User talk:Hohumdiddly

Nov./Dec. 2008 Tigerleaf blockades

I appreciate yer sentiment, Hohumdiddly, to comment positively on our Dec.-13 blockade, but in the Wiki, we should stride to provide undisputed facts of historical events concisely without judgment and opinion. Discussion on disputed facts should take place in these talk pages. My congratulation to yer decisive win over us on Dec.-13 are sincere and I hope we can agree on the facts of yer flag's Nov.-4 blockade ... I have the chat-logs to prove yer auto-response to tells less than 10 minutes into round-1 that yer flag is conceding, this was when ye were on the second of two sloops that yer flag fielded. If this is untrue, please correct me and give me permission to post my complete chat-logs this event with ye. ~Matinicus Dec.-13, 2008, 11:23.

It would be helpful if accusations of bias in prior edits by Hohumdiddly could be backed up or discussed in these talk pages. Why exactly is an undisputed, precise statements (2 sloops fielded by Eleventy) replaced with a more general and vage statements ("fleet restrictions")? Does precision reflect bias just because the precise facts reflect poorly on the flag dropping a war chest on a large island? ~Matinicus, Dec.-14, 21:48.

As noted at the top of the article, it is a brief blockade history for the whole ocean. Notes on that page are kept brief and more general. If you wish to go into detail, you may do so in the blockade history sections (or create them) on either the Tigerleaf Mountain or participating flags' articles. --Guppymomma 15:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

It's only locked until this gets resolved - if I'd locked it three minutes sooner, your edit would have been the final. I'll wait to hear Hohumdiddly's side of the story. --Belthazar451 23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(I am not a wiki god, so I'm adding this in both places)

--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 (which Matinicus shows immediate bias by saying he himself did 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

--Forcompleteness and consistence, please see my response here http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/Talk:Eleventy

--- Preview before posting, silly ... For completeness and consistence, please see my response here http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/Talk:Eleventy Matinicus 04:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)