From Ravenblack CityWiki

Contents 1 DEACTIVATED for cheating 2 Quote AA “Players of vampires who are deleted for cheating are often shunned by other players” 3 Quote AA “In the unlikely event that he removes the status” 4 Also you changed Brutus’s and Willhelm’s page to reflect DFC 5 deleted for cheating 6 The idea that Cheating is "Temporary" 7 Clarification 8 The Rules Of The World 9 DFC is now officially an in-character issue 10 Image

DEACTIVATED for cheating

hehehehehe- You are RIGHT! It really is DEACTIVATED for cheating, lol --Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I makes me a bit sad thinking about the money cow the city is. I am not jealous, it's brilliant. But forcing this... Naaa.. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear that loud and clear. You may not know this, but I run an online game as well, and when I catch a cheater, they go. Period. The IP is banned, and there's no buying your way back in. I don't want cheaters in my game. Not at any price. --Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote AA “Players of vampires who are deleted for cheating are often shunned by other players”

This is not true and I feel that comment should be removed…. If you were a member of other papers you would see that 99% of the time the player gets support…unless it happens to be a chronic problem. --Miranda Dawn 22:24, 24 Novemeber 2009 (EST)

I removed that line in question. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 05:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers it reads better now, besides everyone knows that cheaters of ANY game are shunned by the honest players, I don't know why I put that in there, it doesn't need to be said.--Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 06:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you need a lesson from me, just wanna bring to everyones mind, that tolerance levels like taste is different. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 03:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote AA “In the unlikely event that he removes the status”

This also is not true and I feel should be removed as RB has even posted “guidelines” on fees for someone to bring their pire back (again they are guidelines and not necessarily the rule, he can and sometimes does say no, that much is true) But there are also many players that have been deleted numerous times and brought back so that alone proves your statement false. --Miranda Dawn 22:24, 24 Novemeber 2009 (EST)

I added a reference to that line to clear things out. Seems like a misinterpretion. RB says that on the Game FAQ. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 05:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also you changed Brutus’s and Willhelm’s page to reflect DFC

Your information on both pages is incorrect.(dates/reasons) And I don’t really think it is your place to post such on someone else's page. (maybe stick to IC updates?) I would hope you remove the information as it is not accurate. We do want facts here right?

Just curious as to why you felt the need to add that tid bit to Brutus and Willhelm’s page but yet left if off of your page when you in fact were DFC on 1/8/2006. --Miranda Dawn 22:24, 24 Novemeber 2009 (EST)

I made the one change you suggested, which seemed to have a good (great) argument. However, you seem to be taking some of this personally. If you wish to add the DFC report to The †Archangel page, by all means do so, I'll leave it there and add to it the circumstances surrounding the issue. Keep in mind, the character pages are not like user pages, they do not belong to anybody. Anyone can edit them, that's the whole point of a wiki. As for Brutus, Wilhelm, and other info being innacurrate, how so? Please point out here how it's innaccurate, and the fix will be made. It does no good to complain about how something is innacurrate without providing the accurate info. We all make errors, and if I made one I want to fix it. Accuracy is paramount! As for cheaters being shunned, shouldn't they be?--Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 03:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not taking some personally, sorry if it appeared that way, but the dates for Brutus is not correct and as for the reason for Willhelm's deletion... well that is something you and I could not know. (especially since the human passed on last year) Just seems to me that you are trying to tarnish someones name. Someone that can't defend them self.

As far as me putting your DFC status on your page. I don't feel that is my place....(after all, I only know what I read about it in RBC and The Grim and you and I know you cant always believe everything you read) I don't know what conversations you had with RB and him with you. I only mentioned it because I thought it was strange that you made note of it on others pages but failed to put it on yours (plus your comment about your game and what you do about cheaters) If your theory was true about the DFC status regarding players being shunned, then that would add you to that list no?

You and I have been in the city long enough (and yes I know you have been in the city much longer than I) to know there are many reasons why RB makes someone DFC and sometimes his reasons are not correct. --Miranda Dawn 23:59, 24 November 2009 (EST)

I'm not trying to tarnish anyone's name. The fact is that the vampire was deleted for cheating, passing coins to be precise, since RB stated elsewhere that he was going six months into the histories of suspected coin cheaters. If the player behind the vampire †Willhelm has passed away, then it is obvious that whomever has had control over the vampire since then was using it to pass the coins, an act I feel is...better if I leave my personal feelings out of it. Suffice it to say that people should know who these cheaters are, or at the very least, what vampires are being used to cheat. And again, if I've inadvertantly placed incorrect info anywhere on this wiki (or anywhere else) please let me know so it can be corrected.--Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 06:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did RB state he was going back six months into histories? And were does it say Willhelm was passing coins? Again I dont think you are in the position to have those facts. I didnt read that anywhere and I read more papers in the city than you. If I'm wrong show me please.

And please explain to me why you still havent put your DFC status on your page? Perhaps you dont want it there? --Miranda Dawn 06:50, 25 November 2009 (EST)

Like I tried to explain previously, we do not own our character pages, anyone can edit them. If you wish to put the DFC status on the †Archangel page, by all means do so. I won't remove it, because it's true. I will, however follow up with the facts surrounding that situation. If you feel citations are needed on Willhelm's page (or any page), then please add "citaion needed" tags where you feel they are appropriate. You are encouraged to participate as much as you please, and I will help you any way I can. --Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok this will be my last reply here on this page because I am spinning my wheels and frankly this is supposed to be fun and atm its not.

I know anyone can edit a page. I have edited a few pages before you were here ;-P

Now here is the way I see it.

1)Brutus’s dates are incorrect so the information is wrong. I will take care of that.

2)You have not given me proof (even though I asked) the reason you stated Willhelm was deleted is a fact. So I will correct that also

3) I would hope you would update your page showing you were DFC before you put that information on someone else’s page… it makes you look like you have double standards because you are purposely leaving it off of your page while putting on Wills and Brutus’s --Miranda Dawn 01:00, 26 November 2009 (EST)

I addressed this issue on your user page. If you think the dates are wrong, correct them. If you think the reason for the DFC is incorrect, by all means correct it. But I will not allow you to rewrite history and make it appear as if the vampires were never DFCd at all. I'm sorry if the fact that they were DFCd is something you do not like, but the fact remains a fact. They were Deleted for Cheating, and that is a part of their history. Thank you. Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 06:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

deleted for cheating

Moved from Cliffburton's user talk page. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 20:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already recieved some flack from miranda dawn about the deleted for cheating page. That's to be expected, she knows a lot of people who have vampire accounts deleted for cheating. (no worries, we worked it out nice)

My question is this: Is it inappropriate to point out if a vampire has been DFCd? Afterall if it's the truth, shouldn't it be known? It's part of a vampire's history and information, right? Personally I hate cheaters. I think RB is foolish to allow them in our midst. Like I said elsewhere, cheaters should be deleted totally,and the IPs banned. If I had my way, we'd have a whole category just for vampires that have been deleted for cheating. I'm just curious how you feel about this. This is YOUR wiki, and I don't want to make waves.--Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 04:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as MY wiki, and I know that I might have the last word, but i don't wanna use the power to say how it's done. I prefer to discuss things and show information neutrality, which I think works out so far, as it does on bigger wikis. Therefor i integrated some NPOV information. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 20:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My comments on this subject are on the DFC discussion page, anything I would say in regards to the above comment by AA would not be neutral, so for now I wont say anything ;-P --Miranda Dawn1:06 26 November 2009 (EST)

When the wiki opened I thought it would be a very good historical reference for the roleplaying aspect of the game. To place things like DFC on a roleplay page only detracts from the fantasy the game is intended to induce in the players. DFC has no place in any of the † pages as the state on the character is temporary and a game event not a story event.If it is not mentioned by the player, it can be inflammatory, and create unecessary drama.--DE 23:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that truth, accuracy, and intellectual honesty are what is important, far more important than hurting someone's feelings who got caught cheating with clones, or cheating passing coins, or cheating in some other way. It is the cheating and attempts to cover it up that causes the drama in my opinion. This wiki isn't merely about roleplay, it is about game dynamics, game mechanics, game techniques, and other aspects which have nothing to do with roleplay at all. Some of those things we may not like either, but we can't start pretending that things don't exist simply because we do not like them.--Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheaters know who they are. It should remain between RB and the player. Bringing it to a public forum, whether it is the Wiki, a city newspaper forum, or even someone's blog is unnecessary at all, in my opinion. Once they have paid the fine to RB there is no reason for the double indemnity of placing it everywhere else, especially when it can be so arbitrarily applied since not all DFCs are public knowledge in the first place. It creates an unfair disadvantage against those who are known and those that are not. It is better to keep it out completely then slather the title only on those that are known and alleviates the "he said you were deleted", "no I wasn't" arguments from appearing within the Wiki especially when none of the facts can be verified since RB will not comment on the actual circumstances of each deletion to ensure the accuracy you are searching for.--DE 00:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, and let's not clutter Cliffburton's user talk with this. This discussion belongs on the DFC talk page.--Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 00:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Cliffburton's user talk page. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 20:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Cheating is "Temporary"

There is nothing temporary about being Deleted for Cheating unless you have the money to be able to afford the penalties. Let's not protect cheaters simply because they are rich enough to buy their way out of trouble. I know of several wealthy players who have been DFC'd multiple times and just pay the fees. That just seems wrong to me. We should not be protecting cheaters. Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I feel that if it's a first time for cheating they should get penalties/fines or some kind of punishment and warned if it's not something sever like hacking. It's possible that the cheating wasn't intentional in the case of a first time player, but second offense should be a banning from the game. As for putting up pires who have been deleted for cheating, well it happened, no point in trying to hide that fact, they should be posted up. Chevalier 11:44, 27 November 2009 (CST)

"It's possible the cheating wasn't intentional" - agreed this could happen. It is also possible that a player had not cheated, or that they did something very much worse than cheating.

After some deliberation I feel that as character pages are open to the public to be updated, if a statement is being added to say that the vampire is/was deleted for cheating, then unless the editor has complete proof for the reason of deletion it should be followed with a simple statement along the lines of “the reason is unknown”.

If the editor has complete knowledge of the reason behind the deletion, then this reason should follow the statement, and maybe a citation/link to proof also, to stop arguments arising before they can start. Unless the player of the deleted vampire has made the reason of the deletion public knowledge though, there will be very few people other than RB and the reporters to RB who will know this true reason.

I do not like to see only the statement "Vampire x was deleted for cheating". That statement could do two things:

• The first is to make a player look like they have done something wrong, when in reality they may possibly have not. An example of this would be some unscrupulous player trying to get another player's vampire deleted by signing up many childer using the vampire's name that they want to get deleted.

• The second thing it can do is actually make an offence look more petty than it actually was. An example of that would be a vampire being set to deleted status for using obscene and offensive language in the game against others. If all the statement says is that the vampire is DFC, on face value it can look like they have only been passing coins or similar, when in fact the reason could have been much more lurid.

So in summary I think if we must add a DFC reference to a character sheet then to word something like:

Vampire x was deleted for cheating - the reason was unknown / the reason was + citations, links to proof.TTblood

Actually at this point it's a moot issue, as vampire pages are no longer public, they are private, the same as user pages. --Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 23:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Not being able to edit vampire pages at all definitely warrants a discussion, and one separate to the DFC one. However right at this moment I need to say that I am able to still edit vampire pages other than my own, so I guess they are still public? --TTblood 00:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said you couldn't edit them at all. I just said they were just like the user pages. Sorry if I confused you. --Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 04:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey TT… good to see you ;) The deal with the character pages is this… the owner of the vampire basically has final say of what goes on that particular page. If someone does post something on someone’s page and the owner of that page doesn’t want it there they can remove it. Best thing to do though for someone wanting to add something would be to start a discussion on the discussion page. (so yes one can still edit someone else's page) That being said, if someone does add something and the owner doesn’t want it on there. The owner should note in the discussion page why it was removed. (least that’s how I interpret it)Please see cliff’s link I posted below explaining this.... in case I lost something in translation ;P User_talk:Cliffburton#A_word_to_the_public --Miranda Dawn 01:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You can interprete the policy the following way, too. As a wiki is an open system, it WANTS you to edit anything you like. What's wrong with someone adding information, correcting typos, adding format to your character page? This is still ment as an informational article, other than your user page. The policy is to clarify who's in charge of the character page. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 03:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So they are just like userpages, correct? Like the policy says? --Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

1. User Page: Not of common interest. No one else but the user should touch this. User can fill information, but doesn't need to.
2. Character Page: Of common interest. Should be filled with useful information. Anyone can touch it, correct typos, correct formatting, even add or modify information (but should do wisely and not in a critical way). If anyone thinks critical information would missing, the talk page is to be used. The wishes of the player should be respected.
3. Protection: If a user wants his user or character page to be protected, it will be granted and done by wiki admins, if good reasons are given (eg. ongoing vandalism). This also means an wiki admin could change the article nevertheless, but isn't allowed. Doing so leads to immediate demotion of that admin without warning. I think I am repeating myself. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rules Of The World

I hope you all read the Site Usage Agreement for the game. If RB has decided to put it that way, this are the rules of the world. This wiki is part of it. If you have further questions I recommend reading A reminder.... --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 05:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DFC is now officially an in-character issue

I would like to point out that DFC has been declared by Ravenblack to be an in-character in-game issue. Most of the clans and newspapers (Such as the Bite) are moving their DFC info from the OOC sections of their groups to the IC sections. As you may guess, I am pleased with this. However, my question now is, should this wiki follow suit?--Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 20:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrally speaking: This is a part of the Rules Of The World (as put together by it's creator RB). --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 21:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. Looking at it that way, there's not really a need for new policy, lol. :) --Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 21:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wake Up has always put DFC in the IC section and we rp'd it as being thrown into RBs Dungeon, I am glad to see him change the wording on the Vamp Page to reflect it. Makes it easier for all. --Tejas^Talk 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel this gives the player a chance to RP the action if they choose. But at the end of the day, it still states (DFC) on the vampire page. Kinda giving a mixed signal there if you ask me, and don’t forget its still an OOC action to get said pire released. (real life dough) ;)--Miranda Dawn 03:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that In Character, mine will see those who get out of jail to have used bribery :) I like it because they do get out, even if there is no set term for how long they should stay in jail (it should be infinite, right?) and they do give someone something to get out (the OOC money) but bribery doesn't always mean money ;P They could have used other things to get what they wanted. hehe Leaves a lot to the imagination and to RP as well. So it could well be an IC fact that they get out, and isn't only an OOC action. --Cora 14:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

I think it is horrifically unjust to plaster someones DFC image on a wiki site on the DFC page. [On the vampires page, w/e] So, could someone with an image editing program at the very least black out the name of the pire that was ss'ed?--virgo_shelly 07:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think they mind. 2. It's officially RP anyway. 3. You are free to edit the wiki at your leisure. --Archangel ^{Talk * Welcome * Support} 09:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Archangel. --marco / cliffburton ^{Let's TALK} 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arch and Cliff, but also -- the player of that character went on and on and on on the Bite about his DFC and why it happened and all that, so it isnt a secret. --Tejas^Talk 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I cant edit images. Thats why I asked if someone could, or i would change it myself. And I realize its not secret, but, i also think its wrong to have a persons DFC image up for all eternity. Which, with any luck, years from now pires will be using the wiki as a source of information. In which case, Scy's over all history in the city is more important then a DFC that wasn't his fault.--virgo_shelly 04:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the only reason his is up here is to show that RB changed the message on a vampires SS page to show the in jail wording and his name was one I knew was still DFC'd. Why he was DFC'd has nothing to do with this page. That goes in History or on Scythians page. --Tejas^Talk 04:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)