Talk:Hogsweat deletion controversy

What is the purpose of the "Rebuttal" sections? They just seem to repeat what is said in the opposite argument's section and for some reason the "pro-Hogsweat" rebuttal section is considerably smaller than the "anti-Hogsweat" rebuttal section.

In addition, this:

"The anti-deletion position can be summed up as a kind of revolt against the Moderation staff and the current contextual use of gameplay rules. Some of Hogsweat's defenders argue that the griefing rules themselves should be changed"

implies that the "pro-Hogsweat" people accept that they do not have a case under current rules and argue that the rules should be changed, which is not the case. This:

"that it was illegal per the One Stop Rules Shop to eject large numbers of nations from a region"

is simply not true, according to mods I have spoken to. They say instead that "the rules are subject to change" (ok, I paraphrase), or they argue that the red warning message (not the One-Stop Rules Shop) was fair warning. One even directly said "that section of the One Stop Rules Shop has not yet been added".

This:

"that the anti-deletion protesters were making fallacious complaints"

is an ad hominem (itself a fallicious argument) as it attempts to discredit the people making the complaints, not the complaints themselves.

I think that there needs to be a debate in discussion about this article so that a completely non-biased one can be written. In my edit I tried my best to be fair, but I think that this has not always been the case. This (as it was before I editted with a clarification) doesnt appear to serve any purpose except to attempt to discredit Hogsweat:

"After a few days, the furor itself gradually died down, but many nations still make reference to Hogsweat in the sigs, mostly on International Incidents. Oddly, the nation of Hogsweat was created in November 2003, but most sigs honoring the nation say "RIP Hogsweat, March '03 - October '05.""

and now that it has been explained, I believe it serves no purpose and should be removed. People on both sides ought to calm down, and leave their personal bias aside.

-- Praetonia

Right. Firstly, I reverted the rebuttals...I have no earthly idea why they were added, as they were just repetition. I've tried to make the line about Hogsweat supporters to make it more neutral. I've also changed the reference to the OSRS to reflect the fact that at that time it was not clearly (and arguably, at all) mentioned there. I don't see the point in squabbling his join date, so I've cut all that.

Basically, what 'e said. "People on both sides ought to calm down, and leave their personal bias aside." Exactly. I'm not sure why Kahanistan felt the need to start the article in this way, and I really wished he'd consulted with some people first...but no matter. Clearly, many people felt about this. Basically, I think the best approach is if people follow Praetonia's example, and make a list of what they feel are NPOV statements. Of course, remember to be bold, but if we're going to majorly reshape the article, that needs to be a community consensus.

If there are still strong objections after (or on account of) my edits, tag it. Gruen2alk 19:08, 20 November 2005 (GMT)

Deletion of rebuttals was good. I think it might be good to keep the part about the join date, as someone obviously didn't understand it, and our purpose is to tell about it. Is the thread where the argument took place still open? If it is, we may want to include a link to it.

Just thoughts. ~ Ceo rant (or rave) 19:12, November 20, 2005 (GMT)

Answering my own question, the thread is http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449790. I won't add it until people comment. ~ Ceo rant (or rave) 19:20, November 20, 2005 (GMT)

To be perfectly honest, I don't care when Hogsweat joined. I doubt his friends do. That's not what the issue was, and discussion of it seems irrelevant. I'd rather leave it out. A link to the thread started in Moderation would be an idea, though. Gruen2alk 19:21, 20 November 2005 (GMT)

Actually, I think the thread starter had some facts wrong, because it seems like the sigs say March 03. So the whole discussion is completely irrelevent. ~ Ceo rant (or rave) 19:25, November 20, 2005 (GMT)

In my opinion, the following quote about the Mods Position: "In the end, the Mods' position is the only one of relevance..." brings the neutrality of this article into question. Sarzonia 19:09, 5 January 2006 (GMT)

Yes, it does look a little POV, but I can't see how it's not true: the mods do have the final say. [[User:Ceorana|