Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2008-11-01-User:Shard

While ArenaNet do encourage feedback on the wiki (obviously), Shard's feedback almost always comprises of personal attacks, hostility, and (shall we call it) asshattery towards the ArenaNet users themselves and in general; the matter of wiki disruption tops that of ArenaNet feedback and the "consumer's right" (regardless of whether the claims made are true).

Most of this has been on User talk:Isaiah Cartwright recently, but removed by um... yours truly; they still exist in the history though, so here are some useful links'n'stuff:

• On User talk:Isaiah Cartwright,
  • the bottom "How do we know you are telling the truth" discussion
  • this section
  • consistently misusing the page and ignoring the notice
• The comments in this discussion on User talk:Regina Buenaobra
• User talk:Kim Chase#Skill bugs, which is currently occurring.
• Going through Special:Contributions/Shard may point out some more.

Shard has been warned by sysops about this behaviour -- User_talk:Shard/Archive4#Flames on izzy's page, and most recently User_talk:Shard#Just_stop.......; both situations have led to blocks (which you'll notice are for similar offenses). This has escalated recently, and is still going on despite these blocks and warnings, which is why I've brought this up for arbitration. -- Brains12 \ talk 01:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this wiki needs less carebear crying and more fixing of the game, TBH. Have you noticed how I never attack people, I only attack what they do (or in most cases don't do). A personal attack is when you attack a person, not their job. ~Shard 01:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard and I are the "bad guys". Pretty much everyone else there are the "good guys". Even within the sysop and bureaucrat level, this system is accepted (and to a point encouraged), else Auron would never have been a bureaucrat ever (much less on three wikis). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whereever you got your inspiration for that comment now, Armond - nobody is talking about you or Auron. This is only about Shard so please leave everything else out. poke | talk 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second Brain's opinion. I personally consider his insults toward ArenaNet employees to be violations of GWW:NPA. A large number of his posts are largely non-constructive, and simply repeated rants on how bad a job they are doing, how they need to resign or be replaced, how they no longer care about GW1 etc. Not only does he belittle ArenaNet employees, but also the opinion of other users as can be seen here (multiple posts), here. I find this page a prime example of his poor attitude towards Izzy in particular. I don't believe this attitude is in any way making this wiki better, it simply encourages other users to further disruption. -- Wyn 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, sorry for bringing up VERY RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE DISCUSSION. Am I not allowed to bring up Kim Chase, either? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If Kim Chase is the subject of Shard's "attacks", yes. You and Auron =/= Related to Shard's offenses. Shard and those he directed his attack at = related to Shard's offenses. calor (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like third brains opinion, though I have nothing to add to the conversation currently. Dominator Matrix 02:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

@Calor: Spoken like a true man who didn't read a thing I said. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling this page. Thanks. -Auron 02:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Were I actually trolling, sure.

Actually, you know what, fuck this shit. Later.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to fourth brains' opinion. I don't think people should be allowed to post facts on wiki unless they are of the warm and fuzzy variety. ~Shard 03:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

They dont have to be "warm and fuzzy" they just shouldn't be 100% hate. — Seru Talk 03:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Much as I'd like to side with Shard on many of the issues that he brings up, the manner that he does bring them up is not the best way to go about doing so. To attack even a persons job is insulting what they do, and how they do it. In essence, that is attacking the person himself. I'm siding with Brains on this one. -- Wandering Traveler 03:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what "the best way of doing so" is. Oh, you mean this way or this way, or maybe even this page or one of the thousands of pages here. I've tried all of those. Anet doesn't listen. They listen when I say it to their faces. If they listened to their players once in awhile, I (and some others) wouldn't have to do it this way. ~Shard 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the reputation you've garnered with some of Anets employees (namely Izzy having ignored you at one point), I doubt they'd listen anyways. But sometimes we can't get the word out. If the game fails, it fails. if Anet turns around and fixes it, so be it. Let the people with the jobs do their jobs, and we just play the game as normal. Speaking from personal experience, I don't find much difference between nerfs and buffs and whatnot, I just work around it. So why is it that we whine and complain about every skill balance, no matter how bad it is? Why not just let it be and let the people do their jobs? I think we need to just stop the "hardcore" annoyances and just let the suggestion/feedback pages do their work. Even if it does nothing. If we can do that, all of this can be avoided. -- Wandering Traveler 03:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Indulge me for a moment, if you will, Shard. You say your arguments are factual (i.e. based on facts). Based on your logic, then, here are some facts. Given: a factual argument may be described as purely rational because such an argument is, by its nature, based on irrefutable truths (i.e. facts). Therefore, in the context of persuasion (we will assume for a moment that your objective is in fact persuasion) a factual argument must fall into the "appeal to reason" category. Fact: you have used ad hominem attacks in your attempts to persuade others of your point of view. Fact: ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. Corollary: a logical fallacy cannot, by its nature, appeal to reason. Conclusion: your arguments are not factual. Assuming that you are capable of rational discourse, on the basis of these "facts" I can only assume that your goal is not persuasion since, being a rational person, you would construct a rational argument if your goal were persuasion. The preponderance of the evidence, therefore, suggests that your goal is little more than asshattery/trolling (unless there's some third explanation for your behavior of which I am not aware). (I suppose that my assumption that you are capable of rational discourse could also be wrong... but that is neither here nor there.) Given the number of blocks/warnings that you've ignored, I can only assume, then, that you are an inveterate troll who serves no useful function on this wiki. There, I've just provided you with some "facts" that are neither warm nor fuzzy, which suggest quite clearly that Brains is justified. Now, you could choose to dispute my "facts," but that would make you quite the hypocrite, would it not? *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd also like to point out the abject lack of statistically significant evidence indicating that Izzy and others "listen when [you] say it to their faces." *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I might feel owned if I actually called someone stupid as a reason why they suck at their job, but I don't, I use ineptitude. Everything I say about anet ends up looking like this "Anet doesn't care about their game because they X" or "People quit GW because Anet did X." I have never said "Anet fails because they're stupid" or "Izzy is bad because he's bad." My frustration comes from the fact that I used to love this game, and I still want to, but can't, because the company took out all the fun stuff and replaced it with garbage. I think I'm gonna apologize to kim, apparently she took what I said too personally. ~Shard 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation, which effectively negates the rationale of your arguments (unless you've conducted controlled experiments of which I'm not aware?). What that means is that "Anet doesn't care about their game because they X" is merely conjecture (i.e. not fact). *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I mixed arenanetsauce with a computer motherboard and it turned into fail juice 80% of the time. (in case you have no sense of humor, that was a joke, but it will probably end up getting me banneed anyway because to people with no sense of humor, it was a waste of space.) ~Shard 04:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay... that's nice, I 'spose. Now... if you'll stop using humor to deflect... *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea these arbitration pages can be so much fun. Do you guys do this all the time? ~Shard 04:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Only until someone comes and remind us that the decision of accepting the case or not is on the hands of the bcrats, and that all this discussion (besides those message providing facts for or against the cause, which are usually few) is mostly useless :).--Fighterdoken 04:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

on shard's side for this one Lilondra *poke* 09:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He just got so ridiculously owned by DE that he hasn't stayed on topic for a single post since. I wouldn't put money on that side :/ -Auron 09:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't ban Shard. He makes a lot of good balance suggestions. If you block him, you lose a lot of good balance suggestions.

The primary purpose of the wiki is not to serve as a vehicle for relaying suggestions to Anet, or even simply to house suggestions. Its primary purpose is to document the game. The cost of Shard's trolling both Anet employees and normal users outweighs the reward gained in a few good suggestion from Shard. calor (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard, your suggestions are shit. You would be a terrible skill balancer, and you're a fine example of "an autist". — Skakid 16:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Skakid, watch what I'm about to do.

"Shard, your suggestions are shit because X. You would be a terrible skill balancer because X. You are a fine example of an autist because, like all autists, you X."

That's what I do. It uses facts. It means something. It's not some 8 year old kid calling people bad to make up for something he hasn't grown yet. ~Shard 19:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on this stuff: Shard needs to troll less, Anet needs to do moar to GW. Problem solved? If it would happen yes. Too bad it will not. Also Skakid, ur mean ;-(. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, shard is pretty much NEVER wrong when he does these complaints to izzy, arenanet or whatever you want it to be. And he isnt doing anything to violate NPA either, even if he does put it harshly, there is no fucking reason to ban. Learn it, fucktards. -oni83.249.123.249 16:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard is a pissed off customer. He is not a game designer, he is not a balancer, and he has very limited coding background - he doesn't know what ANet can do and what they can't, especially with their limited resources. His game suggestions are meh, at best - if he was in Izzy's position, Guild Wars would suck a lot more than it does right now.

Oni, the wiki is not a playground. It is an encyclopedia about a game. Nothing shard does is for the betterment of said encyclopedia; his goals are all focused on the game itself, while putting the wiki's needs on the back burner. This results in his many cases of wiki disruption, where instead of choosing to leave his personal feuds off the wiki, he continues to pester ANet employees with crap that they really don't need to hear.

You know me. I'm not some carebear, offended by his language or his abrasiveness. But honestly, nobody gives a shit. Shard needs to learn that he isn't the end of the world. He isn't some paragon of creativity and balance that can somehow rid Guild Wars of all its problems. The only thing he can do for the game is post as many helpful suggestions as he can, del tag as many bad ones as he can, and leave ANet employees free to do their jobs - maintain the game.

As long as sysops keep him on a leash and disallow slander and trash talk, the user is fine. I wouldn't suggest a long-term ban, and his help in the feedback section is appreciated, but he just needs to realize when to quit :/ -Auron 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My coding background is not limited. I have my own game engine that I wrote by myself. I know what arenanet can do technically, and that's why it pisses me off that they don't care.

I'm really surprised that more people don't speak up when anet doesn't listen (which is a lot). Yes, they're making GW2 because GW failed in some aspects technically. That doesn't mean they should give up on GW1. I'm just a passionate player who doesn't want to see them toss a great game into the garbage, which is what's happening right now. ~Shard 19:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's sad, people can't handle some brutal honesty.-- anguard 16:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's sad, people missing the point so completely. -Auron 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion, as has been pointed out is for the purpose of presenting evidence or defense to the Bureaucrats so they can determine whether this request for an ArbComm is to be accepted or denied. Filling it with other types of personal attacks, and discussion serves no purpose. -- Wyn 16:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest. Though I try not to be disruptive most of the time, sometimes it works, and being as extreme as I can be, I gotta do what I gotta do. This is not the nicest way to give arenanet a list of things that the game is missing, but it is the most direct, and that's just the kind of person I am.

I'll defend most of brains' original citations.

Most of my "mean" stuff on izzy's page should have gone elsewhere, but I would like to point out that the point of having a talk page is so we can talk to that person, and it just so happens that there is nowhere else to ask izzy about specific balance thoughts. That's why so many other people also ignore that notice. We want to give him balance input not specific to a single skill, and you're not letting us. His page was semi-protected to prevent the "SMITERSBOON WTFLOL" spam, and it's long gone. There's no reason to discourage people from posting there anymore.

I'm still laughing that you cited the thing on regina's page. I think you were just running out of ammo to use for my case, because there's nothing wrong with what I did there. They banned someone in a Teen rated game for saying "butt" and it just blew my mind. I didn't curse anybody out. I didn't call anybody stupid. I was making a valid point using metaphors so extreme and over the top that a child could know I was making a point, not trolling. I know when you're reaching, cause I was reaching a lot to do my izzy fails page, and it didn't work.

I feel bad for Kim, from what I was told, she took what me and Armond said personally, which was not my intent.

I will try to keep in mind that GW1 is a game that nobody is working on vigilantly because it's "done" in the eyes of the big wigs at anet, and that they people who are working on it are probably doing their best for however much they're allowed. Izzy talked to us about it, and although it's still pathetic that a game company is intentionally abandoning their game, there's not much the people who DO care can do anymore. ~Shard 19:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard isn't it quite ovious that A.Net bailed on GW1? As well its old and its storyline only goes so far. Linseys doing some work. They can't really balance anymore as well GvG people want this buff, RA people want this nerf, PvE people want this buffed and nerfed...its just to much for an old game. Plus nearly most of the userbase is gone. So just move on. Dominator Matrix 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing about not maintaining their game is this: If GW2 was out now, I could understand them doing this to GW1. However, GW2 isn't hitting stores for 2 more years, and they're leaving GW1 in limbo. People are quitting every day because of lack of interest. The GW2 player base will be tiny compared to the number of people who own GW1. If I was in their marketing department, I would have told them "guys, keep people in the game until GW2 comes out." It just doesn't make sense to me that they'd abandon it this early. ~Shard 19:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not about buffs and nerfs its about balance imo.If you buff something already powerfull its like cheating.it's fun the first time and the second time but gets boring (just like GTA san andreas).I changed my opinion on gimmicks.They can exist if there slightly weaker then the balanced build imo Lilondra *poke* 19:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Touching as this is, can we take this discussion elsewhere? This is the page to discuss Shard, his offenses, and his Arbcomm case. calor (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

youre right just wanted to note well you know my opinion shard may sometimes be somewhat extreme but hey so am i only i do it in a less ill burn the world way Lilondra *poke* 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Calor and Auron that, in the grand reckoning, while Shard's dedication to improving the quality of the game (in his mind, anyway) is admirable, it is also outweighed (for our purposes) by his trolling, etc., and I'm inclined to believe that, on the basis of his statements, he has no intention of repenting any time soon. I guess my only question would be what ArbComm could do that the Sysops couldn't. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

They can propose alternatives other than "ban or do nothing". Grinch case may provide you an example on what other methods for damage control can be taken.--Fighterdoken 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

...I'm well aware of what ArbComm can do in the abstract sense, I'm more interested in what they would do in this case that the Sysops couldn't. In Grinch's case, he was repeatedly avoiding bans, which largely rendered Sysop intervention useless; Shard, however, is not as far as I'm aware. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If the wiki is supposed to document the game and it's status, then simply disallow discussion and opinions regarding stuff that isn't relating to documenting the game and it's status. Things creating a skill feedback regarding game balance only serves to draw in angry people who have tried all ways and means for 3 years to get their point across. 3 years, not 3 days or 3 months(heck, I would be pulling out my hair after 3 months of "hey, pretty please fix this ty"). Creating a page to discuss skill balance is contradictory to documenting the game and it's status. Hence the only conclusion is that the wiki is, while primarily about documentation regarding the game, also condones discussion about what should be done about the game and player feedback. Having a sole purpose is NOT having a primary objective. Understand the fundamental difference between the two, and the argument that shard shouldn't have done bla bla bla because the wiki is supposed to document is invalid.Pika Fan 06:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And then you realize that you're pretty much the only person on this talk page who has missed the point, because life doesn't exist in Black or White. Learn to read the shades of gray, because they are what you completely and totally forgot in this case.

The wiki's primary goal is documenting the game. There is a side benefit of communication with ANet employees. However, never forget that that is not the primary goal. When the secondary objectives interfere or disrupt the primary objectives (or interfere or disrupt ANet's ability to read and use feedback or talk pages), they are no longer acceptable. We're not saying "Shard can't post feedback because that's not the point of a wiki," we're saying "shard can't be a huge douchebag because that's not accepted on wikis, anywhere." -Auron 06:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Your argument is invalid, as there IS a place on this wiki for skill feedback. Shard simply ignored the rules, he mostly went directly to the wiki users' talk pages and started bashing them, or left insulting non constructive comments regarding other users' opinions on the feedback pages, and then threw in more of his Anet bashing. He's been warned, and blocked by sysops already regarding this behavior and still continues. He's free to make constructive comments on skill feedback discussion pages, he's not free to go to another wiki user's page and violate GWW:NPA. -- Wyn 06:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Tbh a system like that both doesnt work if youre posting tons of ideas and isnt easy to read either.So what we actually need is a page where you can post links to feedback wich izzy can (pretend to) read.Shard might be extreme but what are you going to with the little troll anyway ? (i'm shure its not good but god fucked america dont ban him for it) Lilondra *gale* 07:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GWW:NPAGWW:NPAGWW:NPAGWW:NPAGWW:NPA

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please find...uhh, hmm.. I'm sure I've attacked Izzy once before. Please find TWO incidents where I attacked arenanet staff, NOT what they do. I'm following NPA. ~Shard 07:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[1] "No offense, but your job title is quality assurance, shouldn't you try to do quality game fixes instead of being lazy?"

Since when did QA ever do actual game fixes? Pretty sure they aren't coders or designers, they're QA staff. Pretending otherwise is a waste of her time. -Auron 08:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever arbcom does, they need to remember that there's likely to be another Shard in the future. Dealing with the problem at its source (arguably, by fixing the feedback pages - wasn't there some talk about picking fifty million suggestions per week for Izzy to see?) will be more useful than just banning/censoring/whatevering Shard (and it'll make for a lot fewer frustrated people). 64.59.99.130 14:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Or spend some time fixing the game balance. Shard won't troll anymore after that. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.71.209.174 (talk).

You're right; the chances of there being a Shard Jr. (although not biologically related to Shard) are quite high. The discussion on the Community Portal seems to have skidded to a bit of a standstill. We need to revive that discussion and finally get it done, however we get it done. But for the time being, Shard is the main problem, and so he needs to be dealt with as deemed necessary by ArbComm. calor (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We've already got a Shard Jr. (Note the IPs' diction, it's the same person.) If the issue is "we've provided a medium for which the users can communicate with ANet, but ANet isn't using it" is Shard to blame for getting mad? Granted, he wasn't right in trolling and flaming the ANet staff on their pages (or anywhere), but was he wrong for getting frustrated? Banning Shard would probably be similar to the effect of only slapping a Band-Aid on a bullet wound: It might fix some of the problem, but there are still deeper issues. --Riddle 16:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair here, Shard is not the main problem, but he is the only problem this arbcomm request is concerned with. Whether or not the feedback pages are changed it does not affect his past choice of actions. Also I don't know what you mean that Anet isn't using the vehicle for communication. They ARE, their answers are just not what Shard and other certain users wish to hear. -- Wyn 17:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that perhaps it isn't so much fact as it is more opinion of a lot of users here that ANet doesn't listen, considering there are a few issues that people from multiple walks have posted that ANet has yet to respond or that took a while for ANet to respond. It gives a feeling of hopelessness to a lot of people, some of which take their feelings to the extreme.--Riddle 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok but I have to ask: If Quality Assurance doesn't fix things...what are they there for? Do they just troll wiki while the players find things wrong with the game, then write them down for someone else to fix? I might have been under the false impression that they did something. ~Shard 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

QA's role is to find bugs not fix them...Dominator Matrix 20:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I had something to say, but it would be taken as an NPA violation, so instead...I'll just link to Signet of Ghostly Might, Amulet of Protection, Hard Mode, Golden Gates, Nightfall, Nightfall again, and maybe...just for laughs, Henchmen. ~Shard 22:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great job, you found some bugs (except for hard mode, that one is just plain bad design). QA is most likely aware of said bugs. Regardless, QA staff does not fix them. You can't give someone like Kim shit over something that isn't her job to begin with. -Auron 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not as if anyone is interested in my opinion, but I'll give it regardless. As far as I can tell, Shard thinks that calling a person stupid and saying they have a stupid brain isn't the same thing. According to Shard, Shard is always right. People who disagree are ignorant at best, but they can never be right, because Shard is always right. There are some others that also think that Shard is always right, partly because he makes a valid point once in a while but mostly because he defies authority. Adolescents often try to defy authority, so Shard's their champion and we're just goody-2-shoes. And there is no way they'll ever accept that as long as it comes from our mouths, because we are authority, or we defend authority. There's no way those two groups will ever see eye to eye. 145.94.74.23 22:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So? Shard is still right about balancing most of the time(EXCEPT when nerfing rangers). Just ignore his NPA violations as long as he keeps coming up with good suggestions. Seriously, stop being carebears. Being insulted isn't the end of the world, in fact it is nothing(unless someone repeatedly destroys a user page which would call for a block) and Shard definitely isn't destroying Izzy's user page. If Shard leaves the wiki, don't blame him if Build Wars forever sucks due to lack of skill feedback. Grow up and ignore the insults. If someone was posting personal attacks on my talk page I would just put something on my main page that says "Ignore the trolling, someone just wants attention" and move on. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.71.209.174 (talk).

Wrong answer... we don't just ignore violations of policy because he occasionally comes up with suggestions/feedback that is valid. I think if anyone is carebearing here, it's you who wish us to leave him alone. -- Wyn 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! This wiki gave that Kouger troll a Permanent Ban for being rude to one Anet Staff member on a couple occasions. Shard has been a total asshat to many Anet Staff members many times on a weekly basis for many months, he deserves the same or worse. What, we gonna let him get away with it cause he has more friends on the wiki than Kouger did? LOL He's a loser with crap suggestions and does nothing but cause drama on the wiki. Ban Hammer PLZ! 66.90.104.89 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, whoru? You don't seem to be just a random IP. --Riddle 06:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Until you can prove that permanent ban you mentioned, stop trolling. Thanks. 75.182.89.73 06:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

@ 66.90 - Assuming you're referring to me and simply misspelled my name, I'd like to correct your assumptions. Due to my critical judgment of some mistakes made by one ArenaNet employee on a couple of occasions, I was temporarily banned few times. I was never permanently banned, but if you read over my arbitration you'll see that the majority of users wanted me to be. Given how harshly I was persecuted for simply holding one ArenaNet employee to her mistakes a few times, I do find it baffling that someone like Shard has gotten away with outright personal attacks against multiple ArenaNet employees as well as countless other users for as long as he has. I do however believe you may just be partially correct in one of your assumptions though, and that would be the one claiming Shard gets away with as much as he does because he has some friends here on the wiki. I've always felt that the rules bent everywhichway to accommodate the popular people and protect them when they violate the rules, and only those unliked by the majority (such as myself) are ever really held to them (often to excess) ...but given I'm no longer active on this wiki (see my userpage for details) I'm not really concerned about what is or isn't done fairly on here anymore.  :) ~ J.Kougar 23:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What can ArbComm do that sysops can't?

"...I'm well aware of what ArbComm can do in the abstract sense, I'm more interested in what they would do in this case that the Sysops couldn't. In Grinch's case, he was repeatedly avoiding bans, which largely rendered Sysop intervention useless; Shard, however, is not as far as I'm aware." - Defiant Elements, a little further up this page. Looking at the block log, Shard has been banned for a grand total of... eleven days. To me, this seems fairly simple. He was being disruptive to the wiki, so he was banned. He returned from the ban and continued to be disruptive, so just ban him again for a longer period of time (say, a month). If he comes back from that ban and still continues to be disruptive, I'd say a permaban would be justified. If he avoids his ban, bring it to ArbComm, but I don't really see why ArbComm needs to be involved at this point. He doesn't need to have broken a specific rule for a ban to be justified - that he is a source of constant drama is reason enough. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my belief that the politics of the wiki work something like that of the US Government in theory. There are two groups, Sysops and bureaucrats. The sysops have the ability to do alot with the wiki, including blocking and a lot more administrative issues than the average user or bureaucrat. The bureaucrats really don't do much other than RfA's, ArbComms, and, IIRC, have some emergency powers if there are no sysops available. Going back to the Sysops now, they can block users when deemed necessary. If the blocks aren't making the message any more clear for the offender, someone can request an ArbComm, which invokes the bureaucrats, to determine a more proper punishment, whether it be long term bans (which could be seen as an abuse of power if an admin did it w/o an arbcomm backing him or her) or some abstract punishment (in one case, two users were not allowed to talk to each other and whoever said something to the other would be blocked for 3 days.)

Of course, I could be way wrong, but that is what I've gathered. --Riddle 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is "causing drama" a reason to ban? Drama is good, wikis get boring without it. 64.59.99.130 00:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I see this being a case for ArbComm is that even though Shard has been warned and blocked for violation of GWW:NPA he still doesn't consider what he does a violation - "I'm sure I've attacked Izzy once before. Please find TWO incidents where I attacked arenanet staff, NOT what they do. I'm following NPA. ~Shard Image:User Shard Sig Icon.png 07:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)" - so the behavior continues. Since there is this 'dispute' over what is and isn't a violation between him and the Sysops, I believe a ruling from ArbComm is required. And no, <this kind of> drama on the wiki is not good, it's disruptive. -- Wyn 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomm can issue a statement saying any posts he makes on anet employee's talk pages will be reverted, and any disparaging remarks he makes (even in userspace) will be reverted and he will be banned. They can limit the areas of the wiki he can "contribute" to, whereas sysops can only ban him for bad behavior. -Auron 07:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think he'd follow something like that? This whole problem is because he doesn't think what he's doing is wrong, and doesn't really seem to care if he's banned for it. Such an injunction, in all probability, would end in one of two ways: Shard stops contributing to the wiki, or, more likely, he does something he's not allowed to do and gets banned. Both have the same end result, and just banning him outright would be far simpler. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 18:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The only time you need to even think ban is when he attacks a person, not how they do something or what they do. There's nothing wrong with attacking actions and pointing out what one sees as wrong. His overall tone is harsh yes, however it's what's effective. If you're saying there's a problem with that then tell me coaches are wrong in being harsh on players when they observe a mistake (note that you should not say that, unless you want to look ignorant)~>Sins WDB 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A Wiki is not sports. The same rules / exceptions for one do not mean they apply for the other. |Foul Bane| 05:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There still isn't a single link on this page to a personal attack I've made. Constructive criticism is still constructive. Everything I say comes with a suggestion, even if it's mean. ~Shard 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard might be a !!!! !!!hole sometimes but hes just frustrated he does however ALWAYS HAVE AN ARGUMENT.So saying he's just flaming wouldn't be true at all.Lilondra *gale* 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Link 1, Link 2 is what I have found so far. I will continue to search further back.- TheRave (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"His overall tone is harsh yes, however it's what's effective." I have to highly argue this point. His methods are only effective in driving the devs and other Anet employees off this wiki. None of his rants have resulted in any sort of change in their actions, or the game (which he claims is his goal). I would also have to argue that inferring someone has "the IQ of a chair" or that they are "lazy" and "making up half-baked excuses" are all pretty clear personal attacks and have been linked at the top of this page. The fact that Shard, as has been pointed out, is a frustrated customer does not give him the right to disrupt this wiki in the manner he does. So yes, we could continue lengthening his bans each time he violates NPA which he will because he doesn't believe what he says is a violation, and yes, that will eventually result in a permanent ban that will end all of his contributions, or we can get a ruling from ArbComm along with potentially an injunction, which would send a clear message that the messages he has been posting ARE in fact violations of NPA. Then maybe he will stop and just contribute in a positive fashion. -- Wyn 06:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If the devs are being driven off the wiki by one person who is willing to continuously voice his disappointment in them, they can fuck off. --71.229.253.172 07:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard, your debating style is often so aggressive that it is hard to come up with a specific example: you hardly ever say something without stating that you're better than they are (or more accurately: they are inferior to you). As for the comment above this one: Shard is a trendsetter. If lef alone, he'd have little problem clogging up Izzy's page with all kinds of personal attacks, thus drowning any useful feedback that might be amongst it. In any case, if Izzy doesn't know by now that Shard doesn't agree with his balancing, then he'll never know and in both cases, it would be pointless for Shard to continue. 145.94.74.23 07:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this endless discussion now; this is an requests for arbitration. If we asked for a public discussion about Shard, the page wouldn't be called "Arbitration committee/*". For the requirement of this request, it is easy said: The page was created (by a sysop btw), so it exists and will be looked at. Wheter it will be accepted or not is another topic but absolutely not your decision! The only ones that can and will decide here is the arbitration committee; they also decide if they even want you to comment on that. That is what they were elected for (so let them do their job!).
If this discussion continues without process or without the committee's demand, expect further actions. poke | talk 08:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Poke, the request page says (and previous pages have always said) that "the case for or against acceptance is on the discussion page"; yes, the decision lies with the bureaucrats, but that doesn't mean others can't discuss the case or put forth their own argument for or against it. No one here is deciding on injunctions and whatnot, just speculating, exploring options and discussing the case in general. I think the "committee's demand" is implicit (perhaps explicit, as it's on the request page) in every case that discussion is allowed, unless of course the bureaucrats say otherwise. Furthermore, it's not our place (as sysops) to "further [act]" just because people are discussing; if bureaucrats want people to stop, they'd say so (which is basically your point anyway - what they say goes). Brains12 --195.195.129.3 10:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard

Shard has problems effectively communicating and bringing across a point. Many users are able to express themselves civily the first time and don't need to spam someone's talk page again and again with the same useless points over and over. Look at Auron, Brains or Poke, hell, even me.

I've already made suggestions that haven't been listened to and nobody even cared about before. The fact of the matter is, I know people aren't going to listen to me more if I spam them and start acting like a douchebag. I could make suggestions for this game drunk, blind and on fire and have a better chance of being listened to than Shard could. I guess Shard is actually a mentally retarded zoomonkey. I don't see any other way he could have made so many suggestions and can have been ignored so very often.

This goes much deeper than the quality of Shard's suggestions. Even if he knew what he was doing his head is so far up his own ass that he can't see anything. The only people who seems to care what he is saying is Lilondra and some IP users and no one ever listens to IP users. Shard is so terrible he thinks Signet of Pious Light is outrageously good. I feel sorry for the rest of the wiki who constantly have to put up with him going "I don't know how to express my ideas effectively so I am going to rage incoherently."

You can't keep backing Shard up, don't deny how terrible his suggestions have gotten. Look around. More people just start ignoring him every day than listen to him. Why? Shitty suggestions, boring and irrelevant rants. He has nothing to say, nothing to offer. New people read a paragraph or two that he types, then go and listen to someone who actually has something to say.

While I await my inevitable ill-informed rant in response, think about why you defend a user who doesn't give a fuck about other people. Republicans care more about americans than Shard cares about other users, that's fucking disgraceful.

Please note, Shard has already stated that he doesn't consider anything he has said towards arenanet to be a personal attack, so clearly he won't consider anything I have typed to be a personal attack as it is basically copy pasta of what he has said with a few minor changes. Clearly he will not be offended or feel attacked, so no personal attack exists. Have a wonderful day everyone. Misery 11:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I lol'd -Auron 11:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

luuk gais i'm misery and i'm being a dick instead of trying to discuss tis shit liek a normal person --Cancer Angel 15:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess Misery's parody was right on. -Auron 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Except when I wrote it, it was backed by facts. I didn't make a 1 energy kill spell or abandon my game. ~Shard 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I lol'd Misery 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good thing it wasn't even really directed at Shard at all. Don't see a lot of point in trying to convince him of anything. Misery 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Except when Misery wrote it, it was backed by facts. Misery didn't make a person feel miserable or abandon the NPA. 145.94.74.23 08:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obaby. Misery 08:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

oh luuk u gais im usin' teh ip to be totally anon --Cancer Angel 09:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

CA is so awesome and sexy. --62.13.9.58 09:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obaby --Cancer Angel 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just the way it is

Shard has always been a problem, flaming others and showing no respect for users of the wiki and ignoring anything but his own opinions which he believes to be fact because of his god complex. Unlike other users who have been a problem in the past but nolonger are, Shard doesn't change and remains a constant problem. Auron says it best and I agree. Shard should be permabanned and if he comes back later with a new account he should just be banned again. Just because he has a few friends on here who are too far up Shard's behind to see all his trolling flaming and NPAing doesn't mean that it hasn't always been a problem and won't always be a problem until he is permabanned. 74.86.240.106

The only thing banning me will do is provide one less solid voice against anet's incompetence. If you want the game to continue sucking, that's your thing. I'm a normal human being and thus want to see things improved, not ruined. ~Shard 18:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard if you think youre flaming will help to make guildwars a competent then youre wrong.I personally thin you're balance would be +- good but if you're threatening with arguments like this then youre just asking to be permabanned.I'll be honest I love youre skill of the day and such but seriously dont you get it ? Lilondra *gale* 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Auron says it best and I agree. Well it so happens that I don't agree, and I've had several disagreements with Shard in the past. If you want one of the biggest voices on balance gone from this wiki then there is a problem. We don't need to see the incompetence to logic ratio skewed any more to the side of incompetence. That doesn't mean that personal attacks should be allowed, but permabaning a person with a decent grasp of overall game balance just because you are offended that he shoots down peoples points is stupid. Temp ban him if he attacks a person, permaban him if that's all he does. Unfortunately for those of you wishing bans on him, he attacks peoples points. ~>Sins WDB 19:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL Look! It's one of those people 74.86.240 was talking about "he has a few friends on here who are too far up Shard's behind to see" LMAO Shard thinks he's one of the only people who know how to balance the game but most of his suggestions are crap and only unbalance and limit the game even more than it already is. If you agree with Shard's balance ideas then you are just as bad. There is a reason Izzy ignors Shard, Shard seldom ever has a decent idea. If we lose that occasional good idea that he rarely comes up with in exchange for a hell of a lot less of his trolling and attaking others, then it's well worth it. Permanent Ban PLZ! 66.90.104.89 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you agree with Shard's balance ideas then you are just as bad. Lol I see a personal attack on Shard and at least a few others. I also loled at the ignorant idea that limitations are somehow bad.~>Sins WDB 20:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Yea, the game is so much more fun when each class can only do one or two things and has one or two skill bars that they can pick from to play. Every Ranger should have one of two skill sets and every Warrior should pick from Hammer, Axe, or Sword and use the specific 8 skills that go with them and never anything else. What a fucking Noob! Idiots like you and Shard who want this shit are the reason the game is as fucked up as it is already. GTFO and quit ruining my game. Yes that is a personal attack, deal, if I can make even a third as many attacks on you as Shard makes in a day then I can tell you to fuck off for hours and I won't get banned. If he's allowed to be an asshat then so am I. 66.90.104.89 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Yea, the game is so much more fun when each class can only do one or two things and has one or two skill bars that they can pick from to play. I lol again, I never said anything to that effect. But if you want to go down that road, I'll entertain for the moment. I've two different counters to that point. 1 is more justified now since pvp and pve are splitting skills now, and shard offers most of his suggestions based on PvP as do I. Anyways there is nothing wrong with classes in PvP struggling at playing the strengths of other classes effectively, in fact if you disagree with this you are balancing based off aesthetic value, which is not why people PvP and is a terrible basis for balance. The other argument is this and is where I learn a little more towards; classes can be moderately effective at playing each other's role, but they should not be overall better or equal at using the strengths of another class. When this is not true a class becomes obsolete and it must either be changed from its current balanced (if it is fairly balanced at the time anyways) or the other class needs to be nerfed. One of the two must occur to promote the use of the other class. Btw I can tell you Shard and I are only aquantences online, and the fact that I agree with him on multiple topics only loosely associates me with him. Also you really should watch doing personal attacks in public places, you might get unwanted backlash.~>Sins WDB 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason Izzy ignors Shard, Shard seldom ever has a decent idea.

It's funny how you think you know everything about me. Izzy ignored me because I spammed him loads of questions he didn't know how to answer, and he was probably too busy doing... whatever it is he does.

Also, to this day, I have never had ONE person tell my why my balance ideas are bad. The closest anyone has come to that is probably Readem, who, unlike everybody else who criticizes me, also knows what he's talking about.

This drama and flaming really shouldn't be here. If you'd like to show off how much better you are than me, you can point out all my bad ideas and explain to everyone why they wouldn't work on my talk pages. You'd definitely be the first. ~Shard 06:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a challenge, so I will try to point out bad ideas. You got meh hooked, Shard! Dark Morphon(contribs) 08:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is one for you, from Shard's list of things that most seriously need to be changed in Guild Wars:

Signet of Pious Light - While this skill doesn't see much high-end play, it is still outrageously good because of its free, no recharge, giant healing.

Don't even feel like I need to explain that one. Misery 08:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Euhm...I actually did that Shard, remember? 145.94.74.23 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the only mostly flawed suggestion I've seen Shard post is Vamp Bite and Touch. The rest is mostly opinion. His opinion is that broken skills are broken even if they don't affect the higher end arenas so much. Since I am limited in my play of the higher end arenas, I mostly agree with Shard, and I have to say he can post suggestions without flaming anybody or criticizing ANet in the process. --Riddle 14:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, his opinion is that skills are broken. Even on that, not everybody agrees. (waits for the inevitable variation on "if you don't agree you are a noob") 145.94.74.23 14:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

@Shard I posted feedback once as an Anon, apparently I wasn't offensive at all and I was making a valid point RE: Expertise affecting stances making them imba across the board. You made crappy personal attacks and couldn't get a single point across without ending with an insult. I don't even have to start with signet of pious light, really. It isn't imbalanced because it is basically signet of devotion. Whatever enchantment you can cast, will always at least take you 1 second to cast inclusive of aftercast together with 1 second of SoPL. Anyway, this isn't the best place to discuss skill efficiency. I just want to say that you aren't as objective as you make yourself out to be. Please take some time and reflect.Pika Fan 14:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Youre right about Signet of pious pika fan but 99 % of the time shard backs up his comments with facts the other 1 % it is "a negative contribution" because some the other guy is just a huge idiot (zomg WS is underpowered NEEDZ HUAGE BUEFFF).He makes decent sugestions (even the touch one imo) and he posts alot on the skill feedback page's so you cant blame him there.Mr ip many skills are broken but w/e this is not what we came to discuss here. Lilondra *gale* 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't touch spells (Mending Touch) affected by expertise anyway? Also on a random only vaguely related note, Shock is another non-spell touch skill. Misery 15:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

@Everyone failing to understand Shard's point about Signet of Pious Light. He clearly says the skill is powerful because of the big heal it offers and the instant recharge. He is assuming that everyone understands that Mysticism synchronizes perfectly with the usage of that skill. And it is pretty obvious that enchantments are easy to receive from multiple sources not just self enchants. Perfect examples patient spirit and holy veil, which come from monks. Holy Veil or Patient Spirit to Pious Light equals a net gain in energy a target heal and a bonus effect from enchant ending. Signet of Pious light concise description: gain energy from mysticism, heal target ally for 90+ health, and gain bonus effect from your ending enchant. Maybe the reason Shard is so harsh, though not nicest way to point things out, is because people can't make connections like above.~>Sins WDB 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion really doesn't belong here. -Auron 20:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not. This page is for (mainly) what happened on Kim's page, not about how I would balance the game. If you'd like to give me a few reasons why I'm bad at everything, please do so on my talk page. ~Shard 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note

Because it seems to be a point of confusion for several people in the above discussions... The policy is "No Personal Attacks," not "No Personal Attacks Unless They Deserve It." - Tanetris 15:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy is "No Personal Attacks," not "No Attacks Against Factual Events and/or Actions." I am under the impression that a personal attack is an attack against a person. ~Shard 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we established that a few years ago, hence the policy's eerily fitting name. While you have definitely attacked Anet staff's actions (e.g. balances and mechanic introductions), the fact that you also directly attacked Anet staff, as shown in links above, can not be discarded. calor (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What links? Oh, you mean the TWO times I attacked anet staff, and was subsequently already blocked for? ~Shard 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you were blocked for your attack on Kim, because Brains brought the ArbComm request instead. That being said..... -- Wyn 03:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That being said, Shard did realize his mistake and apologized to Kim. --Riddle 05:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, is it only me or has Shard not actually made a lot of skill balance things on his pages? It seems he only says things about skill balancing but doesn't actually do it himself. Dark Morphon(contribs) 17:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe most of his comments on skill balance can be found as removed or old archived comments on Izzy's talk page. Misery 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this is a troll...but as I've been reading through the comments here and on Shard's page, I often take a break and click on other people's pages. One I clicked on was Auron's. Oddly enough, there's a lot on his page that reminds me of the content Shard writes. "Andrew Patrick started a guru thread and claimed that he didn't have to take shit from anyone, and that ANet knew what they were doing. He also spouted a bunch of additional shit that was wrong, and he was beautifully countered by JR in this post (which has been removed from the guru thread by incompetent mods who would rather enjoy the taste of ANet's flaccid penis in their mouth than see ANet answer for their failures)." That sounds JUST like Shard. "/EvIL Guild returns, and ArenaNet lies through their teeth about the circumstances regarding EvIL's departure and fails to mention their distress with the current state of balance (which is terrible, in case you missed it)" That also sounds like Shard.

I just feel this whole argument against Shard now seems hypocritical. At least to me it does. And Auron...I don't know you, but Armond talks highly of you, so that makes me like you, and I agree with you 100% just as I agree with Shard. Sorry to single you out, but I thought that since Shard is in trouble for his remarks...well, you understand.

The difference is these were posted on his user space, whereas Shard posts directly to Izzy, Kim and anyone and everyone else. They could easlily be interpreted as "attacks", even though I personally would not feel so, but I can see many that would. But that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are missing the point, or not really missing it, since you did mention it... "Shard posts directly to Izzy, Kim and anyone and everyone else." I might also point out that this ArbComm is now closed, so further discussion is really moot. -- Wyn 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize again, Wyn, and this is in no way personal, but I am not missing the point. Regardless of where the comments are posted, they're the same comments made with the same tone and intention. If one person can make them, then everyone can. If one person is punished for the actions, then everyone should be. The point of his arbcon was due to him violating the policy and using "personal attacks". Thats my point. I know the arbcon is over, but I felt that it is an item that should not be overlooked.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this arbitration case + discussion is closed. If this should be continued, it probably would be best on a talk page. -- Wandering Traveler 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)