User talk:Sardaukar

Hello and welcome to Sardaukar's discussion page. I am the first comment and will guide you on your journey into the white expanse ahead! Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә & ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blasted Sardaukar! Hiding amongst even our wikis! Fremen..AMBUSH HIM! ПALANA 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Paper Wrapped Parcel/Drop rates

I think I used an old revision by accident when I edited it. I was looking trough the revisions before I updated the totals. Thanks for spotting it. // HeavenMonkey 10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for updating the totals. :) Sardaukar 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Idealism

Hi! I'm posting this on your talk page because I don't really believe that it belongs on Auron's RfR talk page.
I think you're confused about what idealism is as, in order to be an effective idealist (a "visionary"), one must be keenly aware of the way that things are. A good example is the "letter of the law v spirit of the law" argument: arguing for the latter is an idealist value, though it's based on the very real fact that the system that said law belongs to is flawed.
More accurate would've been:
"The system works." — Realist
"The system needs work." — Idealist
Note that neither belief necessarily implies that the other is false.
While it is possible to be idealist without holding realist beliefs, it is not a working philosophy. At the same time, though, being a realist with no idealist beliefs is also not a working philosophy: in its best iteration, it equates to stagnation with no hope for advancement. — Raine Valen 16:25, 31 Aug 2010 (UTC)

You disappoint me. Try again. Sardaukar 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Raine can't help it, she's a girl. elix Omni 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The total absence of reasoning in that post makes it difficult to understand where your viewpoint differs from mine. — Raine Valen 17:21, 31 Aug 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. elix Omni 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rfa post

You kind of messed it up. - Reanimated X 15:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the best votes I have ever seen. O_O - Mini Me 19:39, 3 September, 2010 (UTC)

I concur. - Reanimated X 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

hi

A few of your other points I intend to answer later, but one issue you brought up I felt the need to comment on. When I posted on the community portal talk page, I was completely serious. I thought the entire project was a waste of fucking time. I still think it was a waste of time, and contrary to your post, I actually did things the right way.
It irks me that you link to those as examples of trolling, because those two posts in particular are exactly how a dissenting voice is supposed to act. I did not agree with any of the changes proposed. I made my POV known, and when it was challenged, I replied (once, and only once) to re-affirm my stance. After that, I let the matter lie. I did all I could, as a dissenting voice, to let them know I disagreed with their wasting time. If I had posted more, or followed people to their talk pages, or whatever you will, I would have been disrupting the wiki to spread my views. Simply voicing my opinion on the relevant talk page and leaving it at that is how that kind of thing is supposed to happen. Compare it to, say, Scythe doing anything to see the difference. He wanted his views heard, no matter the cost, and when people said "cool story bro" he flipped out and tried to force consensus. That's bad.
I think a lot of shit on this wiki is a waste of time, but I'm not the only person on this wiki. I know that some people love wasting their time on stupid bullshit, and considering that I cannot force consensus (and do not try to), I simply make my views known and then back off. I did it with the gww:account page, and I've done it with others in the past. I post a few times to spur discussion, answer questions if any are asked, and let the community make the decision in the end. If enough people want to waste their time maintaining a page, I'm not going to be mortally offended that the page continues existing. I don't crusade to force people to agree with me, and it was the case on that war in kryta coloring thing as well. It was a waste of time and I simply told them so. I did everything exactly like I was supposed to - making a clear dissenting voice heard without causing disruption by incessant posts or refusal to change my view (in a continued argument). -Auron 13:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory long-assed response.

"First off, I was on holiday when Raine was made a sysop. The wiki isn’t my life so I wasn’t keeping up. Had I been around and noticed Raine’s attempt at gaining sysophood, I would’ve adamantly opposed it based purely on her platform for running. To sum up, “There are too many trolls. Let me smite them with the ban hammer and all shall be well”. After returning and seeing this, all I could think of was a guy going into a police station and mentioning his desire to be a cop. “Why do you want to be a police officer?” he’d be asked. “I want to shoot the bad guys” he’d respond and then be asked to leave. That was Raine’s first desire (I wanna ban trolls) and a big red flag. I didn’t care if Scythe had Auron by the balls. You don’t give people (contributors) badges and guns (sysophood) because they promise to eliminate crime (bans) and because the rest of the police force (sysops) is inept."

• Elections everywhere would like to disagree with you. Being "tough on crime" is generally considered a strong positive in any campaign anywhere.

"Fast forward to today. Has Raine proved to be an effective sysop? Has she been the bane of trolls? Not even remotely. She’s been more of a bane to the wiki. What was she thinking when she posted this? Regardless of the intent, discretion should’ve moved her to not post such tripe, knowing it would be inflammatory or least had the potential to become so."

• You linked this.
• The overwhelming irony of a suggestion here, worded like this, that users should avoid posting objective truth for fear of offending a subsection of contributors defined by their actions: you read the subsequent discussion, obviously, and I made several posts therein explaining exactly why offending people by telling the truth is okay. If you'd like to disagree, then I must ask why you bothered to write the post to which I am now responding; I have my doubts that you did not write it to avoid hurting my feelings (as strongly evidenced by the fact that you did not not write it, at all).

"Raine posts something stupid and then threatens another user with a ban for trolling, even though she admits she doesn’t even know whether said trolling has happened or not."

• You linked this.
• I'm quite curious as to how you interpreted "In the event that you are not, actually, serious here, I will overlook the trolling because, honestly, I cannot tell." (bold added for emphasis), or anything else said there, as a threat. It is quite likely that you meant something else (warn?), but chose to use "threaten" because it is a clear-cut word with strong negative connotations – however, because I read what you said at face value, it simply looks inaccurate, from my point of view.
• The fact that the user in question later admitted that they were in fact, trolling, isn't relevant.
• If a user were quite possibly trolling, would you (1) ignore it, (2) ban them outright over a suspicion, or (3) bring it up to them and warn them about the possible consequences of similar actions in the future? I picked 3; what would you have done?

"Back to the cop illustration. Picture an officer saying to the driver of a pulled over car “You know I hand out tickets to speeders so let me know if you do, ok?”"

• I think that a much more accurate simile would have been an officer pulling a car over on the highway for skirting the edge of the speed limit and saying, "Watch it; officers here ticket for speeding, so don't be caught doing it in the future."

"Then there’s her ban and subsequent discussion of said ban. Reading that discussion as it transpired was painful. I kept thinking, Raine can’t be as stupid as she’s coming accross. She made a stupid post. What was so hard about seeing that is was completely inappropriate? There seems to be some kind of disconnect between her reality and what actually is prudent."

• Please understand that the majority of the discussion was quite painful to me, as well, because there was an assload of flak and only slivers of (subjective) logic to back it (which I thank DE for).
• I strongly encourage you to – in fact, I'd very much love it if you were to – present a logical counterargument to anything said therein, if you have one. It seems that you've discovered a previously-unmentioned, but somehow obvious, reason that it was completely inappropriate. I'm very interested in this.

"So back to the trolls. Something I really liked seeing was Salome getting the game update discussions under control. That was on January 6th."

• You linked this.
• Now, I'm forced to ask: what do you think a troll is? Do you think that people who "bitch and moan about the lack of said updates or to ride to the rescue and defend anet for the lack of said updates" are trolls? The commonly accepted definition, "a person who, through willful action, attempts to disrupt a community or garner attention and controversy through provocative messages" (e.g. this) seems to suggest otherwise, but lumping those who post honest complaints (e.g. "bitch") into a group characterized by dishonest intentions seems to be growing more and more normal, here.
• I don't have a problem with people bitching about things or offending people if it appears that they are sincere (for example, everyone who posted anything regarding my RfR or, hell, about half of the things on my talkpage ever); I do have a problem with people pretending to be upset with the intent of stirring up drama.

"Where was Raine with her promise to smite trolls?"

• However, even with that being said, I enforced Salome's discretion in that case, even though I did not necessarily agree with it.

"Where has she been since? I see her contributing a lot of non essential stuff to her namespace but not a whole lot to the wiki. So why does she have sysop tools? What’s she doing now that couldn’t be done without them?"

• Now, admittedly, not a whole lot. There aren't people trolling the shit out of the wiki uncontested (as had been the case when I submitted my initial RfA), so the reason that I had sought sysop status (yes, there are other facets of sysophood; no, I am not interested in them) has become a moot point. This is why I supported the RfR (no, it was not a joke).

"There's a motley of other problems that go with her still not being familiar with her sysop tools. It seems to me that she’s been more of a liability with them, frustrating sysops and contributors alike."

• Indeed, I'm a wiki noob.

"Sardaukar 14:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)" You're welcome. — Raine Valen 23:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not angry, at all. I'm not even annoyed." U MAD? LOL. 76.10.172.239 00:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Furious. — Raine Valen 0:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

0/10 76.10.172.239 00:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

qft. — Raine Valen 0:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My concern

← moved to Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Elections/2011-06_bureaucrat_election/Aiiane

Team Builds

I moved your team builds page to your user space. My apologies for any inconvenience. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :D Sardaukar 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is Valued.

"Just stumbled across this. Very nice work! The only thing I'd like to remove is the grey bar, but in order to do that the wiki coding would have to be changed and saved somewhere else right? Sardaukar 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)" Do you want the bar completely removed, because if that's what you want I could consider the change and give you credit for the idea. Ideas are always loved, that's what makes google powerful. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it would look better without the grey bar. I think just a black line would suffice. I have to admit that I’m currently using just a standard template and have no intentions of changing it, so don’t change it just for me, and there’s no need to give me credit if you do. Thanks for asking though and for helping me understand wiki markup a little better. I tried reverse engineering your stuff to figure out how it worked. It helped...a little. ;D Sardaukar 19:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverse Engineering. Helping mankind learn since Area 51. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 19:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

10 times...

Honestly did you make a policy about removing any post being remarkably negative about the developers' performance? I might end up using strong language when arguing with people who don't understand, and despite the thorny coating I'm bringing up topics that to be frank anyone should have already noticed. Why are you intent on keeping the dev pages sugarcoated with empty and substanceless praise? --Boro 21:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You do have a bad habit of posting walls of shit on Stummes page boro. He doesn't need to know any of it. Plus hes moved onto gw2 right, so he won't do anything about your whining. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And is making his page sugarcoated with substanceless praise and selectedly removing anything that might back up an argument implying faintly that his work is not just simply perfect, but sometimes they make pretty bad oversights any better? The mesmer update was so... undescribably bad that the last of the problems were hammered out in late march.

In retrospective my only regret is bringing in tangentially related topics (lore consistency's been a favorite of me if you haven't seen it yet), even though they happened in the same cinematic. Also if you are paying attention, you can easily see that this time I did not even produce half the text that ended up in the glint topic. I however intend on restarting the topic and seeing if we can get an information any time later.

I'm also interested in an explanation why you think it's 'shit' what I write or why it's unnecessary for the developers to know if there are problems with their games. --Boro 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Try posting it on your own talk page, and using about 1% of the words you currently write. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

About making a discussion on my own talkpage and only posting a link... that's interesting. However if I used your second advice in replying to you, It would be simply: stop writing useless shit. However I don't, so I suggest you to refrain from participating in a discussion unless you have something to add. --Boro 23:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)