Talk:Idling

Err...I don't know if this is really apporpriate for a page, as we try to keep controversies out of the wiki. I see you put a lot of hard work into it, so I think the rest of the staff ought to voice whether or not to keep it.--Piemanmoo 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh, marked for deletion: Not helpful, fuel for controversy, lack of neutral tone, writing style, etc. Sorry. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this at all – we're not covering controversies now? I disagree that the page requires a full article, however, I don't see why there cannot be at least a section on Cheater's Lament explaining the controversy. seb26 [talk] 04:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless reasonable opposition appears soon, I say we delete this. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

suggestion

"With the onset of the recent Polycount Update, anyone who used SteamStats back before it was patched now received a Cheater's Lament." - this should also indicate that some accounts, that did not receive the first drop, and active only after SteamStats occured, also recieved the Cheater's Lament.Nooch 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

However, this piece of information has nothing to do with idling, and everything to do with the Cheater's Lament. File it there, not here. Subtlefuge 23:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning

As long as a controversial subject is maintained to be as unbiased as possible, I think it should be allowed. I wrote the page so many newer players can learn what idling is and not begin to think bad thoughts about other players without knowing the full story. Every other day a thread pops up on the forums about idling and the cheater's lament because nowhere really gives unbiased information about both idling in general and the event surrounding it. I really wanted to keep it as unbiased as possible, hence why I avoided popular terms like "Halocaust", so any body who just wants to learn can see what happened and why. Sorry if it caused any unrest. Darthz01 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep / Delete

While the subject matter is something we should probably cover, this article is rather poorly written. Opinions?  – Smashman _(talk) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Delete A poorly written can of worms that I don't think we should pop open. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 23:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

An idling page is a high risk page, lots of potential issues and almost guaranteed to be vandalized multiple times a week. I say we either scrap it completely or scrap the current page and rewrite it entirely. Either way, it should probably be locked once a satisfying result is met. Yes it's a can of worms, but it's one that's already popped open. I just wonder if it's not mentioned here, where will people be getting their information about it? --Subtlefuge 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SPUF. :/ -The Neotank ( | Talk) 02:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 Delete I'm convinced. --Subtlefuge 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)