Talk:Temporal Accord

I have removed the "Criticism" section of the article. This is an IC page, and referring the the claimed credentials of Indra Prime's player is inappropriate. The IC criticism therein mentioned is already stated in the pre-existing introduction. -Zeke 19:57, 21 October 2006 (GMT)

I maintain that the IC components of the "criticism" section are already covered in the opening paragraph. The OOC components do not belong in this article. If someone wants to contest this point I'm happy to listen to their argument, but unless and until that happens I am convinced enough of my position to again edit out the addition. -Zeke 05:38, 11 November 2006 (GMT)

I just think it's good to know we don't have an NPOV policy. If I had to summarize the tone of the article in one word, I'd have to go with "worshipful." Then again, everyone loves inflating them and theirs in NSwiki articles so... *shrug*

Anyway, I think this tone is a bit more even-handed. No, it wasn't the be-all-end-all of "temporal technology" (even if that phrase makes me break out in hives) but it was important for a time. --Scolopendra 04:50, 19 March 2007 (GMT)

Of course. I rather disliked the Temporal Accord myself, and these days I have virtually nothing to do with any technology of that caliber. I've tried to be even-handed. I just did a re-edit of the opening paragraphs, which gives complaints more air time but also restores some of the statements about its importance. Consider it a counterproposal. Let's continue the discussion if you don't agree with this version. I'm all about NPOV, but I worry that it would be easy to spend too much of the article smearing the Accord, which frankly never had a whole lot of big fans and now has fewer than ever, when it was (and I think still is, in an indirect sense), in fact, very important and influential in some circles. For the purpose of our discussion, consider me the Devil's Advocate. Zeke 05:06, 5 May 2007 (GMT)