Difference between revisions of "User talk:KyTin/Guilds Debate"

Revision as of 21:38, 2 November 2007

• KyTin: I started this to see what other peoples views on here where about guilds. Although they are not supported they are a key factor in this game, giving people large groups of trusted friends to hunt items with. With any mmo this is something that is bound to form, and wonder why it would be wrong to form a list of them on here. With only minor details such as members (so one can contact the guild), Universe (where the guild can be found) & minor fact such as founding dates ect.

-- KyTin 13:52, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

• PSUPedia convention is to discourage individual pages about guilds. We're a wiki of (mostly) facts, not a directory of guilds - the official boards and PSOW both have forums specifically tailored for guilds and the community in general. We're not really that kind of 'community' site. Advertising of guilds is generally allowed on people's user pages, but unless overruled by a popular vote or by a Bureaucrat I will not sanction the creation of a 'Guilds' page or any page dealing with a specific guild that isn't on someone's userspace. - Mewn 14:23, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

• KyTin: I was just thinking of a compiled list of known guilds, this is a site for information to help with game play. Well at least thats what i thought why else are there pages on rare spawns ect? Yes it does use the Wiki format but its for the exchange if information to promote better game play at least thats what the community uses it for. Maybe the people editing it think of it as a Wikipedia for PSU but the people that come and read want information to help them get farther. And I've seen many new players reffered here from the XBox 360 servers as i place to get started. If they wanted to find a group of people to play with that would be some facts they would like to know to find a group they might better their game play with maybe. -- KyTin 14:33, 2 November 2007 (CDT)
• Yes, this is a site for information on the game and gameplay. A list of guilds does not further the aims of the wiki, in my opinion, because it has nothing to do with gameplay, and therefore it's of little relevance. There's a clear distinction between the largely objective information we seek to provide about the game and information on the community. This is one of the reasons why we don't have forums either. Besides, there are other potential issues:
  • Guild drama: if we allow guilds to set up pages here or have a page listing guilds, we run the risk of increased vandalism from people wishing to bring guild drama to us. We're a neutral site (and therefore I feel allowing guild pages or a list of guilds risks compromising this), and I have no problems with deleting vandalism, but I'm not about to make my job potentially harder for something as frivolous as this.
  • Listing the guilds themselves: Who is going to list all the guilds? How will it be formatted and displayed? As a site we're still missing a lot of vital information, I feel, so this is never going to be high-priority while people want to get drop info, or rare spawns, or whatever.
  • 'Finding a group they might better their gameplay with': Sorry, but I find this to be a rather weak argument. While I'm glad to see people referred to here, I think they shouldn't forget the existance of other sites, and forums, with their own community features which we don't, and maybe never will, have. Take PSOW's Team Center for example. And if someone has a bad experience with a guild they found on here to better their game with, that leads back to the potential vandalism/drama problem. I'm not being the arbiter of guild disputes or people's petty dislikes, and I'm not sure other SysOps would want to be either.
• If you are still intent on arguing a point about guilds, I suggest you take it to the Field Base and call for a vote there. Convention and precedent here both discourage the creation of guild pages, and unless that's overturned by a vote or a Bureaucrat it stays. I'm happy for people to advertise their guild on their User Page (User:x) or in their Userspace (e.g. User:x/knights of awesome), as User pages are personal anyway, and therefore do not follow the general objectivity of the wiki itself. - Mewn 15:57, 2 November 2007 (CDT)
• Would a page titled guild with nothing more then a statement that guild should not be listed on main pages, and a link to Team Center on PSO-World be a better solution. I mean better then calling for voting on the topic because this does get what i want done in some ways. Letting people see where to go to find preformed groups to play with, without as you put it bring the guild drama (good guild this does not happen but there are few good guilds) -- KyTin 16:06, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

PS: I didn't want to argue i just wanted to see if anyone else thought that this would be useful and to state pros and cons in discussion.

• I'm not keen on that either - if we did anything like that I feel we'd have to list EVERY PSU site with guild forums or some kind of guild system, because I wouldn't then want to favour PSOW over other sites for finding a guild. We already have links to other sites with these features on the sidebar, and it seems a bit pointless. Instances of people creating guild pages are far and few between and these are usually moved quickly anyway. Oh, and I didn't mean arguing in a negative way, it's just that discussing it here is pointless as I see no need to change the current system, so I'm almost certainly not going to do anything unless you can really convince me there is a need to. - Mewn 16:29, 2 November 2007 (CDT)
• I guess there is the risk more sites would want to be on the list of places for obvious reasons guilds them self could not be on such a page. But with it linking already to the PSO-World from side bar i don't see what such a page with a link to PSO-World's Team Center & possibly the Official forums with a statement saying that the PSUPedia staff does NOT support guild listings. And that guilds and other such entities can be found and formed through the following resources. I now see this as a way of preventing future deletions from being needed. -- KyTin 16:38, 2 November 2007 (CDT)