page for all to understand. We have had a player take the idea already on another ocean, so it's good to know the origin if he/she would ever want to wiki that as well.

~Hohumdiddly Feb. 17th, 2009

Sure. And I can help with the writing. Ye may also review how Tigerleaf VII was timed and perceived as a counter-point[9] to the 2-sloop blockade and a series of events all titled "Intent on Tigerleaf" that were posted in Cobalt Parley[10][11][12]. One such post was moved by Ocean Masters[13] from Cobatl Parley to Cobalt Events. It was these weekly postings in Cobalt Parley that "some alleged perceived as griefing."[Hint: 5 tildes at the end of yer post are a time stamp.]

~Matinicus 15:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to separate this out of politics and make this a whole new blockade section.

Blockades

In the history of Eleventy, they have been directly involved in three blockades, all of them occurring on Tigerleaf Mountain.

Tigerleaf V

On the weekend of August 14th, 2008, Eleventy declared their intent to blockade Tigerleaf Mountain against What The Falchion. Being significantly outjobbed, What The Falchion won easily in 3 rounds.

Eleventy's Intent Post for Tigerleaf V

The Seven Deadly Sins

After a few months of inactivity, Eleventy decided to pursue Tigerleaf Mountain again, but this time in a fashion that few have done before. The idea was to create a theme for people to figure out as the weeks went by. The theme was "7 Deadly Sins" where each week would consist of a different deadly sin and what happened that week would correlate to the theme. The plan was to never go through with the full seven sins, but to attack for full force on the fifth or sixth week. The plan was for people to eventually figure out the theme and assume the last week would be the blockade of Tigerleaf, and to catch the island owners off-guard. Here is a recap of the history of this plan from week one:

Week One - Sloth aka Tigerleaf VI

In the first week, Eleventy declared their intent to blockade Tigerleaf Mountain with a warchest dropped to blockade on November 8th, 2009. When the blockade started, Eleventy fielded two sloops that were eventually sunk in the first round. Castor decided to end the blockade after one round when no more Eleventy ships were going to attack. The theme of sloth was achieved by showing a lackluster attack at the blockade.

Week Two - Lust

In the second week, an intent post with the title "Intent to Have Fun at Tigerleaf" was posted in Cobalt Parley. The title of the thread was intentionally ambiguous to leave people guessing as what was to come. The theme for this week was Lust and was achieved by a Grand Frigate being decorated in lots of Red, Magenta, Pink, and Rose. On the day of the event, there were many tourneys of each type, a fashion contest, and raffle for prizes. By this time, nobody had caught onto the theme just yet, but it was soon to be discovered.

Week Three - Greed

In the third week is when people had started to figure out the theme. The thread was titled "Intent to shoot up a bunch of ships at Tigerleaf Mountain" and was initially posted in Cobalt Parley, but was later moved to Cobalt Events after the event was announced on Friday. In the thread, Jedi was the first person to figure out the "7 Deadly Sins" theme publicly and was later confirmed by other people in the thread. This week consisted of a Treasure Ship that set sail from Tigerleaf Mountain for 4 leagues to Fintan. The theme of greed was achieved because of the ship being loaded with more than 500k worth of commods and was open for anybody to attack at the time of departure. A tournament ensued after with the amount of the pot based on the different challenges that were achieved by players during these battles.

Week Four - Glutton

In the 4th week, there was no real action as it was Thanksgiving weekend and realized a good majority of the players would be away for the holidays. The title of the thread was "Intent to Take a Break from Tigerleaf" and was posted in Cobalt Parley.

Week Five - Tigerleaf VII

After weeks of posting of Intents by Eleventy, Flaming Rosebud had decided to blockade Tigerleaf Mountain. Eleventy fielded a brig during the blockade, but decided not to drop a warchest. Flaming Rosebud beat Art of War in 3 non-sinking rounds.

Week Six - Wrath aka Tigerleaf VIII

In the final week of the themed attack, Eleventy dropped a warchest and went full force to win Tigerleaf Mountain. The theme was intent on delivering Wrath in the form of cannonballs and sunken ships. In three rounds of good fighting, Eleventy decisively won Tigerleaf Mountain in 3 sinking rounds to claim their first island.

I think this is a good format for the theme. I agree we should settle on something quickly and not be petty about little wording here and there, but if there is blatant error in history or gramatical error, please let me know.

Hohumdiddly 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)(Thanks for this nugget of wiki editing information)

My ethics and moral value systems do not allow me to support a game that endorses the abuse, harrassment, and griefing of other, less powerful and less talented people the way the events surrounding the 7-sin theme of Eleventy at Tigerleaf has finally come to light:

http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/Talk:Eleventy

I played the pirates Matinicus and Drdoppler on Cobalt for 3+ years, I enjoyed the social aspects of pillaging, crew building, and training and encouragement of newer players. I can no longer do so in a good conscience as abusive play appears to be tolerated and condoned by Ocean Masters. Time to find a sense of community in real, not virtual life. Thank for 3 wonderful years of what used to be a good game whose values I could endorse. No more. ~Matinicus 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully request to have my account access unsuscribed and canceled. Thank ye for the previledge to post here and elsewhere. ~Matinicus 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no "subscription" to the YPPedia. Anyone with a Three Rings account (don't know if Whirled accounts work here, however) is able to edit pages, subscription or not. As for your request to be permablocked, player administrators do not do that except when the circumstances may require it (only two accounts have been permablocked by players, one was an extreme bout of vandalism, and the other was due to the username, the other accounts that are showing as permablocked by player administrators were initially done by an OM, and redone when a bug caused them to be unblocked by mistake). Personally, a player's request does not qualify for me, as while those blocks are easily reversed, I don't want to have to deal with a possible (however remote) situation of having the player change their mind later on. --Thunderbird 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on all comments and Matinicus drawing out this process long enough, I'd like to move to put my most recent proposed blockade section onto the actual page. While Matinicus wants to make some kind of political stand here, I'm just looking to maintain our flag's page and let everybody judge for themselves based on the text. Thank you.

Hohumdiddly 05:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for editing out Matinicus's post. I'd like to request any edit made by Matinicus be undone as he has shown time and time again that he has a personal vendetta against us. Any edit that is done cannot be taken with a neutral viewpoint and I would rather not get in an edit war again and have the page locked. We have been more than willing to provide truthful facts that we probably would not have if we were editing this page alone. Thank you very much.

Hohumiddly 12:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)