thunderforce

Nice to see the old Reunion game of Hide and Seek being played more widely. 🙂

I'm sad to see the presents are not back again... could they perhaps at least be added to the pool for Propel? They wouldn't turn up that often, and Propel throws all kinds of absurd objects.

All players in the Labyrinth zone now have inherent intangibility, allowing them to move through other players for optimal movement freedom. I see how we got here, with it maybe not being clear in testing how the Labyrinth would be when it was full of players, and I'm not going to ask to turn it off (because that would be futile) but I am begging you not to do it anywhere else. During the City interregnum I tried a bunch of MMOs and if there was one thing that they consistently did, and that I consistently hated, it's that you could just walk through people, which I found extremely damaging to the sense of immersion. I want fighting in a tight space to be different to fighting with plenty of room.

I don't want to relitigate the whole thing either; I promise you I have nothing at all to do with the FBSA Wiki.

I could be mistaken but I think Dacy is not a "he". What I meant was it is very difficult to have a large list of player bases on the wiki and at the same time ensure that none of them is inappropriate.

https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/50104-new-content-policy-for-the-wiki/

I am of much the same mind... but I think rather than go over that again we should seriously consider removal. I'd propose to make the existing 5 pages redirect to [[Base Lists]] which could have links to FBSA pages (if/when they exist) and Dacy's directory.

Having stewed this over, I am (also?) of the opinion that the base lists should simply be removed altogether (and possibly put on the FBSA Wiki). It is fan material, more appropriate for FBSA, and only writing about the actual game is an easy way to comply with the new content policy for the Wiki.

I've added https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Template:Ouro_content. I've added a note on Chriso's talk page. I've been through and edited all the affected pages, mostly to switch them to use the template. I hope that'll be the end of it. ETA: one more edit, the usual kind of thing. I've added a more draconian note on their talk page. If that doesn't work I'll swing the banhammer (first time ever!) leaving them able to edit their own talk page and see if that works.

I think content related to player supergroups belongs on the FBSA wiki (and frankly, on reflection, the same is true of base lists).

This user is adding the Ouro arc numbers for lots of badges to the wiki - good - but doing it in a very minimal style and sometimes in French (and with one or two outright goofs). I haven't said anything to them because I think the first thing to do is write a template for this information (or find the existing one) and only then ask them to use it. However, I'm off to the Worldcon and there's little chance I'll do this until I return, so I'm mentioning this here just in case anyone knows of an existing template or is feeling keen enough to write one in the next week...

I'm posting this here after a conversation with Conviction on Discord. It would be helpful to me, and I hope it would not be too much work, for the START/P2W Vendor to offer XP reductions in the same way she offers XP boosters (but without attendant bonus influence). This would let people on shards with long-term bonus XP like Reunion play the game at a more normal pace, or more generally let people who want to collect all the arcs (etc) level more slowly without the slightly awkward feeling of turning off XP altogether.

That's not evidence of malice. (On the face of it, it would be extraordinary if there weren't such differences; people make mistakes, passcodes change, base themes change.) Well, they certainly didn't do it shortly after reverting any kind of apparently malicious change; that's clear from the history; so I think the most reasonable explanation is that they did it preemptively - and probably not to prevent malicious editing, because why would a malicious editor pay any attention to a polite notice asking them not to do it? And I have said (speaking as someone who has now reviewed basically every edit on all five pages) that I have no evidence of any such, so unless you can find some, I suggest we proceed on the basis that it's never happened. That's simply not true. What I have been saying all along is that I have seen no evidence of malicious edits to base lists on the wiki. If you have seen evidence of malicious edits to the wiki, show it to me! The entire editing history is there. (But please remember the last time you did, it turned out a) it wasn't malicious and b) I'd already examined that specific example and shown that it was obviously not malicious in this very thread). If you haven't, then since I've said precisely nothing about what you've seen happen to the directory, I'm obviously not disputing anything you've seen. Furthermore more and more of what you write seems to have no actual relationship to a disagreement over the content of the wiki. We agree that you will review any edits that have been made in the normal way, add them to your directory, and only then overwrite the wiki's table. We (presumably) agree that if someone _does_ make a malicious edit to the wiki, that procedure will overwrite it. As far as I can see the only actual disagreement (in terms of what the page should actually have written on it) is whether the comment in the source should say "Bases are most easily updated ..." or "You may find it easier to ...". Since the first of these statements is not actually known to be true for any given editor (and it seems very likely for at least some editors it is false), and since your apparent rationale for it is a problem that there is no evidence for and that the procedure we do agree on would fix, it seems obvious that we should prefer the second. Please at least try to address this question in any reply. Generally it's best that you discuss the contents of pages, not the character of other editors.

I don't propose to remove them either, so I'm not sure what choice I'm making here. At this point, as far as I can make out, your entire rationale for wanting changes to go through you is malicious editing, in spite of the fact that there is zero evidence that this ever happened. That doesn't make any sense to me.

You didn't do it. Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by a comment? On my proposed version of the page, <!-- If you are adding a base by editing the wiki, recommend adding it at the top to make it easier for the CRs to copy the information into their base directory. You may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly. --> appears when you edit the page. This is a comment. It isn't shown to people just viewing the page. That's the distinction here. You have never added a comment. Yes. If you actually read this thread you will find that those passcodes were added by BlackSpectre an hour before that. It wasn't malicious at all - it was just an error on their part which they rapidly corrected. That's because there isn't actually any evidence. There's been one suggested case which turned out to be a simple error. Furthermore, if someone was to make a malicious change, you'd detect it when you reviewed changes since the last directory upload, something you already said you intend to do. You have in fact said that changes have to go through you; you've said that to make changes you should be contacted and A reasonable person reading that would conclude that changes added normally would be overwritten. It's not the case that every facet of your contribution has to go through me - obviously not since your version of the page is _still up_. How about "It may be easier to update bases in the base directory ..." ? It's not at all clear to me that it is "most easy" for a wiki editor to chase off somewhere else. I'm not sure that option is available. You can't unilaterally remove them.