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)

Keep Its a part of the history of the game, not a nice part but a part none the less. It should be locked once the entire content, alignement and neutrality etc is fully agreed. Just because its controversial does not make this any less a part of the game. Also players trying to find out just why they can join achievment civilian version 22 idle need some sort of reference on why they exist. Id add that with offline practice these servers are not needed anymore so its definitely history.--Markd 10:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)