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)
- Unless reasonable opposition appears soon, I say we delete this. -The Neotank ( | Talk)
Suggestions
Can this be reworded? "With the onset of the recent Polycount Update, anyone who used SteamStats back before it was patched now received a Cheater's Lament." - Statement should also indicate that some accounts, that did not receive the first Cheater's Lament, and were only active 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)
Yesterday i tried editing the page, my edit was lost when the edit before me was undone. maybe i should have started here 1st anyway? I'd suggest the the page start with a simpler statement? Idling is the term for players who join a Team Fortress 2 server and do nothing. While connected to the server, players are eligible to recieve items from the item drop system.Nooch 15:30, 16 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
- Discussion started 13/10/10. Discussion ends 20/10/10. -RJ 01:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
KeepIts 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)
- KeepJust needs either the cleanup tag, or for somebody to be assigned the task of cleaning it up. -RJ 01:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI agree with keeping it as a part of history of TF2. By accessing the idle page on the wiki, people wondering what the hell idling is about will get a brief history of what idling achieved, the 'safe' ways of idling, the controversy around third-party programs, and the resulting creation of the Cheater's Lament. These are all very important instances in TF2's history and rather than wasting time opening yet another useless thread on SPUF, they will get the annotated history on TF2 wiki. - Alsoodani 18:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Alsoodani
- KeepTeam Fortress 2 has become very centered around its community and idling is of importance to the community. I agree that it's controversial and we should tread lightly, but if this page can be rewritten such that it's unbiased and have it stick solely to the base facts, then it should be kept. A year ago I might have voted against it, but these days idling is just a way to hit your item cap sooner. We don't need to have a full technical manual on how to idle and how it works, but it should at least be described. -- Alex2539 02:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- SPUF. :/ -The Neotank ( | Talk)
- 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)
NeutralThe wiki needs a place to discuss the various methods for connecting to TF2 games and the likelihood of receiving items from the drop system. And how to do it? This statement from the wiki [terms of use] is vague "You will not include in any Posted Material any information or assistance regarding software or hardware processes or functionality that may give a player an unfair competitive advantage when playing multiplayer versions of any Steam Software...". What terms can be used when discussing the item drop system - idling? Define "competitive advantage"?Nooch 02:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral Either nuke it and just make references to it in the item drop page or ,if it really can be saved, it had better be written with a neutral tone and locked forever. No huge page involving 'blah blah bobby got a hat idling' or dumb stuff. Describe and lock it, or nuke it. --Vaught 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems important. Provided that it's not against the Wiki Terms of Use (that's up to Valve, I guess), re-write it and lock it. Carooe 05:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the article completely, as I wasn't happy with the structure. It lacked detail and wasn't clear enough to the reader what exactly idling is / what the program was. It also stated that hats were removed & the drop system changed through patches, which is incorrect as the system mechanics are in the Steam Cloud. I say Keep, as the topic is something we should cover. I'll also be keeping an eye on edits to it to avoid any dodgy additions, etc. seb26 [talk] 06:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just gone over it again suggest once we are happy we just lock or protect the article--Markd 08:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see everyone panicking over the Hacking page, so why should we do so with idling?--Focusknock 08:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It would better to keep anyone who searches about it informed, than in the dark. (nanosheep_inc) 08:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't see the problem with having an article on the subject as long as it conform to the wiki style recommendations. Then again, I would also be fine with merging this into the item drop system article. --Itsatrap 22:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Revising my opinion now that the article's been rewritten. May want to merge with Item Drop System though, as others have said. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: It's a lot better written now (could use a little more) and let's not remove a page because it might get vandalized. Even if it does, locking is the correct action for that. --CruelCow 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In favor of locking it, as well, so unless we can just lock a certain part of a page, I'm against merging it into another article. Scurve 19:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Result of discussion: Keep. -- Pilk (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
