Talk:Hedonistic Imperative (Player alliance)

Little warning to editors of this page :

Editwars will be punished!

Vandalism will be punished!

ISD Vash Erics 08:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised you would clear all that content and call it vandalism without making any attempts at arbitration or asking me about it. I also think threatening "punishment" for vandalism and edit wars is just a little uncalled for, considering none of that has actually occurred here. It's generally considered polite to start throwing threats of punishment around AFTER it has been demonstrated that the editors are out of line and not editing in good faith, not before. Vandalism would be me replacing the page with, "THIS ALLIANCE IS DUMBS," or something along those lines. Furthermore, it looks like Sazuka made a complaint in private and you removed the content. If Sazuka is going to make accusations and you are going to respond to them, I'd like to know what they are. If Sazuka has problems with this article, they should be aired here.

Wikis are about openness, consensus, community, and collaboration. Arguments should be conducted in the open, viewable by all, with all interested parties allowed to comment on it. If Wikipedia.org admins deleted content because of the privately made complaints of everyone who had a complaint, Wikipedia would not exist in its current form. Why? Because Wikis are built by the community. If a wiki becomes a totalitarian regime where the admins being to delete or add content on arbitrary whims without the input of the community, the community leaves. There is a reason Wikipedia has a dispute resolution policy, a mediation committee, and a arbitration committee. I’m not saying we need those here; the current size of the EVE wiki doesn’t call for that yet. But I am saying that disputes between editors should not be resolved by admins without attempting some sort of dispute resolution. I won’t make any further content additions to this page until we’ve reached some sort of consensus here, but I would like to reach some sort of consensus. I hope the EVE wiki admins carefully consider how they will handle issues like this, and the possible repercussions it could have on the community.

I believe there is a pretty obvious conflict of interest with Sazuka and this article. First of all, he’s in the alliance. This alone should give anyone pause when considering his neutrality. Secondly, his suggestion on their forums was to edit the wiki page and put a positive spin on the recent controversy. Then, shortly after I created this page, he makes his first edit ever… on this page. This tells me his only interest in this wiki is began after he thought to use it for deceitful purposes. Basically, he wants to use this page as a personal propaganda bullhorn in an attempt to mitigate the fallout from their recent actions.

Now, about the content of the page. You can dispute the neutrality of my presentation or my interpretations; however, the content itself is for the most part is verifiable and true. You can debate what I said about community reaction; you can’t debate that between the EVE forums, SHC, etc, that there have been literally tens of thousands of views from EVE players. I’d say that makes it a pretty relevant thing to put in the page about their alliance. And if you look at the replies/commentary, you’ll find community response hasn’t exactly been positive. As for the “Aftermath” section I created, once again, rather hard to dispute. They were kicked out of Fountain, accounts were banned, and towers removed. Unproven? I suppose you could say, “The control towers just disappeared from space due to a glitch, Masu’di made an early April Fool’s joke post about getting banned then forgot his password and was unable to log in, oh also we decided to leave Fountain because we hate isk.” We don't have CCP confirmation of this, but the evidence speaks for itself. However you want to spin it, this has been a source of major public controversy for RELAX, and as such, it deserves a place in this article.

If Sazuka has a problem with it, let him answer my questions here, openly. So, Sazuka, are you trying to say that Masu’di didn’t make a post saying he had been banned? Is Hedonistic Imperative still in Fountain under their previous agreement? Did you make a post suggesting edits to this page? Or am I just making all this stuff up. --Kushan 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wikis are about openness, consensus, community, and collaboration."

I agree with this statement, but your first action here was contrary to this ideal. You posted your subjective view of our alliance, based on limited information. You'll find no consensus about your post about our Alliance. Please allow us to define ourselves.

The recent difficulties we've had are due to two of our directors having been involved in the exploit in the past, and there was very little if any connection with Es & Whizz and almost no connection to our alliance. You may wish to argue differently but the logs and forums that Kugutsumen stole from our forums and in game (by hacking personal email accounts and EVE accounts, both illegal activities in real life) do not contain the whole story nor all the facts. We will, for sure, post section on our alleged involvement in the exploit as an alliance, and you may feel free to comment on that.

Thank you.

Furthermore to the statement above (made by an alliance director, although he forgot to sign *facepalms*), and in response to your original comments, I notified the EVElopedia moderators of the inaccuracies in this topic by flagging it as inaccurate. With regard to your comments on Masu'di and his current ill-fated predicament, the EVElopedia rules clearly state that: "Warnings and bans are not to be discussed on the EVElopedia or the official EVE Online forum." --Sazuka Kirr 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)