Talk:Morpheusshad

Happy to argue the validity of this page, and freely admit that Morph and I share the same crew, and am not a unattached party. That aside, while the contest won was not for a familiar (the current 'gold standard' for wiki inclusion), I do believe this page is warranted, as the prize Morpheusshad has been awarded (a Shoppe) is, thanks to the changes in famiar dispersement, even more rare than a familiar, and the Daily Dose of Iron contest is to date the only time gunners have been pitted head to head to determine a victor¹. With the current discussions on policy going on, I have no doubt that if this page is removed within days for 'vanity' it will only reappear shortly anyway. — Callistan ^{(talk/contrib)} 02:13, 11 June 2006 (PDT) ¹ Correction: first on the Cobalt Ocean.

"...the Daily Dose of Iron contest is to date the only time gunners have been pitted head to head...". It isn't actually. There have been at least two other events in that same format, which is where it was gotten from, not to mention the two or three standard time style events, including the familiar one from Midnight. And I disagree completely with the assertion that a shoppe is extremely rare. For the island it is on, yes, but in general, not really. While this will all be a moot discussion if the new proposal passes, the standard is for a familiar winner- not a winner of a shoppe contest that wasn't as difficult as a contest that someone else won a familiar in. --Fannon 09:03, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

I'm not aware of other such contests, but I'll take your word for it. However, winning a shop is indeed rare. There are 42 Cobalt familiars, and while there are 76 shoppes, only 7 were given away in oceanwide competition (as I could determine via wiki). Granted, the other 7 shoppe winners haven't a page, but I consider that an oversight, not a precedent.

Unless I misunderstand you, you're saying that winning a ringer-sanctioned, pre-announced, open gunning bake-off is not as difficult as winning a similar bilging/carping/sailing bake-off, SF/drinking/TD/Rumble tourney, auction, poetry contest, or other event. I, and I'm sure many others, could not disagree more.

Most importantly, the current guideline is open to notable things other than simply familiar/monarch/captain/governor, and the fact that the example list is very short, along with the misinterpretation that it is all-inclusive, is the root of the current proposals for change here. — Callistan ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:50, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

Fannon won a familiar in a gunning event. I think it's safe to say that she feels they're worthwhile. :) The way the guidelines stand *now*, this is a vanity page, but it looks as if the vanity guidelines will be loosened, even if the everyone-gets-a-page idea is voted down. Winners of offical events such as this might not be a bad addition. --Zava 20:42, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

Current policy has been to not have pages for winners of any buildings. Neither from contests nor extremely costly Ringer run auctions early on in Midnight. I believe that everyone here agrees that discussion is good & that the current vanity rules do include notability having leeway in being decided by discussion. I also believe that we can all have this discussion in a mature manner. If there are many others, they may also comment here as discussion is always welcome. --Guppymomma 20:53, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

To be honest, there is a sentence in the vanity guidelines: "Players who have made significant accomplishements or achievements or who have obtained a high level of notoriety may also be listed, however these pirates need greater justification in the article to remain listed in the YPPedia." We could certainly interpert this to allow this sort of page, and I would be open to doing so—it's just that we haven't before. Regardless of what changes might come to be made to the text of the vanity guidelines, we should consider incorporating that sentence into our interpretation of the vanity guidelines. And at any rate, this page definitely advances the idea in my mind that shoppe owners should be explicitly mentioned in the vanity guidelines as being eligable for pages. --Emufarmers 22:55, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

Fannon, I think it is in poor taste to try to diminish the accomplishments of another player. A shoppe on a Ringer-controlled island is very rare (this is only the second such IM on Cobalt at this time). This was also the first open gunning tournament on Cobalt. Morpheusshad has my sincere congratulations. She won against the best of Cobalt. --Fava 20:20, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

Fannon said nor intended absolutely nothing of the sort. This user does not qualify for an article under the current policy, and we can get precident if you want it. Feel free to suggest changes to the policy; I'm sure you'll find that Fannon (and myself, and the rest of the admins, and the rest of the world) would be all too happy to support a more flexible policy that's easier to enforce. Such as, for example, the one currently being voted on. But the fact that there's an ongoing vote doesn't mean the rules stop applying, and it's never "in poor taste" for an admin to enforce them. (By the way, Fannon's one of the last people who will ever slag off the accomplishments of a good gunner.) --Ponytailguy 20:41, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

PTG - I was referring to Fannon's last sentence. If she didn't intend to make it sound as if she was saying this contest wasn't as difficult or worthy than one that simply has a different prize - then I apologize to Fannon. I do still believe that this win was rare. It was one of this Ocean's first. I feel it should be recognized as such. The prize at the end doesn't change the accomplishment. --Fava 01:22, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Please debate the ideas, not the commenter. Speaking of the voting, it would be helpful if you have not already voted to do so and voice your opinion on the wiki policies. Especially if you disagree with what they are currently & would like to see it changed. You can do so by following the link from the Main Page. --Guppymomma 20:53, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

As the 2nd place winner in the "Daily Dose of Iron" Competition held by Fava on Saturday, June 10th 2006, I believe it is an achievement well deserving of recognition on Morpheusshad's personal page on the wiki site. While it's not been the only competition for gunners in the history of ypp, it certainly is the only gunning event so far on Cobalt. The end prize does not indicate the importance of winning a contest or competition.--Charisma 12:52, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

The Gunners in this contest were the best of the best on Cobalt. *While there have been several shoppes won on Ringer owned isles (Sakejima via Avernus' evil plot.. and now on Lima with the Beans) that accomplishment should not be considered any less of an achievement. *To win any major event with a prize whose general value is considered more than 300k PoE to 500k PoE minium, well it is a feat unto itself. If the Rumble event had been for a shoppe I still cant imagine any less of a turnout, would our accomplishments in such a multi-level tourney be any less of value because the prize was not the Octo? Which leads to the idea that bake off's are not vanity wins, they are accomplishments of the best players who are online at that time. The higher the prize, the higher the quality of player. While not may players from other oceans might come over to Cobalt for a shoppe, just because it is a shoppe and not a familiar does not make it any less of an accomplishment. If this arguement does not work, Callistan, make Morph Monarch. Dcyborg 06:33, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

My question is what is being discussed? Is it vanity or YPP history? Is is something worth note or is it a minor trivia? Those are the questions that must be discussed in regards to any page. Does winning a tournement warrant a page? If yes, what's the threshhold? If not, why not? Does winning a familiar always count? Should monarchs past and present deserve their own pages? The over all questions should be, What makes up YPP history? as the wiki is an encylopiedia of sorts.

In this particular instance, I believe that this does constitute a page. It is of note that not all events are Ringer sponsered, nor are they held on such a large scale. It is a piece of YPP history as the series of events are contributing to the history of Cobalt itself. What's the threashold? To me, it must be fully endorced by the ringers and be announced on the YPP forums. I don't believe that a tourney for an OM doll/rare artifact or other things shouldn't be included as it doesn't add to the history of Cobalt. Events such as Avernus's events and Fava's events do add to the history of Cobalt and the winners of those events should be added to them. Have you ever wondered what happened to some of the past large events? Some of those entrys have been lost and there are those who wish to remember but can't. As an encylopiedia, if this is trying to be one from my understanding, does include entries of that sort.

I firmly believe that history should be put in and to me, this was a part of the Cobalt history. Rappak 06:49, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Believing is nice. But it doesn't comply with policy, and precedent says it doesn't get a page. Feel free to suggest changes to the policy, feel free to think otherwise, feel free to vote on the current changes (which would grant this pirate a page), but "I think she deserves a page", no matter how many times it's said by how many people, does not constitute a policy change. --Ponytailguy 07:28, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

I contend it is. It follows the policies of the First rule and the significance clause: "The YPPedia is an encyclopedic work. It is not a directory of pirates across the oceans. That said, there are some pirates noteworthy enough to be included in the YPPedia. Monarchs, governors, captains, island designers, and winners of familiar contests all fall into this category. Other pirate entries can be included, but an explanation of why that pirate is notable must be included as part of the article." What is up for debate is whether or not this is comparable to winning a familiar in this view point. I think it is and I sited my reasons. This fits under the current policy. Rappak 07:51, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

And I can cite precedent... or, at least, I could if we didn't have a policy of deleting articles in similar situations because they don't comply with guidelines. Precedent is much more important than beliefs or "sited reasons".

Let me spell this out as clearly as I can: She does not qualify for a page under the guidelines that are currently being enforced. It doesn't matter what you believe, or how often you say that you believe, or how deeply you believe. You can believe that 2+2=5 all you like and it doesn't make it any truer. You're welcome to participate in the ongoing debate to change the vanity page guidelines, but that doesn't mean we stop enforcing the current ones, nor does "I believe..." change anything. --Ponytailguy 08:00, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

And that way of thinking has everyone pissed. Is precedent that important to kill history? Precendence will limit and kill anything if used and abused. If the Ringers were really stuck to precendence, we wouldn't have a lot of what we see today. Precendence must sometimes be changed to be flexible. If this line of though it going to continue, then people could and should careless and less about the wiki as it will soon contain no viable history, making it virtually useless, dry, and meaningless. Rappak 08:16, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

I see. So deleting one single article because of an established and rarely-invoked precedent will totally destroy any validity the YPPedia has ever had or ever will have as a community resource. Hmm.

If anybody is pissed, they're taking this situation, and themselves, far too seriously. Precedents should be flexible, true... but "flexible" doesn't mean we make exceptions whenever someone asks for them or it's politically convenient to do so, and "flexible" certainly doesn't mean that "I believe" overrides anything. If you're just going to continue trying to talk the admins into granting an exception here, which it seems like you are, even after being directly told that one is not forthcoming, you might want to reconsider and go do something more productive with your time. This article, as it stands, does not meet the current vanity guidelines. If you disagree with the guidelines, go help us change them (yes, believe it or not, we're not evil crabby people who want to destroy and kill everything good and yummy in the world. We want to change the guidelines.), don't repeat the words "I believe" until you're blue in the face. I'm finished here. --Ponytailguy 08:26, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Rappak quoted the pertinent line of the current policy "... Other pirate entries can be included, but an explanation of why that pirate is notable must be included as part of the article".

• Based on the above comments, it is clear the act, and thus pirate, are considered noteworthy enough for inclusion by a significant sampling.
• The noteworthy act is described on the page.

This is not an "exception" to the policy, but a qualifying example of the "other" clause. If there is still disagreement, please explain how the article falls short of valid. Comments on changing the policy itself belong on either the policy discussion page, or the policy revamp page. — Callistan ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:10, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

I think Callistan is correct. This pirate qualifies for the "other" clause. --Barrister 12:12, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

I'd agree that the pirate in question is notable. The reasons why winning a shop on this island is notable should be listed in the article, though. Otherwise, it will jump out of the frying-pan of {{vanity}} and into the fires of {{newstandard}} --AtteSmythe 12:17, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

I don't at all disagree in that this page should be eligable for inclusion. My main point was this: We operate, as does any wiki, on a consensus basis. The consensus, up until this point, has been that only those pages which strictly meet the explicitly-permitted achievements (excepting event characters, Ringers, and OMs) are permitted. As I myself noted, it doesn't have to be that way: Even under our current policies, we could easily allow this sort of thing; but the consensus up until this point has not been such. Let me be the first (or the third) to throw my support behind interpreting the "other notable accomplishments" clause in a considerably, but the manner in which people have advanced this, crying, "it's notable! It's important!", rather than calmly stating, "the guidelines, as written, could include this; let's reconsider how we interpret them"; that it what gets my goat. (This isn't mainly directed towards Callistan: He put it well, in the context of how we interpret our rules. Others' later comments, however, seemed far more directed straight at saying that this pirate's accomplishments were great, established precedents be damned.

So, then, could we agree that, regardless of whatever changes are made to the text of the vanity guidelines, we should take that "significant accomplishments" clause into account in the future, when evaluating articles? --Emufarmers 15:16, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Woot, it's moot! --AtteSmythe 22:34, 12 June 2006 (PDT)