Talk:Olive Island (Viridian)

Misc bits

Yakuza's changes need to be rewritten to be less inflammatory. --Barrister 27 July 2005 22:44 (PDT)

Better? --Ming (Talk)

Your changes are an improvement, but I'm not sure that removing the reference to Raggedjack's messages was a good idea. It was factual and documented. The text was poorly written, but not necessarily worthy of outright deletion. The first question to ask is: was it noteworthy? (I don't have the answer to that question.) --Barrister 28 July 2005 05:31 (PDT)

In my opinion as a Viridian player? No. I don't see it as anymore noteworthy than any of the Midnight Parley flamefests. Assuming someone else takes Olive in the future, will anyone care what names Raggedjack called Subliminal? Does anyone(third party) care what names anyone calls Misery in the forums a month after it happens? --Ming (Talk)

Note on cleanup of dev role

"The governorship was held during this time by the developer Peghead(at the request of Subliminal, in an effort to lower taxes) before returning to Subliminal." [1]

I helped debug the building code to see why the deeds didn't transfer. I seem to recall that Peghead and I decided to try having Peghead set himself as governor in an attempt to cause all the missing island infrastructure deeds to relocate to him. When this failed, we decided that logging Subliminal on in order to return governorship to him after this experiment would have created too much confusion, so we left the island as it was with Peghead as governor-in-name until Subliminal was unbanned. I don't believe that we have ever helped a player govern and adjust taxes during the duration of a player's ban, and we certainly have no intention of setting a precedent for such a thing. I'm going to correct this line for factual accuracy and to prevent miscommunication of a 'precedent' for events that did not actually happen.

-Lizthegrey 28 July 2005 01:54 (PDT)

Edit war

Yakuza, please do not simply delete what others have written. Instead, please either cite your sources, or come to this page to discuss your issues with the text. We want to avoid having an "edit war." --Barrister 28 July 2005 05:43 (PDT)

I don't appreciate the one sided view depicted in this version. Just to be clear, I contacted Danile James, aka Cleaver, to have him deal with the taxes on Viridian. He agreed to change them since I was banned. If there were also other motives involved, that I was unaware of, so be it, but this entire version has reeked of a lopsided view of the history of Olive in the interest of people who had very little do with the building of its infrastructure.

Furthermore, if you are going to mention my banning AT ALL, then you need to allow me to defend the reasons and actions of it, seeing as it is not AT ALL necessary to even list it in Olives history. Now if you want to go to my history, I will be happy to hash things out there and provide LOGS of EVIDENCE. I would prefer Olives history to remain that, Olives history. --Yakuza 28 July 2005 06:09 (PDT}

I suspect that the only reason for mentioning the ban would be for folks curious as to why Peghead was governor for so long. I seriously doubt that people not looking at the Island tab at that time really care at all. To that end, a footnote to your "vacation" post after the mention of your unavailability is suitable. Your "vacation" was made publically available information when you posted about it. --Guppymomma 28 July 2005 07:07 (PDT)

Additionally, if you are going to list Moros de Mindanaos successes defending the island during its "reign" then you undoubtedly should list its inevitable failure within the same context --Yakuza 28 July 2005 06:13PDT

Personally, I think it reads better if the Fear and Loathing period begins with the successful taking of Olive. Listing both the loss at the end of the previous section and the taking of at the start of this one just flows badly.--Fiddler 28 July 2005 06:18 (PDT)

I've put in a semiredundant bit in the first line of Fear and Loathing's section that combines the two concepts mentioned here. I hope that will suffice. --Guppymomma 28 July 2005 07:07 (PDT)

Yakuza, this version is rather neutral, in my opinion. Please explain what specifically you consider "one sided." Then we can address the details. I'm open to changing it, but simply overwriting another's text with old text is not the way to do it.

The fact of your banning is just that: a fact. You even posted about it, and I cited the post. If you wish to discuss *why* it happened, that would be more appropriate for a page about you. Please feel free to create that.

Finally, the reason I deleted the reference to MdM's defeat is because it's the very first sentence in the next section. Saying the same thing twice in two adjacent sentences is redundant.

I hope this clarifies the changes I (and others) have made. I've temporarily protected the page from further edits, so we can discuss which parts you feel are not neutral. --Barrister 28 July 2005 06:19 (PDT)

Lets see, the original post was that "MdM, lead by Akumu and Raggedjack, sought to make Olive a shoppers destination" This is completely incorrect, as Raggedjack didn't enter the political scene until well after the shops were all built by the crews of MdM. It wasn't one person... so that statement alone (that I did indeed DELETE) shows that somehow you have either a prejudiced or biased opinion on how the island itself was colonized.

The mentioning of my ban is not at all relevant to Olives history, not anymore than Akumu deleting himself, or appointing a new monarch with no flag input, or giving an Inn away to a girlfriend, or the mass exodus of crews from MdM. Do you see where I am getting at? Why mention my ban, that had NOTHING to do with Olive itself, when you don't mention every bad little thing that happened to the monarch(s) before? The only reason I can see is a smear campaign to provide a very distrustful view of history to the island. If this is the way things will be carried out here, expect very little trust going into this and a lot of controversy.

Likewise, you wouldn't let me explain the situation as it was! Isn't that a bit onesided? I can't mention Raggedjacks bullcannon that was written on every last building of infrastructure that was directed towards our flag and myself, I can't explain why I ejected him from the palace that caused my ban, I can't say anything at all to attest to the reasons for the ban, yet its allowed to be said that I was in fact banned? Please. Thats not the neutrality I read about. --Yakuza 28 July 2005 06:32

Ming deleted the text about Raggedjack, not me. If you think it's relevant, then yes, we can put it in. You can even see where I raised the issue at the top of this page. This entry is not finished. It's a collaborative work. That's why it was frustrating when you overwrote my text with text that I had just patched up. You made no effort to incorporate what I had added. And you reintroduced all the grammar and spelling errors I had fixed.

No one is saying you can't explain what was going. Far from it. But you went about it in the wrong way. That being said, I suggest you post your proposed text *here* in the discussion page. Then we can try to arrive at an even-handed bit of history. --Barrister 28 July 2005 06:38 (PDT)

As long as its non MdM doing the editing, the drafting, the finalizing... I just dont think it will ever be "even-handed". Im done. Go ahead and post your ideas about Olive and whatever the hell you want to about me, and refuse my right to defend myself in the history page (which is what you did). Just name the page "A few peoples distorted view on History of Olive Island" --Yakuza 28 July 2005 06:46 (PDT)

Oh, and god forbid we explain the idea to change the bazaar. Lets not add that there wasn't a single supportive building on the island for anything, making it rely completly on imports. If you don't see where I am coming from, then its clear you aren't interested in unobjectivity. --Yakuza 28 July 2005 06:49 (PDT)

Also, look how Moros is depicted in such a favorable way. "The top flag" "Quickly claimed olive" "Shoppers paradise" (that term is itself questionable). Then look at Fear and Loathings description. It wants to refer to all the problems, yet none of MdM's problems were allowed to remain. None of the defense of Fear and Loathings issues were allowed to remain. I call bullcannon. --Yakuza 28 July 2005 07:07 (PDT)

The original history was written by Sig. Obviously you can see the bias inherent in that. Your revised history introduced just as much bias in your favor (and some atrocious grammar, to be frank.) Until this is resolved and tempers calm down, we should work on a collaborative history in this talk page. As I was a part of MdM, I will limit myself to making spelling and grammar changes.--Fiddler 28 July 2005 07:17 (PDT)

Atrocious grammar? Please. Was that at all necessary? I understand a need to keep things clean, and that there might have been some errors, but for you to continue defaming me proves my point. Either you are trying to legitimize your purpose as "editor" but in doing so you are completly biased and have given cause for little trust to this project. If this continues expect the whole of the ocean to become aware.--Yakuza 28 July 2005 07:21 (PDT)

Apologies, no defamation of your characer was intended. Perhaps atrocious was too strong a word; I myself have written some very bad things in the course of butchering the English language. I was just saying that quite a few of your edits on the island page were less polished than most of your other writings.--Fiddler 28 July 2005 07:37 (PDT)

I think it's just important to stay calm and remember that when you make changes to a section of any article, work from the current version of the article rather than pasting in an older version. That way you avoid undoing the linkage, spelling, and grammar bits that contributors have helped fix. Not everyone is a grammar expert, but everyone can try to work with the material in a collaborative manner so that their information/spelling/linking/grammar booches can be covered by the skills/knowledge of others. --Guppymomma 28 July 2005 07:44 (PDT)

A Collaborative History of Olive

Since it appears possible to have discussion without edit wars, I've moved the articles back to the article page and reopened it for normal editing. --Guppymomma 28 July 2005 11:25 (PDT)

On the collaborative history

I don't know that I'd call Olive a success. Just a few weeks ago people were calling it a failure in the forums. I figure that should be brought up for discussion first, though... ---Akumu 28 July 2005 11:12 (PDT)

I think the MdM section just needs a little rewording. The "shopper's paradise" bit seems a little loopy as there is no other real option besides winning an island and just not building it up. Perhaps a little more historical information instead of mall ad language would work better :) Give it a shot. --Guppymomma 28 July 2005 11:27 (PDT)

Actually, it's a medium island. The original intent was a "restocking depot." The island isn't especially well suited to ships and rum, however. Because of that, we intended the idea of "shopper's paradise" as opposed to "restocking depot." I was just commenting on the perception that we failed as opposed to the statement here to the opposite. The best I could do is explain the reasoning. ---Akumu 28 July 2005 11:50 (PDT)

Ah, that makes more sense. Let's see if it can be reworded to reflect it as such below...definitely still needs more work. --Guppymomma 28 July 2005 11:57 (PDT)

Moros de Mindanao at first planned to build the island as a restocking depot, but realized due to commodities issues that it was not well suited as such. They instead switched to a plan to try to encourage commerce through piratey shopping and built three bazaars: a tailor, an iron monger, and a shipyard. As a medium island, Olive is only able to support four shoppes, including bazaars. To begin building war frigates, a shipyard shoppe, Dry Seas, was opened as the island's sole shop and the ocean's only shipyard shoppe at the time. The tailor bazaar garnered relatively few stalls, although the tailors who did establish themselves there did so successfully. With a demand for rum on Olive, the rum export market on nearby Dragon's Nest thrived.

On the deed issue (new topic)

A bug prevented the automatic deed transfer of the bazaars and infrastructure buildings, but Subliminal managed to get them through other channels.

This is incorrect, and is assumption once again at work. I never recieved the deeds until I was voted back in as governor. Thus the confusion over whether or not Raggedjack was in the palace coffers or not. It was my assumption that if I didn't have the deeds, he must have. I have changed this to reflect the truth.

Good. You SHOULD be correcting things that are not true. The above bit was only a rephrasing of an awkward and confusing sentence that someone had put in earlier, not a conspiracy against you. Your correction sentence is much better and far more informative. --Guppymomma 28 July 2005 12:41 (PDT)

I saw you as owner of one of the bazaars just after the blockade. While I don't agree with the wording of the above phrase as stated, it does appear that you originally had control of the buildings, which I assume was intended by the "Subliminal managed to get them through other channels". The person listed as the owner is the owner, no? I'm not changing anything yet, but as a factual account, you were the listed owner of the Tailor Bazaar. As a note, you can click the "+" next to the "edit" tab to add a new section. --Ming (Talk)

The -ownership- of the infrastructure buildings was transferred to Subliminal immediately, but for some reasons the deeds were nonexistent, and therefore could not be transferred. As soon as the blockade ended, Raggedjack no longer had access to the palace coffers, and Subliminal had full control. He just did not have the deeds, and hence the ability to pass the ownership of the buildings to anyone else through transferring the deeds. --Lizthegrey 28 July 2005 13:03 (PDT)

Please explain how I can own something and not have the deed to it. I merely had management rights. Yakuza 28 July 2005 13:23 (PDT)

Mere speculation: There is generic code that transfers ownership of objects. The trading of deeds invokes this code. The changing of the governor does as well, while magically moving the deeds. The deeds only act as triggers when traded and aren't needed to transfer ownership by other processes. Again, all speculation, but that seems like a logical way to program it. --Ming (Talk)

Again, I will stress that sorting all this out is not a conspiracy, it was merely a very confusing bug. What you mean by "management rights" is the same thing that Liz means be "ownership." I'm guessing that the reason why you showed up as owner of bazaars and such is because you were set as the owner in the game software/server, but as the deeds didn't exist it sounds like a terribly confusing and frustrating time. I'll also guess that management rights for buildings without managers cannot happen without the person being listed as the owner in the game database. --Guppymomma 28 July 2005 13:32 (PDT)

In the way-back days, ships didn't have deeds. When you purchased a ship, you simply...got it. It transferred crews with you and everything. Even today, if you delete a character with a ship's deed, the crew that character was in retains access to the ship. --AtteSmythe 28 July 2005 13:39 (PDT)

Ming is correct. You were listed as the owner on the building, and were the owner in fact - deeds are just placeholder objects that will transfer ownership of the corresponding building when they are traded, but have no utility in and of themselves. Ownership is almost always (but not necessarily) tied to deed control. --Lizthegrey 28 July 2005 16:14 (PDT)

You say this as if its supposed to be common knowledge. All I knew was that I didn't have the deeds, Raggedjack appeared to be in the coffers and possibly held the missing deeds. How was I supposed to know otherwise? At that point it wasn't known to anyone where the deeds were or what was going on, nor was there any assurances made to me that he did not infact have them. Yakuza 28 July 2005 20:45 (PDT)

NPOV removal?

Does anyone have any objections to the current text? This includes neutrality and scope (too much detail or not enough). If we have consensus, I'll remove the NPOV tag. --Barrister 30 July 2005 20:13 (PDT)

Support. It looks neutral enough. – Yaten ^talk 30 July 2005 20:18 (PDT)

Removing it now. --Barrister 23:17, 2 August 2005 (PDT)

Updating Olive

I'm too lazy to do it. Yakuza 16:14, 21 November 2005 (PST)

Uh, thanks for letting us know? --Barrister 20:34, 22 November 2005 (PST)