Talk:Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands

Weasel words

The critique section should be re-worded to remove things like "Many however believe..." and "A prominent opinion...". More specific references should also be provided. This is an encyclopedia after all.

Anguis 04:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is funny, because it does not look like this article is part of an encyclopedia. It feels like its an advertisement to the MUD and its disgusting that almost any article that criticizes a commercial entity tends to be swarmed by affiliates/persons with monetary interests and the critique dumbed down and finally removed. If you had made an attempt to research the references provided you would have discovered plenty of evidence that backs the critique section.

In detail, it is not accidental that well known, respected MUD developers like Kawir (Godwars codebase), the carrion fields staff (Valg), Molly O'Hara (4dimensions mud game creator & designer) have repeatedly criticized Achaea and Iron Realms entertainment for their shoddy (to put it mildly) marketing techniques and advertising. In fact, the vast majority of the TopMudSites forum users despise Iron Realms entertainment and the behavior of its CEO, Matt Mihaly. Matt himself must be one of the best flame starters and downright socially disruptive persons ever.

For now, i have done the research for you and direct you to the following links:

How ethical is IRE ? Iron Realms Entertainment credits critique The meaning of free

In the links provided you will find posts by Achaea players that admit that those who pay are the knights and those who dont are the peasants. Moreover, since the major marketing point that Achaea uses to draw players is its PvP combat system, its interesting to read that Achaea players feel that "you don't stand a chance in PvP if you dont buy credits". I guess this refutes the counterargument currently present in the critique section (that you can advance without credits) and i'll have to ask for someone else to either remove it or correct it. Again it would be nice if this article was formatted like the Medievia one. The critique section should only contain the critique. Possible counterarguments should be in their own section, with valid references provided.

My point, present in the critique section, is that its theoretically possible to advance and compete without credits. This is pure theory. In practice, me, many respected MUD community members, many Achaea players posting in the aforementioned forums believe that its simply not possible to compete without paying. I want to see Maxgrin refute this although it is going to be hard for him. It is clear to me that he is affilliated with the MUD and it will be hard to accept anything he comes up with as 'objective'. I've come up with my references, i want to see the opposition doing so.

Finally, i would like to remind everyone that most of the critique versus Achaea and IRE comes from persons who don't have monetary interests versus Achaea (they are not commercial MUD operators). That is why i will readily provide their opinions and critique as objective. The counterarguments coming from the Achaea camp (Achaea operators or players who have heavily invested in credits using real money) simply do not hold the same weight and are the ones that should be taken with a grain of salt. It is scary that in a free encyclopedia, valid critique is attacked with ridiculus arguments by persons who have self-serving interests in a dumbed down, marketing-like article.

Some quotes attributed to Iron Realms CEO, mentioned in the forum postings:

"Never forget that everything we do is designed to get you to give us money"

"Players are so stupid and powerhungry that they'll pay anything for something that they think will give them an edge in the game. This concept is going to make me rich." 87.202.167.128 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read those forum posts. Those weren't quotes from the Iron Realms CEO, they were taken as examples from an admin in some other game. In addition, most of what they say on there are false accusations. Most of the people posting on there sound like they have never played the game. I wouldn't rely on those forum posts for a wikipedia article.

---

I quickly went over the text, just and tried to remove the weasel words and this is what I came up with. It can be expanded a bit more, since I cut out a bit of it. Did I cut out too much of it? By the way, don't forget to sign your posts by adding ~~~~. Anguis 23:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a controversy surrounding Achaea because of its claim of being free-to-play. As previously mentioned Achaea does not require payment in order for somebody to play. Members of the MUD community such as Richard Woolcock (creator of the GodWars codebase) and the staff of The Carrion Fields, however believe that the MUD is tailored for those who buy credits. While, as said earlier, it is theoretically possible for someone to buy credits from other players with in-game money, the sheer amount of time investment required in order to compete with someone that spends real money on the game makes this often unfeasible. The opposers of the theory however state that the credits only give minor advantages, unless purchased in large amounts.

IRE utilises clever marketing techniques in order to draw players. The belief is that the player will easily pay in order to become more powerful, once he or she is addicted to the MUD since it is marketed towards players that would pay for a competitive edge. There has been a number of complaints about this on Top Mud Sites, MudConnector and other community forums, such as How ethical is IRE ?, Iron Realms Entertainment credits critique and The meaning of free

---

This is fine by me. The reader should understand that Achaea is not a "free mud" as often advertised and that the game is designed so as the company will make a profit by selling credits. 87.202.167.128 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

While the reader should definitely be aware that the game is designed so that the company (IRE) will make a profit, Achaea is still a "free to play" MUD, as it is advertised, in all but one very specific sense of that phrase. Please see the very first post in this thread: [1]. Perhaps the most convincing evidence of this is that the FTC agrees that Achaea is a free-to-play MUD. Legally, federally, and semantically, free. Lor 17:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of obvious that they're trying to get players to spend money. However, I can honestly say as a regular player that has NEVER bought credits that I get along fine. The critique section should definitely be there, but Achaea IS fine for free players. E946 07:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a former player of achaea and I can say that it is definitely possible to be a good pvp competitor using no credits. If you want to be the BEST, it will take a lot of time without buying credits. However I wouldn't say that the more credits you buy, the better player you are. If you are into pvp, its more about strategy and triggers. When I played I knew a few competitive players who had never bought credits with their own money. I don't know if its any different now.153.18.149.95 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Critique

Well, as long as it's based upon linked data, it's alright. We just don't need any "some people say" statements. --(unsigned)

I really feel that the last paragraph of the article (in the "Reviews and reactions" section) needs to be reworked. Unfortunately I don't have the time to be constructive at the moment, but if time allows, I'll look into it (if someone else hasn't already done it).

I have reviewed some of the references cited towards the end of the paragraph and feel that some alterations are in order.

"Also, the text-based environment and strong player vs. player focus are not appealing to all players, leading to unfavorable comparisons to more recently-produced titles such as Guild Wars."

Rather than forcing you to go read the review, I'll post the entirety of what is said about Achaea here.

"A couple of years ago I was able to find Achaea, a text-based MUD populated by people that not only wanted to roleplay, but who were also more than happy to indulge in gratuitous (but relevant) PVP on continental scales. To become skilled in this game required a knowledge of programming for the various MUD programs used, plus there were no graphics which proved to be a big downer for me towards the end."

I don't know which WikiLaws to cite here but in the absence of more references, the opinions expressed in the cited review can be regarded as no more than one person's opinion. Stating the features of a game are not appealing to all players is a tautology. Stating that players have criticised the need for programming knowledge in order to become a skilled player is worth noting. Also, from the above excerpt I can not unequivocally determine that the "gratuitous" amount of PvP in Achaea is a negative thing.

I'm deleting the sentence from the article. The line of criticism regarding the programming skill sounds interesting to me but I feel that it requires more work before being put in the article.

Next is the last sentence of the article.

"Finally, results of a recent in-game poll sponsored by Iron Realms Entertainment indicated some dissatisfaction amongst the player base, with a full half of those surveyed rating the state and progress of the game as "so-so" or worse."

After reviewing the poll results on the website I not only find them statistically questionable but I also would not call them "an in-game poll sponsored by IRE." They are public referendums and seem informal at best (I'm not an Achaea player, so I may stand corrected, in this case I'm presenting my impressions only).

While I don't feel I have grounds to outright dismiss the relevance of the poll, the analysis made in the article is biased. My take is as follows:

• 13.4% Fantastic (18/134)
• 36.6% Pretty good (49/134)
• 29.1% Not bad / so-so (39/134)
• 17.2% Bad (23/134)
• 3.7% Terrible (5/134)

This break-down indicates that more players feel positive about the game than negative. The multiple conclusions that can be drawn from these results embodies the old phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'm changing the last sentence to more accurately reflect the statistics rather than draw conclusions from them. --The Extremist [User, Talk] 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Control of Administration Criticism

Hi, I've removed this again as I don't think it's a notable and widespread issue that player's have with the game. While I appreciate that rules may have become more developed recently, I don't think they have become more inhibitive. The market channel example is one isolated thing, and I don't see evidence of 'dictatorial' policies the admin have implemented anywhere else.

Furthermore, as a long time player, I have seen people complain about the admin's rules for years - saying that every change made is bad/inhibitive. This isn't a recent thing, and has not recently become a more major issue. The development of the rules of the game has been and still is a steady and slow process, where every change is endlessly questioned and complained about. In other words, this is nothing new.

Having said this, if you have links to any sources that support your view (beyond someone complaining on the forums), then please provide them.

And finally, sorry for removing the passage before without giving a reason - my bad. =) Lor 13:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Maxgrin, your contribution

Hi Maxgrin, I've removed the passage you contributed, that reads as follows

"A different aspect of the game has been raised by a large number of former and current players of Achaea, stating that the game has a potential to cause a severe form of addiction. Apart from the large sums of money the player has to spend in order to become successful in PvP combat, ranging up to 15 000 USD, the players tend to spend lengthy periods of time in the virtual universe. A large number of players have spent many years playing Achaea on a regular basis, therefore neglecting their real lives."

As an active player in Achaea, and an active poster on the forums, I can say that I have not heard this view expressed by 'large numbers of former and current players.' I am extremely scepticle that there are any significant number of people who would consider Achaea to cause a 'servere form of addiction.'

Furthermore, the idea that one needs to spend $15000 to become successful in PvP combat is entirely unfounded. I would like to see what evidence you have that 'large numbers of players spend many years playing Achaea on a regular basis, therefore neglecting their real lives.'

Please cite all of your sources before reincluding this in the article, or discuss this here. Thank you. --Lor 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This game is addictive, but not in any way that differentiates it from other video games. Plus, $15000?! You have to be kidding me.153.18.149.95 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reply

Dear Lor,

with all due respects, one cannot prove the fact that someone spent 15000 USD without accessing his/her bank log files and as you can imagine, the banks do not make exceptions for the anxious Wikipedia.org users. If you have any evidence against the above noted fact, feel free to state it.

Furthermore, if you want hard facts, mail IRE for the average "active period time of play in hours divided by hours in-game, as stated in your STAT" (A digit whicht you will never see for obvious reasons). If you want a soft fact, recall when you've started with Achaea and calculate exactly what percentage of your time it has taken away. At this point, consider if the result is reasonable or if it applies to the category “being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming”.

Last but not least, this sort of critique can only be solidly founded by an article from a magazine, as you'd probably prefer it, once somebody dies before the monitor or kills his partner after loosing a "very good item".

Best regards.

PS: I am not intending to waste my time on a war over a free encylopedia, so shall you sincerely and with total honesty towards yourself consider the entry as false or unfair towards the game, remove it and it'll never be posted here again. However, before you do so, make sure that you are in fact right.

I too don't want to waste time on an edit war, however I do want to maintain verifiability. Let me start by saying that it is not my job to verify your information for you, the burden of proof falls upon the accuser, as they say. Absence of contrary proof is not proof of the fact. Further, I don't feel that anything in your contribution is 'self evident'. Let's take it sentence by sentence:

First, you say that "A different aspect of the game has been raised by a large number of former and current players of Achaea, stating that the game has a potential to cause a severe form of addiction." If this is the case, it should be easy to find a source where these sentiments are expressed. I have not come across one, but if you find one, please cite it.

Next you mention the amount of money people spend on Achaea, ranging up to 15,000 USD. It is true that I cannot prove that no one has spent 15,000 USD on the game, nor do I intend to, I do however state that 15,000 dollars is ridiculously high amount when speaking of the money that people spend on Achaea, (and yes, I'm referring even to those people who DO spend considerable amounts of money on the game). Consider this, transing all skills, miniskills, and buying two of the best artifact swords you can get amounts to about (15750 + 4200)/6 + 3200 = 6525 credits = 1957 USD @ 30 cents a dollar. If you spend another 6525 credits on artifacts, that's still only 4000 USD. This doesn't include any in-game lessons or credits, any special deals you'd get for buying so many credits, etc, etc.

The only way one could conceivably spend 15,000 USD in Achaea is by changing classes multiple times, and purchasing many artifacts - and while I don't disagree that there may be one or two people who have done this, there is no verifiable evidence of the fact, nor how much they have spent. One wonders where you came up with this figure to begin with?

I disagree with your clause, "Apart from the large sums of money the player has to spend in order to become successful in PvP combat.." - this gives the false impression that players do have to spend large sums of money to become successful in PVP combat. Apart from the large number of successful players who engage in combat that have never spend a single dollar on the game, the vast majority of successful combat players spend only minor amounts of money buying lessons etc. I have no definitive proof of this, however as I said above, it is up to you to cite your sources for the information you wish to contribute, and in the absence of evidence from either of us, I'd prefer just not to mention this either way.

Finally, you say that "..the players tend to spend lengthy periods of time in the virtual universe. A large number of players have spent many years playing Achaea on a regular basis, therefore neglecting their real lives." As you yourself said, it may be possible to get some kind of 'average percentage of time spent playing' from IRE - or obtain evidence in support of this statement from some other source. Once again, that is for you to do, and is something you should do before the inclusion of this statement in the article.

In conclusion (bloody hell, this is turning into an essay ;_;), I am going to remove this passage from the article, because I feel that it is speculative enough to not be 'self-evident' in any way, it is specific enough that one should be able to find sources for the information, and there is nothing directly to the contrary of this in the article as it stands, so I don't feel that the article suffers in any way from the exclusion of this. However, if you find any information online that supports these facts, please cite them and reinclude the passage in the article. Thanks, --Lor 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I've got no time to write up essays for the sake of a Wikipedia article for a computer game. Even though your intention was different, the reply you've given outlines every aspect that the "Criticism" section could ever withhold. Feel free to re-read your reply and look at it from the perspective of somebody who has never heard about Achaea before. Thank you for your afford.::

Once again, please feel free to reinclude your original passage, no need to write an essay about the reasons you reinclude, just cite some sources, give some information about the evidence behind the criticisms. --Lor 16:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing Wikia link

I am removing the Wikia external link with this guideline as my cause for action. There were only 3 edits at this backwater wiki in the past 3 weeks. -- JossBuckle Swami 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Revenue and sourcing

I am aware that there is quite a bit of discussion about Achaea's revenue system within its player community. With that in mind, however, in the absence of more reliable material than forum posts, Wikipedia has to address the issue with the content that we have available. I understand that this issue is important to players of the game, but I do not see any way to distinguish the forum posts about this issue from forum posts at every pay-per-month MMORPG complaining that the system is unfair for one reason or another. Serpent's Choice 03:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources, opinions, and NPOV

I've moved this add by User Talk:Pentharian: "The Administration responded by appointing a number of staff members to address these concerns and give more attention to player input.", and while I would normally just revert it and go to the user talk page instead and suggest a good read of WP:NPOV and WP:PSTS, it's worth also mentioning here to avoid an edit war.

There are all sorts of problems with both this opinion, the contents, and who added it. At first glance it violates WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS, WP:NOR, WP:REF, WP:COI, and WP:V. If I got really picky I could probably find a few other things, but I'm into Wikilawyering, just someone who believes in the concept of building an reference database that tries to keep NPOV.

Let's start with the easy part, WP:V. Here's the citation:

Pentharian has kindly agreed to act as divine liaison between this forum and me/the rest of the coding and administrative team. Thank you Pentharian! That means he will monitor this forum and give feedback on feasible ideas. That does not mean he will be responding to every single topic, but he will at least help to funnel ideas to the top.

There are many ideas that have to do with combat abilities, combat balance, game balance, politics, and broader infrastructural concerns. There are restricted boards and a pinned thread in these forums for that kind of advanced discussion (the Leaders forum, the Combat Council, and Dyzanru's sandbox), and while you're very welcome to engage in such discussion here amongst yourselves, Pentharian will not be giving feedback on most such ideas. Instead, he'll be concentrating on the smaller improvements that improve the fun/ease/depth of play. An example of this would be the recent suggestion to remove titles from the WHO list. He is also currently reviewing and culling the very long list of ideas submitted in-game via the IDEA command and will soon be posting to invite feedback from you on some of those ideas.

What is supported by this citation would be:

1. "A staffer named Pentharian has been named to monitor a forum of suggestions and concentrate on suggesting to the coding and administrative team ideas to improve the fun/ease/depth of play."

What is not supported in this statement that was added to the article is:

1. "The administration responded": I don't see any support in this citation that there has been a response to the poll. An official release stating "we are taking actions x, y, and z" - not a forum post (but I'll get into that in a minute) - would serve as better support.

2. "a number of staff members": The citation refers to one staff member being appointed.

3. "to address these concerns": I don't know which concerns are being referred to, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is the concerns of the players who voted negatively in the survey. Can you definitively state that the concerns of those who voted so-so or worse are being addressed by the administration with these actions, since the concerns were not cited in the poll? And even if you knew, are they being addressed? Incredibly subjective and POV, unless really well documented.

So the add fails on WP:V alone. But that's not my biggest concern. Besides the use of the forums as a reference - which fails the WP:NOR guideline - User Talk:Pentharian is apparently the staffer in question which brings up WP:COI. I have no problems with a staffer for a company editing a Wikipedia entry; they often add to factual context nicely, even if their largest contribution so far to Wikipedia has been to explain to someone on this talk page why they can play this game.

But when the staffer in question posts their own appointment as proof that problems are being solved? Lesse, that doesn't jive with WP:PSTS among other things, and certainly pushes WP:NPOV and WP:COI - especially when the initial post was referred to - correctly - as a "comment" on "criticism". The citation of the ingame poll wasn't a criticism, but a documentation of fact.

The proper place for a "comment" is back on the Achaea forums. Leave the Wikipedia article to fact and not opinion. Old64mb 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Critique

modified to read: "won't be able to advance as much as the person who has the funds, without a considerable investment of time" which is accurate, where the original wording was not.

Players must invest time or money to advance, but there is NOTHING in the game that is closed to only those that pay.--144.59.12.138 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AchaeaLogo.jpg

Image:AchaeaLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of "Consumer Complaints" section

Hi! I'm not a frequent editor of Wikipedia, but I noticed what I believed to be a problem with a part of this article and felt this forum would be the best place to air it.

The "Consumer Complaints" section is entirely predicated upon two complaints, placed online at Ripoff Report and the Better Business Bureau by the same person. The Ripoff Report complaint appears to be the unedited complaint placed there by one customer, with no official ruling, comment, or statement by either Ripoff Report or Iron Realms Entertainment. The BBB profile gives IRE an F rating due to the following: it has one outstanding complaint, and IRE has not given BBB its background information. I should note that the BBB states that no business is under any obligation to provide this information, and a large number of small businesses do not.

As such, it appears to me that this entire section of the article is written by a disgruntled consumer who had what he or she felt was a bad experience and decided to use two websites and Wikipedia in an effort to air his or her grievances. Wikipedia is not and should not, in my opinion, be used for this, and therefore I would suggest that the section be deleted. 71.246.152.88 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You will notice that the Ripoff Report link now has a number of additional customers claiming similar experiences. While I agree that Wikipedia should not be used for 'vigilante' justice, that is not the case in this instance as the claim is bolstered by additional comments by other customers.

Furthermore, you will note that there is no evidence that the BBB report and the Ripoff Report were filed by the same person; which leads me to believe that this is a representative of the company attempting to force through their agenda.

The comment above appears to be an anonymous attempt by user AidenIRE and other representatives of the company to brute force changes that shed a bad light upon their company's practices. AidenIRE has been defacing the page, repeatedly, and has been warned numerous times. I have offered to discuss with him, on multiple occasions, the wording of the passage and reworking the entry if he believes that it is unfair or inaccurate. AlanRoca (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! I am removing the so-called "Customer Complaints" section again, and am raising a dispute against its inclusion, as per the official rules of Wikipedia. The section posted (as well as a similar section on a related page) are obviously an attempt to abuse Wikipedia's popularity in an attempt to damage the company's reputation with intentionally misleading and incorrect information, as well as improper generalization. As the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide factually correct information, a single unverifiable claim from one former customer (who was banned due to repeated TOS violations, though I am not at a liberty to disclose details) is not sufficient reason for inclusion of the section. The reference to ripoffreport.com is too vague and unverifiable to be considered a reliable source, likely to be posted by the same individual, and is being disputed on that site (you may refer to there for more specific information).

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the sections in question have all been added by a single user, User:AlanRoca, whose contributions to the Wikipedia have been solely limited to negative additions about the IRE company, raising a reasonable suspicion of a violation of the Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account guidelines, as he is attempting to conceal his or her bias.

As is likely evident from my post, I am directly affiliated with the affected company.

Thank you!

Dartom (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• It seems like this race could use to hear from somebody who doesn't have a pony in it. I am not affiliated with Achaea or Iron Realms Entertainment in any way, nor have I ever played any IRE game, nor do I have any kind of grudge against them. I tend to support the removal of the section in question; the line of thinking that it represents a polemicization of Wikipedia appears well-founded. If independent reliable sources had commented on IRE's customer relations, then we should have material on it, but bringing up the BBB rating when it's based on a single complaint seems like overwhelmingly undue weight, and in relying on the Ripoff Report submission(s) we're essentially allowing in negative commentary from a self-published source. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's an interesting subject as to what happens to a user's virtual assets in the case of a ban. As the player possibly lost thousands of dollars in assets the emotional response is understandable, however, Wikipedia is not the right platform for personal grievances. Researchers (Richard Bartle comes to mind) might find a personal account of virtual asset loss of interest, and it's an argument in favor of a model where virtual assets are rented rather than bought. That being said the content should be removed as per Wikipedia guidelines as there are no reliable secondary sources on the subject. --Scandum (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• The inclusion of this information directly relates to IRE's business model, a business model that the company claims to have created and invented. It is of interest to anyone studying the history of this business model - pay for perks - the pitfalls and loss of virtual assets. There are several secondary sources; in addition to the BBB inclusion, there exist a number of customer complaints on the Ripoff Report page made by additional customers who experienced the same loss. Furthermore, a quick Google search reveals more pages of similar to the ones posted: here, here and here are just a few samplings of their behavior. User Dartrom accuses me of being a Single purpose account, however, his only edits are to this page and the related company page; he is, in fact, a single purpose account; furthermore, he admits to being associated with the company and therefore presents a conflict of interest and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. AlanRoca (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Alan, I don't disagree that IRE's business practices are a concern; it's not possible to be around MUDs for as long as I have without hearing a great deal about them. I do disagree that Wikipedia is the right place for it, at least at this time. The main issue is that individual customers posting on Internet forums is a quintessential example of a self-published source rather than a reliable source. If a gaming magazine or legal review or business digest commented on it, then there'd be little difficulty. (Also, you may want to look to see if Richard Bartle or Raph Koster or Wes Platt or Edward Castronova have blogged about it; as published experts in a relevant field [the first three in MUDs, the last in economics], their self-published material is eligible to be treated as reliable.) —chaos5023 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree, which is why I did not include the forum posts in my original edit; the sources that I have cited are sufficient and valid enough to show the problems with the virtual assets model. AlanRoca (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • They really aren't. The BBB rating barely rises above the level of self-publication, as it's essentially an automatic response to a single complaint and IRE's failure to respond, and in any event it provides no commentary, requiring synthesis in order to write any encyclopedic content based on it. The Ripoff Report material is outright self-published; it's doing nothing more than displaying UGC. You should probably review what Wikipedia considers a reliable source and give some consideration to why those standards are in place. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
        • BBB ratings are not automatically generated, as stated here. According to that page, the company was contacted twice and failed to respond both times; furthermore, they did not accept the BBB's offer of arbitration or mediation. Also, the Rip Off Report is posted by customers, however, the company itself has the ability to formally respond to the complaints: that IRE has failed to do so should not dilute the credibility of the source. AlanRoca (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I meant automatic in the sense of an outcome of process with very little human judgment involved, not automatic in the sense of technologically automated. Anyway, that would possibly support including the raw BBB rating with no commentary, though again, from a single complaint that has the smell of undue weight. As far as Rip Off Report goes, the source simply has no credibility, since, as you say, its content is posted by customers, making it self-published. Hopefully if you read about reliable sources you will understand why, though you will have to let go of viewing the entire matter through the lens of your desired outcome for a moment. Think of it this way: what would you think of Wikipedia if it allowed a single person who had posted multiple tirades against you under different names at different web sites to then base the article Alan Roca on those posts? Not much, I expect. I am not saying that this is what has happened with the reports against IRE, but the thing is, because they're self-published we have absolutely no way of knowing that isn't what's happened. This is one reason we require reliable sources. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Also, it may be of benefit for you to read this essay on why Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Also, I would like to add, that I am not the customer that Dartram says was "one former customer (who was banned due to repeated TOS violations, though I am not at a liberty to disclose details) is not sufficient reason for inclusion of the section." I played Achaea, but none of my characters, are, at present, banned from the game. I can provide screenshots, if necessary. AlanRoca (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• One more thing I'd like to clear up: I am a former customer of IRE and I did have an unsatisfactory experience in their games; I did file a single customer complaint (which was crossposted in other places, some of them without my input), however, what motivated me to add this information to Wikipedia was not my grievance, as it had sat there for some time, but instead the number of other people who had similar experiences. AlanRoca (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The company has responded to the original complaint stating that they did not receive notification of it. At this time, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and agree with the move to delete this section of the article. AlanRoca (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Cool. Thanks for being reasonable about it. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The company has responded, however they have not made any attempts at resolution. Just going to put this link here for posterity, in the event that the situation lingers, unresolved.AlanRoca (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

TechTV spotlight (citation needed)

I have tracked down the required citation for the June 10, 2004 episode of The Screen Savers which spotlights Achaea. It can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X_wZZgIRyc 69.47.132.66 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104190807/http://www.wired.com/news/business/0%2C1367%2C38340%2C00.html to https://www.wired.com/news/business/0%2C1367%2C38340%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906113207/http://www.achaea.com/credits.htm to http://www.achaea.com/credits.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)