Sunday, December 20, 2009

Our history has been sadly lacking.

For example, how were new players to know of things like Glitch Admins? Or the Wak/Qwaz confusion? Or why PieIsSquare got banned (I still don’t know this)?
So I somewhat fixed the problem by creating a history page.

The page is still being worked on as I post this, but right now there are several things to do:
  * Glitch Admins
  * Wak/Qwaz controversy
  * Banned Players
  * Renamed Players
  * Major core rule changes
  * Anonymous CfJs
  * Anything else I don’t yet know about.

Note that the switch and dynastic history sections of the main page are now located on the history page, so if we agree, we can replace them with a link to the history.

Comments

Klisz:

12-20-2009 21:59:38 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

12-20-2009 22:11:32 UTC

Darth: Get onto IRC. I need your help with the Glitch Admins section.

Qwazukee:

12-21-2009 05:33:51 UTC

Most if not all of this stuff should eventually end up in the “Miscellaneous” sections of the relevant Dynasties. Might be difficult for those things that crossed multiple Dynasties.

Ienpw III:

12-21-2009 05:59:05 UTC

Well, my thoughts were this:
What if I don’t know when the Glitch Admin things happened? I don’t want to have to search through the entire wiki to find that.
This way, it’s gathered all in one spot.

There:

12-21-2009 06:16:19 UTC

Yeah, I’ve randomly looked at some dynasties to try to get a feel for the game, so I knew about glitch admins, but I haven’t heard of any of the other things mentioned here. It would be nice to have all the interesting things in one place.

Kevan:

12-21-2009 10:53:25 UTC

Ienpw: You can “search through the entire wiki” by using the “search” box in the sidebar. A search for “glitch admins” turns up some discussion on the Fourth Metadynasty page - it’s a bit incoherent, but would be easy enough to tidy up.

I’m not sure I like this weight-of-history trend. BlogNomic has churned through new players and thrown up new jargon for each Dynasty, in the past seven years. I don’t like the bullying suggestion that a few particular jokes or mechanics from the last twelve months were somehow important, and that new players need to familiarise themselves with them in order to become proper BlogNomic citizens.

Josh:

12-21-2009 12:45:33 UTC

I’m with Kevan. Further, moving the dynastic histories off of the front page and into a sub-page makes them less accessible, not more.

Excalabur:

12-21-2009 13:50:19 UTC

The ‘annotated history’ always emphasized ‘this dynasty, this happened’.  the unit of gameplay is the dynasty…  I hate that the DDA keeps coming up, for one.

Klisz:

12-21-2009 17:58:49 UTC

Excalabur: As the de-facto leader of the DDA, I can truly tell you that it is GONE. If it appears again, that’s because I’m not in charge.

The MPA (Meerkat Pact Agency) might appear, but that’s just a catch-all name for temporary alliances that band together for one scam, and include me. The entire reason it even exists is so I can give “Operation X” names to each scam. Hell, it even exists outside BlogNomic.

tecslicer:

12-21-2009 22:55:29 UTC

I agree with Kevan. I don’t need to know everything that happened for the last 72 dynasties to be a proper BN player(adventurer), but I think that it is good to have SOME important events all in one place. When I started I looked through the old history, and was impressed/inspired by the awesome themes (I want to do a zombie/survival theme)

Every nomic that I have played has lasted only a few months before arguments about the definition of"OR” or midnight, or who should update values, is. But this one has lasted so long that I believe that we should celebrate that longevity.

That being said, once I saw the FULL history on the wiki, I realized that I will never be able to read all of it, and fully catch up, but you will just have to take me as I am, because I am not reading all the history.

So, yes I like this idea, more than I like feeling like a newbie every time someone mentions an inside joke and expects me to know about it.

Ienpw III:

12-22-2009 01:43:39 UTC

Kevan: I agree with you. There’s no reason to “bully”. However, it is inevitable that players will hear of these things, and there’s no harm in gathering them all in one place.

The page isn’t hurting anyone.

Kevan:

12-22-2009 10:34:34 UTC

Taking the dynastic history off of the front page, and putting it below some obsolete documentation and a link to how you changed your username once - this seems like it’s hurting the structure of the wiki, and anyone who tries to learn about BlogNomic from it.

The harm in gathering all this stuff in one place is the implication that it makes up an important glossary which players should familiarise themselves with, rather than just being an arbitrary collection of dynasty-specific trivia. It’s already bad enough that some players think it’s acceptable to refer at confusing length to a previous dynasty and then bully players who didn’t play that one to “read up on your history” - making these things into a glossary page seems like it’s just going to validate that kind of behaviour.

Writing bits of history up is great, and we should definitely do more of that - I think they should just be quiet footnotes for people who’ve sought them out, though, rather than a bold “list of important jokes and precedents” which new players might feel they had to memorise.

Ienpw III:

12-22-2009 14:40:02 UTC

I wasn’t the one who took it off the main page: reread my post and you’ll see that I merely suggested it.

The reason that I put it at the bottom is because it’s the longest section, that’s the only reason.

Ienpw III:

12-22-2009 14:50:51 UTC

...and I just added a nice big disclaimer to the page in question.

Wakukee:

12-22-2009 21:18:23 UTC

Put back the dynastic histories. Seriously.

Ienpw III:

12-23-2009 02:37:12 UTC

I didn’t remove them! If you had actually read my comment above, you’d see that.
Next time you want to complain about something, make sure you complain to the right person.

Ornithopter:

12-23-2009 11:31:50 UTC

I moved them, and I apologize. I didn’t think it would be a controversial decision. I was going to move them back, but Josh did it before he idled.

Crisis averted. Nothing to see here. Return to your homes.

Klisz:

12-24-2009 15:45:01 UTC

@Kevan: How was I “bullying” NoOneImportant? Besides, I later apologized; if this sort of thing happens again, it’s not coming from me.