Talk:Shield Of The Tree Quest

Why remove?

why were the details for this quest removed?--3nki 10:50, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

Because years ago, if I recall correctly, Pulse specifically asked for it not to be spoiled. Of course, totally delinking the page and not even giving hints seems a bit overkill. Not that it matters anymore since once it's on the wiki history, it's there for good. --Neyne 14:23, 17 March 2012 (CDT)

Pages and page history can both be edited and deleted. Editing history files is apparently a little time-consuming, but deleting them and recreating the page is a fairly simple way of removing the offending information from the wiki. The page just needs to be flagged for deletion, and then recreated with a no-spoilers flag, and whatever information Pulse has agreed to.

I notice that the quest page, left, doesn't tell you how to do the quest. It lists an optimised way of fulfilling the quest requirements and achieving the reward with the least possible effort, and you have to wonder at any ordered list of actions for 'doing a quest' which lists beginning the quest just before the end. Heaven forbid that the quest involve any kind of narrative structure, or that someone who is stuck might want to read down through the quest as far as they have gotten to get a hint/solution to the next part without reading about lots of stuff they haven't done yet. I am tempted to have a go at fixing that page to give an example of what any other adventure game would consider a reasonable spoiler page, but right now I don't even know whether Pulse would prefer it marked for speedy deletion. --Spaghetti 12:09, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Why is it still a secret?

It's so beyond spoiled and it's not even a very good item for the effort required, I have no idea why it still needs to be pretend-secret. --Mekrith 04:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

What about new players, returning players, players try to find things out for themselves, and those who simply haven't got around to doing this quest yet? The quest is being spoiled - an ongoing thing.

What about the builder's wishes? It is difficult to cater to all the different styles of play, and reward them and the effort that entails appropriately when the wiki trivialises puzzles and exploration down to a few blindly followed commands. If you would like the rewards of non-purely-combat quests to reflect the difficulty of mindlessly following wiki instructions, then we won't earn much of a reward. --Spaghetti 12:09, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Until Pulse then gives a green light and lifts the nospoiler delay I suppose it's understandable not to have quest details listed.

By "I suppose it is understandable," I am sure what you really meant to say was "Until Pulse gives a green light and lifts the no spoiler flag, we should not reveal the quest's details." --Spaghetti 12:09, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

However, decategorizing the page is not really needed - it's an informative page that currently contains no spoilers. --WinterRose 03:05, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Correct at the time of making that post, but just 5 hours later another contributor fully reinstated the quest spoilers.

Regarding the creation of no-spoiler-pages; having a page to hold a no-spoiler flag only really works in the instance that the existence of the <thing> is not a secret. Rushing off and immediately making a page for a new area's item is also a spoiler, even if it does not contain the item's details or the means by which it can be acquired.

If the purpose of a page is merely to hold the no spoilers flag, then I am all for that page not being categorised. The purpose of the page is not to draw traffic, but to serve to warn those who would create / add to that page, and thus the page doesn't need to show up anywhere else than where it is directly linked; it will be found and read by those it is intended for. Decategorisation works perfectly well for this purpose. If there is only partial limitations, then it makes full sense to categorise that page, but not any daughter pages which delve into things restricted. --Spaghetti 12:09, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

But Pulse didn't post anything on the wiki...

There is no "nospoiler delay" beyond 6 months for anything other than this particular quest, and it's not even a very interesting quest. I see no reason to maintain it, especially since the details are available by clicking on "history." --Mekrith 04:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

The templates didn't exist when Pulse first issued his Imm note, on the Imm board, sent from his Imm character. Only a couple of builders use them, and they both created their own templates, one is manually removed, the other has a specified time limit. If a builder makes their wishes known via the MUD itself, then that is sufficient. Editor's are responsible for their own contributions and checking properly whether it is okay to post something. How unique or common a flag or the nature of a request has no bearing on its validity.

The details will only be available in the history until the page is deleted / deleted and recreated, or someone with access edits the history by hand.--Spaghetti 12:09, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Farm from me to disagree on this one, I share Mekrith's opinion - not much sense in maintaining secrecy of already spoiled quests especially after 6 months. -- WinterRose 09:02, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

See above. Other players, etc. Regardless of players, the builder's desires should be heeded. Regardless of anything at all relating to Avatar, doing a bad thing for a really long time doesn't make it cease to be bad, and sets a precedent/habit for newer MUD additions. --Spaghetti 12:09, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Is there any time or other policy governing when the stuff can be added anyway?

However the question of general nature arises - if an author doesn't want elements of his area, quests, maps, etc. displayed on the wiki (map of Halfling Tunnels comes to mind), is there any time or other policy governing when the stuff can be added anyway? -- WinterRose 09:02, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

No, and I am surprised you thought there could be. --Spaghetti 12:09, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Regardless of how good or bad the item, or how interesting or not the quest is or any other value type questions - the first question should be Is there a request from the author not to publish certain or all any information on the topic? If there is, that request should be logged on the wiki where people who may be thinking about an edit can see it. It should probably be logged on the main page of the area, or in the quests subcategory of that area as well as on a specific (item/quest) page. If there is not any anti-spoiler request listed on the wiki, then it's all to easy for someone to add something, another person another thing, and then before you know it, the information is all there and whatever secret has been revealed. I think it is helpful if the author themselves puts up a notice, or if they would write an in-game note and a helpful person transposes that request here. I think it is also probably very helpful if there is some kind of time limit - from 6 months to 5 years, or whatever - just to give people a framework, but if the author has requested no-spoilers for perpetuity, then that is the author's prerogative. Perhaps in this case, the author could be noted and asked if they would be willing to reconsider their stance or perhaps some hints suggested to them which could be put up with a note that they are author approved. I do not think we should just be going along the path that, "Oh look, it's been a year, we can do what we like now regardless". It is just rude.--Shadowtop 21:50, 18 March 2012 (CDT)

Apologies for causing your general reply to fall beneath one specific header. Rather than break up your response, I'm sure you will see this edit and do something about it if it bothers you. I am not sure that I like the idea of a general rule to which specific notices are exceptions. If the MUD adopts a policy of "six months unless the builder expressed a desire to the contrary," everything would go up after six months amid a flurry of "oh, but I didn't know!" Maybe we could require new pages to be flagged with correct information regarding the builder's wishes - that way only the page creator needs to check, and frees up later contributors to add and edit bits and bobs without so much worry. --Spaghetti 12:09, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

I do not believe this should be an issue. Every player and imm is aware of the wiki's existence, with the exception of the very newest players which are not authors anyway. It is trivial to add "Please do not spoil the area's quests for 24 months on wiki or elsewhere." to the end of an imm note presenting a new area. Furthermore, when doing player area-building contests, the imm in charge can simply tell the players to consider their stance on wiki quest/map spoilers (6 months/xxx months/never), along with all the other information he's giving the players. I honestly believe that no area author forgets about the wiki's existence when building an area, especially at this day and age. When such a sentence at the end of a note is read, any editor can insert the info on quest blockade on the appropriate, often freshly-created, area page, so that no quest sub-pages are even created until the period is up. -- WinterRose 16:50, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

I believe the majority of the issues discussed here stem from the lack of any official or semi-official policy either presented here on the wiki or at the Avatar MUD site/forums/notes. Without a lack of one, we defaulted to the reasonable choices - if an author says stuff can't be put up, it wasn't. If there was a time limit, it was adhered to. However, in this instance for example, the IMM note Pulse posted is long purged from the board, and I for one have never seen nor heard that one even existed. In fact this discussion was my first information that one did exist, ant the point Spaghetti made that editors should check themselves weather such notes exist only makes sense if they were issued in the recent history. I've rejoined the mud in late 2010 after over a decade of absence and no such note existed even at that time. I'm sure you see an issue here.

Now that the problem has been, in my opinion, solved and cemented, we could do well with some type of official note - and not tied to wiki alone. Nothing prevents a player from posting spolilerish information on any other site he may own or have access too, and there is little IMMs can do to prevent this, but we can issue a common policy to adhere to both here at the wiki and on the main site.

For example:

For any new area or quest, unless the author states otherwise, a six month grace period
(ie. moratorium) is issued on quest spoilers. Acknowledging quest existence via creation
of appropriate quest page is permitted but the editor should take care to avoid any
information that could be considered a spoiler, which may include the item name in the
very name of the quest.

If the author disallows any information, then no quest page should be created and an
appropriate note should be put on the main area page, so that the future editors refrain
from adding both quest spoilers and quest pages themselves.

When grace period is up, or if there was none, adding quest information should be done by
utilizing the spoiler tag, so that the quest page presents only general information,
and further steps can only be revealed by deliberate clicking on the hidden blocks.

Comments, additions? -- WinterRose 16:30, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

This sounds like a sensible policy. The most useful place to have information about where spoilers are not desired, or a time length for a moratorium on them, is here on the wiki. It should be quite easy for enthusiastic editors to transfer a builder's wishes to the most appropriate page or pages (if neccessary a note on the whole area category page - but the area quest sub-category seems a sensible place to start). I think a 6 month assumed period, unless heard otherwise - including if the builder says there is NO period at all and go ahead and wiki from day one - is a nice standard idea. Do we need to consider other information as well, like info on items, mobs or maps? Or can those be left to zero moratorium, barring builder wishes, as per Halfling Tunnels?--Shadowtop 19:38, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

In the past posting of maps and non-quest items has not been a problem. Maps usually encourage exploration, not inhibit it, especially when chasing quests. My suggestion is, as with Eragora and areas before it, to only keep a 6-month moratorium on quests, and allow free posting of exploration details, unless otherwise stated by the author. In case the author says "put the map but without hidden rooms, hold on the quests for a year", or "please no info whatsoever", these can trivially be noted on the area proper or appropriate subpages. -- WinterRose 03:52, 22 March 2012 (CDT)

Gets my vote.--Shadowtop 11:22, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

While author wishes should be respected, they should not be absolute or final. There seems to be wiki-community consensus that short duration requests are good things while demands for permanent silence are not. I, for one, am not even remotely comfortable with a blanket ban on posting any content about particular player discoverable things. A six month standard embargo on new quest information with a possible extension up to a year (or 6 months past the first public discovery?) sounds a lot more reasonable. --Nautilus 13:06, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Privileged Information

I put this on so I'll give my opinion. I remember that request for no spoilage but did intentionally due to how people would not help anyone trying to figure this out. After many attempts to get the details or even hints on how to solve it I was getting little help. After one person gave me "help" that made me lose the clumps (not sure if intentional or not) I got so frustrated I put it up after I figured it out. Avatar has always been promoted as community and this wiki is an outreach of that. I saw it being treated as privileged information and decided it is just another quest. --Ylem 12:37, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Use of the Spoiler Function

Actually, far more generally - and this page is probably not the right place to have this discussion. I guess the quest category? But it seems topical here right now... - it would be nice if the spoiler function was used more on quests to create two sets of information on quest pages. I have seen this function around a couple of times, but cannot actually remember where it is, and I'm the type of person who tends to learn how to edit the wiki from other pages, so the more pages with a certain function, the easier it is to find an example and copy it. Having two sections on a quest page for when it is permissable to put up details - one for general hints, and one for more detailed things like directions, or exact items, etc... would be really cool. Sometimes people just want a bit of a hint, but do not want the whole thing revealed - but once it is laid out infront of you it is a bit hard not to look.--Shadowtop 21:50, 18 March 2012 (CDT)

I found the spoiler function - which seems nice and easy to use. Have edited the page somewhat to show first glance is just hints, and three sections of spoilers you can reveal if you feel the desire or get stuck. I think it would be cool if we did something like this more widely, even on pretty simple or low mort quest, just to give new players a chance to find out things on their own, but still get a hint if they get stuck, or still to get a starting point to the quest.--Shadowtop 22:10, 18 March 2012 (CDT)

they don't mind being spoiled

I didn't really want to discuss this point here as I am fairly sure this page is going to be deleted, but I suppose that parts of this talk page can be moved to another, more appropriate talk page later. --Spaghetti 23:17, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

If people are on the wiki, presumably they don't mind being spoiled. --Mekrith 22:01, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Translation - all readers of this wiki are not merely:

• here to read help files or access other in-game information
• here to look at maps for areas that they have already paper maps for, but don't have access to them right now
• taking part in discussions
• reading up on styles of play or other advice
• any number of other reasons for coming here...

No, they are all seeking the full, complete solution to whatever quests and mysteries the MUD possesses and will not be at all annoyed if that is spoilt for them. I disagree.--Spaghetti 23:17, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

It can be used sparingly, --Mekrith 22:01, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

And never is. Besides which, spoiling a quest for a player doesn't even require them to come to the wiki for the wiki to spoil it for them. I could direct you to an interesting paper on the nature of "effort" in a virtual world, but to save you a long and mostly boring read, essentially, users have an extremely strong tendency toward taking the easiest possible route to doing something. I have to accept that as a part of human nature, or at least as part of our current perception of the value of effort expended virtually, so hoping that the majority of players will act against their nature seems unlikely to work.--Spaghetti 23:17, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

but the whole argument that the wiki is ruining the game for new players is ridiculous.... --Mekrith 22:01, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

The argument isn't as simple and extreme as you state. It is not hard to see the apparent effects of the wiki if you watch the players. --Spaghetti 23:17, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

the game doesn't force anyone to read the wiki, it doesn't even tell new players that it exists. --Mekrith 22:01, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

If I log on with a new mortal, with brackets around my name, and feigning youth and ignorance ask to be directed to Sol, when I am in the meadow, do you think a nice player is going to show me around, or give me some general, in-game walking directions, or even tell me about the little sign-post-rocks scattered around like the one at Nom? No... I'll either receive a speed walk line, like "5W1N3W..." or, as is almost always the case, I'll be told to go and look it up on the wiki at http://avatar.melanarchy.info/

Even when super-helpful, low-mort friendly players are online to guide, help and nurture new players, it only takes a careless moment for another player to foist the URL onto NCHAT before seeing if someone else intends to give proper assistance, and so, regardless, most new players learn about the existence of the wiki in-game, from people who think it does not adversely affect them in the slightest and don't have any time to spare for low-morts, and do so really soon after they start playing.

Also, you seem to be assuming that a player has to read the spoiler here, first hand, for something to be spoiled for them. Avatar is a social game, and as in real life, dodging spoilers transmitted through conversation or the in-game activity of friends who themselves only learnt about the quest/etc. via a wiki spoiler means that they don't have to come here for a quest to be spoiled for them. Of course, we need to consider the indirect effects of the wiki, too.--Spaghetti 23:17, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

The idea that anyone is wandering into "Shield of the Tree" entry on wiki and being tragically spoiled on a several-year-old questline for a shield --Mekrith 23:58, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

A lot of the comments here apply to the wiki generally. This is something of a test case. If you aren't going to respect Pulse's wishes for a quest that he must have put vast amounts of effort into making, then clearly nothing else on this wiki is going to be safe. The age of the quest is irrelevent as the MUD has a rolling, diverse player base. --Spaghetti 09:57, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

which is just a mana upgrade that basically nobody wants, is, so beyond proposterous.... --Mekrith 23:58, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

By "basically nobody," do you mean "people who play classes I don't tend to play, and/or use playing styles that I don't favour," and that those people, at the end of the day, don't actually count in your assessment of whether "anyone" wants this gear? Personally, I see great utility in the item, and I know of players who aspire to, or do, own it.--Spaghetti 09:57, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

the only thing more ridiculous I can imagine is the amount of text you're expending on the subject. --Mekrith 23:58, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Actually, I have to admit that I was surprised at the size of my replies on this talk page. Perhaps I am ridiculous? --Spaghetti 09:57, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

Honestly, the wiki is for active players that want to contribute and share their knowledge. --Mekrith 23:58, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

I agree. What we are debating is whether our splendid players should enjoy the freedom to share absolutely all the secrets and knowledge about the MUD, without any kind of restriction or "interference" from those who waste months and months of their lives trying to add stuff to it. --Spaghetti 09:57, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

If your opinion is that wiki is destructive to player experience, the not-wiki is only an alt-f4 away. --Mekrith 23:58, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

I haven't expressed such an opinion, if that is what you are wondering. The relationship between the MUD and the wiki is complicated, and naturally has its good-points and bad-points. The wiki is very flexible, and has the ability to be many things, not all of them good. Right now, I'm trying to address something that I believe is, or could become, a bad point - the refusal to abide requests that certain information be withheld. --Spaghetti 09:57, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

The whole issue seems to be getting away from the central point - the builder requested that information NOT go up on the wiki. There was no time limit stated. Unless someone has had official word from Pulse himself, the information should not have been posted up at all. It does not matter whether or not this item is a T0 piece of lord gear which was put in last week, or a statless piece of gear from the meadow. If the builder has requested that information does not go up, it should be respected. The wiki is fabulous resource, but it should not ride roughshod over the author's wishes about something they have created themselves for the benfit of all under the aegis of making information public to all. How much information we display on quests, and the use of spoilers to allow partial hints to be gained for those who are seeking a bit of help but don't want the whole quest revealed, or anything else is another issue. Given that this page can be deleted, it probably should be - and then recreated with a banner up saying no spoilers.--Shadowtop 12:59, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

Fair enough. Flagged for deletion with intent to recreate page with no-spoiler banner, no categories inclusion, and a blank history. --Spaghetti 13:20, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

You guys are running off of complete hearsay - we don't know what Pulse said or what his intentions were. Until he shows up, there is no reason for page deletion. I for one intend to restore the quest details to this page after any deletion which may or may not occur, and support the adoption of a blanket policy such as WinterRose has advocated, so people are not confused about the use of spoiler warnings in the future. --Mekrith 17:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

You are right, it is hearsay. What I remember was from a very long time ago, and while I'm not exactly senile (if family history is anything to go by, it won't be long) my memory is far from perfect. At this point I'm sorry I even brought it up, as I was just answering the question posed (why was the page originally blanked) to the best of my knowledge. I am personally okay with posting any and all information on the wiki as long as it is formatted in a way that guides questers in a step by step fashion (like, first starting with clearing up anything that's counterintuitive with the quests--in the case of this quest, that might be "there are three ticket-giving phases" or "you will probably need at least two characters if not more to finish it"--then giving hints, then delving into the actual steps), rather than *BLAP* HERE IS ANSAR and spoiling the whole thing at once. --Neyne 21:15, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

I filed a note and an email to Pulse hopefully he'll come around and help clarify the current status of the quest. -- WinterRose 19:10, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

The Wiki Drives Us Forward

it's a dream to think we can go back to a time before the wiki. some people now can be new and read through all the signs that used to be the only way to find things, and some can do the wiki, and some can do both. but we can't go back. as it is now the wiki drives us forward. the idea that people should not tell new players about the wiki seems unrealistic to me.--3nki 00:47, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

Your point is very reasonable. I am not averse to the wiki as a whole - there is a lot of good information here for newer players. I was responding to the assertion that as newbies do not come to the wiki we can edit without any regard for them, though I do feel the manner and timing of their introduction to the wiki could be improved. --Spaghetti 09:57, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

Spoiler Flag

I reinstated the spoiler flag which shouldn't have been taken down. Maybe someone could contact Pulse and see if the spoilers should be deleted/edited, or the flag removed, etc. If this isn't resolved, I shall flag this page for deletion, in line with the original statement. --Spaghetti 12:34, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

Pulse's view

A couple of years ago when the area went in I requested that people would refrain from making the information on the quest easily available, at least right away. I never expected that this would be interpreted as a 'ban' that would be going on for years.

The wiki is seperate from the Mud, and any policy on what gets published or not would be a policy by the wiki community. However, it is obviously great if the wiki community does follow the requests of the authors of areas or quests on Avatars. There might be aspects where publication of extensive information without permission could start to infringe on an authors rights (used in the widest sense), e.g. when full descriptions of areas are copied room by room.

If a spoiler of quests is included on the wiki, then personally I prefer descriptions that also includes the underlying story, instead of a do this / do that approach. Again though - this is not any official policy and in no way a requirement for publishing information. --Pulse 23:11, 23 March 2012 (CDT)