Talk:2011 eRepublik Rebellion

References

About references: How is it possible to reference deleted articles, especially in the number of thousands? I somehow doubt that admins/mods would be willing to provide screenshots of them.--Quicksilver 10:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly ask if belea could do so, or maybe they delete the articles off the database aswell =( - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 11:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I found one, so it is referenced now, and continue seeking them out from users.--Quicksilver 11:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be wise to copy the referenced articles and archive them perhaps in google docs. This way if they are ever deleted they can be replaced the archived version. Pierric Bross 11:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you could do that and replace the links, that would be great - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 11:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Sampo555, put a ref missing link on ever 'and' and 'so' too...--Quicksilver 08:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can't provide references to support your statements, those will be removed. This is wiki which is neutral and factual - unreferenced stuff doesn't belong here. This is not your own playground where you can write what ever you want. Instead of whining here, you could look for some references for those marked sentences. -- sampo555 | Talk 08:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A great number of the places you demand reference for what is already provided. I see no point in repeating them in many places. Calling my objections 'whining' is more biased than I am writing the truth.--Quicksilver 11:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a forum moderator and I can tell you the sentences regarding forum moderation are wrong and you should be ashamed for parading the truth when you fill it up with such vile lies. All you are doing is writing utter-nonsense and making out like it's valid. I will begin by correcting you on everything in the forum moderator section:

1. As a forum moderator it is out job to send suggestions to administrators who discuss the issue. Plato later responds to us or the thread the suggestion came from with his reply. If the reply is 'we cannot help you' - it is because the administrators could not help. If the response is 'we are focusing on such and such module and so cannot get to this right now' - it is because the administrators said so not a random forum moderator but the people making this game.
2. Secondly if (according to you) the help forum was never a problem then why is it even mentioned in the paragraph? When nothing has changed it is neither an improvement nor a backwards step.
3. None of us enjoy banning citizens. All moderators do not take banning someone lightly (both in-game and in the forums) and only do it when we absolutely have to and only in cases where the law has absolutely been broken. Keep in mind these bans apply to the forum only.
4. 10 days is the maximum not minimum for a ban (the average is 1-3 days) and no-one has gotten banned for writing 'signed' except in one very special case involving a thread in off-topic and what was constant abuse and harassment towards a specific citizen.
5. There is no censorship on the forums at all. Once again the only posts which are deleted are 'signed' comments - which is to allow better communication between citizens and staff (no bans are made for these btw) and comments that break the laws. Everything that is allowed is allowed and is present there.

The sole reason you have wrote this nonsense about the forum moderation is because you were recently banned for 10 days. You are selfish and hold a grudge against the administration and it is clear in every edit you make to this section. If you do not know anything about an area of the game then be quiet because your 'criticism' helps nobody. Pierric Bross 13:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The following paragraph contains unbelievable bias and makes assumptions as well as uses aggressive language (which are not allowed on a fact-based wiki article):

Belea's declaration was quite likely an excuse - he apparently did not want to talk at all (if his behavior was anything to go by) and when he found a convenient excuse to leave he took it. He firstly hedemanded that legitimate heads of states must not be attending (the banned presidents, who were the initial leaders of the rebellion); he then specifically demanded that certain persons, whom he did not like, to leave the channel; he then said nothing while Nalaja, one of the spokespersons, started the meeting with emphasis on the importance of communication; he then declared the negotiations over, not waiting in order for anyone to react. The so-called 'non-negotiable' items that he cited as excuses were in fact the points that the rebellion considered the most important that must be talked of.

I'll point out the ones I see although there are most likely more;

• "quite likely an excuse" (according to who?)
• "apparently did not want to talk at all" (why waste his time?)
• "if his behaviour was anything to go by" (what behaviour?)
• "when he found a convenient excuse he took it" (how was the "excuse" 'convenient')
• "Demanded that certain persons, whom he did not like, leave the channel" - (Who? Did he say he did not like them?)

Also calling banned presidents legitimate is incorrect - they became illegitimate within the core game the moment the accounts were banned. A citizens opinion on whether they are legitimate is not the purpose of this article. Pierric Bross 11:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Presidents are legitimate until impeached, it is the eRepublik law. The rest, see in the chatlog, it is quite obvious.--Quicksilver 11:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As obvious as an assumption may be it does not make them factual. I want to clean up the paragraph but I feel you'll just re-edit so I'd like someone with more authority to make the edit. I will agree with you on the legitmacy of presidents however as the social aspect of erepublik is a large area of the game - even though they no longer hold any ability to govern their country in the game (political module). Pierric Bross 11:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not factual, that is why it is worded like 'likely', 'apparently', 'if', and such. It shows that although facts cannot be obtained, the possibility is still quite strong as the chatlog clearly proves it. As for presidents, they gain legitimacy from the players, in elections, and therefore they lose it if players decide on it - ingame method for this is impeachment.--Quicksilver 12:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded the section, please take it into consideration.--Quicksilver 12:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is still very bad but I am at a loss of how to change it so will leave it up to someone else. Pierric Bross 12:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately bad behaviour cannot be expressed nicely. We, who were there all felt strongly that Belea was forced to go there, didn't want to go there, and grabbed the first excuse to be off. As it is important to describe why the meeting was over so fast, it is necessary to show both views; Belea's is shown at the end of the previous paragraph, while the users' perception here.--Quicksilver 12:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter who's view it is you cannot use presumptions in a wiki article. You can write '#Rebellion members felt that Belea's declaration was an excuse[1]' > the [1] being a link to an article or source (such as a copy of the IRC chat where the members expressed such feelings) that says that. You cannot say 'Belea's declartion was quite likely an excuse'. And that goes for all the assumptions made in that particular paragraph. Pierric Bross 12:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I sorta do agree with Pierric. I'd like this to be an excellent article, not a source of propaganda. - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 13:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Then let's put this into action? --Code-Y ^Talk/_Projects 13:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we actually have any sources that voice discontent? - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 13:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't easy, but I put together a doc proving it, and I am referencing it in the text. If you still think that it is not proven enough, I accept it, but in that case, I reserve the right to express it in another page, linked here. I do not think it is propaganda to fully elaborate on what happened in that meeting.--Quicksilver 13:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Government Censorship

The Polish and South African MoD orders (possibly more too) were deleted on Day 1200. They asked for peace, for citizens to hold fire, etc, etc; however were deleted for 'flaming'. I've attached a copy of the original South African article below. Perhaps we can have a section dealing with censorship?

- Zamrg 11:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

2011_eRepublik_Rebellion#Admin_Censorship Go forth, and fill this section :P - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

These articles were written by one of the banned presidents, Krimpiekat. The 2nd one asks those in the rebellion to stop their harmful protests; however it didn't stay up long. A mod later un-deleted it, but it was once again deleted by presumably a different mod. If someone wants to gdoc them and use them here, they'd be a great reference in favour of the censorship. http://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php/User:Zamrg/Articles - Zamrg 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

These ideas are based on the following version of the page: "20:20, March 5, 2011 John F Baker (Talk | contribs | block) m (12,386 bytes) (→Timeline of the Rebellion) (rollback | undo)". --Belea2008 19:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

1

Change The main concern sources were censorship and lack of communication between citizens and the team. The protesters specifically targeted Plato, the eRepublik official communication account, as the source of heavy censorship and total lack of communication between citizens and the team. to The main concerns were censorship and lack of communication between citizens and the team. The protesters specifically targeted Plato, the eRepublik official communication account. (REASON: The way it is worded now implies that censorship and lack of communication were real issues, when in fact they were major concerns of the community). --Belea2008 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. Belea, some of the changes you've suggested do remove a few of the facts. -- The main concern sources were censorship and lack of communication between citizens and the team. The protesters specifically targeted Plato, the eRepublik official communication account, as the source of heavy censorship and total lack of communication between citizens and the team. - I think that one should stay as it is, they were real issues to some including a lot of the people participating in the rebellion. --Code-Y ^Talk/_Projects 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

They not only were, but still are real issues.--Quicksilver 18:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it like this. The paragraphs says that there were protests "against the perceived bad changes that the eRepublik team implemented." I'm all right with that, the it goes along with two more phrases about "censorship" and "lack of communication" (which by the way does not mention if they were real or perceived). (They were perceived, in my opinion, because not even I can prove that there was no censorship or not even I can prove that the communication was existent, good or bad.) The protests started because how citizens felt, thus how citizens perceived the environment. I rephrased the following first paragraph to: against the following three perceived issues: bad changes that the eRepublik team implemented, censorship and lack of communication between citizens and the team. The protesters specifically targeted Plato, the eRepublik official communication account. --Belea2008 23:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am with Code-Y in this: it is not for Belea to say what were real issues for the rebellion members.--Quicksilver 12:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

2

Change frequent unannounced and untested changes TO frequent changes. (REASON: Not even I can provide evidence/references/sources that the changes were or were not announced and/or tested.) --Belea2008 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

frequent unannounced and untested changes - That one can change but not to just frequent, possibly "updates deemed bad or un-announced by some of the rebels" --Code-Y ^Talk/_Projects 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The last several changes were unannounced in any way. --Quicksilver 18:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Belea2008 23:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can say that few changes were made unannounced. But no other than eRep testing team knows that were new change tested before the implementation. -- sampo555 | Talk 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They already changed the wording "frequent and unannounced changes", leaving untested out of it.--Quicksilver 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

3

Remove (cf. unlimited wellness packs and one person winning battles against entire alliances) (REASON: This is an example of favoring tanking, not favoring Gold-buying citizens). --Belea2008 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(cf. unlimited wellness packs and one person winning battles against entire alliances) - No reason to remove it, all it's saying is that 1 person could win a war, somewhat factual and a good historical point. --Code-Y ^Talk/_Projects 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That is the same thing.--Quicksilver 18:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the same thing. The parenthesis was added to better explain how the team favors (or not) Gold buying-citizens. And that parenthesis has no connection with that. The parenthesis has everything to do with tanking. Unless you (or anybody) can provide real context for that parenthesis, I'm not in favor of keeping it. --Belea2008 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As Code-Y said the sentence has a historical basis and is perceived as such--Quicksilver 12:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This could be kept if the "favoring tanking" is said in the same context too. -- sampo555 | Talk 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

4

Wait... rephrasing the first two paragraphs. --Belea2008 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But if I revert your changes, you will just ban me here, like on the forum or erep, right? --Quicksilver 18:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, because that goes against the Wiki policies.... --Belea2008 18:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So, continuing to write my suggestions... First, three edits: http://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php?title=2011_eRepublik_Rebellion&diff=423174&oldid=423155 --Belea2008 18:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"I reverted the first sentence, and leave you to your playground. Even the wiki cannot describe events as they happened now, because you dont like them.--Quicksilver 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with having a bulleted list? (It is easier to be read in my opinion). I added back. Please provide arguments in this debate, before or after you revert my changes. Thank you! --Belea2008 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you have issues with the way that the bullets are worded or anything related to them, I'm very open to suggestions. The Wiki is about communicating and reaching consensus, not mindless reverting. --Belea2008 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw you should have communicated with users - but you still don't do that...--Quicksilver 14:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added "and issue currencies onto the Monetary Markets" because it was not only on the markets but on the MM too. I have added "and with it destroying a great part of eRepublik history" to the deleting orgs part, because it is of great concern.--Quicksilver 12:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

5

Remove Therefore it can be safely stated, that the rebellion was not started because of one thing - the dissatisfaction and anger accumulated for a long time before reaching a breaking point, and the heavy and unfair censoring of the media and the forums did nothing to alleviate this anger; in fact it inflamed it even more. (REASON: The cause of the rebellion was already written, uses weasel words, whole statement has the purpose to push the agenda of the contributor who wrote it.) --Belea2008 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Therefore it can be safely stated, that the rebellion was not started because of one thing - the dissatisfaction and anger accumulated for a long time before reaching a breaking point, and the heavy and unfair censoring of the media and the forums did nothing to alleviate this anger; in fact it inflamed it even more. - Just taking up space, but it can be summarized instead of completely removed. --Code-Y ^Talk/_Projects 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How dare you rewrite what WE thought about the reasons of the rebellion???--Quicksilver 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki is not about what YOU or I thought about the rebellion. The Wiki is about presenting facts in a neutral manner. --Belea2008 18:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But you cannot know what rebels thought. Only rebels can tell that. I was there. You weren't. --Quicksilver 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Very valid point. But not related to the conversation. Read the reason I added for removal, please. What was the cause of the rebellion? We all know what was the cause. The point is that the cause is already written, in the whole section. The whole purposed of the statement I pointed is to introduce thoughts/personal opinions in that section. --Belea2008 18:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not personal opinion, it is a sum-up of the reason for having a rebellion. It must remain, because it is true.--Quicksilver 18:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The wiki lost its neutrality. Belea is rewriting history as he sees fit. --Quicksilver 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The sum-up of the reason for having a rebellion should be written in the introduction paragraph. Which I did. Please work with me here.... it is not all right to write duplicate information (but worded differently) in all the sections. I remove the statement. --Belea2008 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I put the statement back, because it is not superficial, it is necessary to understand - to you too - that the rebellion broke out on MULTIPLE ISSUES - not like on one, like you insist still. Until you insist to remove it, it is clear that you do not accept it. But you should.--Quicksilver 12:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Even thought the rebellion broke out on multiple issues, mentioning it once (= the reason list) is enough. -- sampo555 | Talk 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not enough because the sentence is slightly different - the list focuses on listable, concrete hurts and issues, while the sentence describes the accompanying emotions that were caused by the problems. --Quicksilver 14:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

6

This one: Taking under account that until that day, the amount of Gold that could be obtained by a citizen was unlimited, and this method was not equvivalent with the long-demanded limiting of wellness packs; and mainly after seeing the leaked Top Customers program and the other factors, - it is based on the opinion of Wiki contributors. The best way to rewrite it, in my opinion, is to ask one of the suspended presidents to tell us why did he/she proposed that law. I've seen that Laya is still contributing to the Wiki. Could someone please ask her to share her thoughts and reasoning on this matter? (Any one of the presidents which were in the private presidential IRC channel can do the same.) --Belea2008 18:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You try to insist and twist word so that they show one reason for the rebellion only. But rebellions don't happen that way. They have many reasons, and they do accumulate different things behind a single decision. Therefore your aim to simplify the resoning behind the rebellion is not justified. --Quicksilver 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason I proposed that law was the jew and south african in me. Differentiating between customers. making non-paying customers a 2nd class citizen. Might as well slap a yellow star on each of them and start putting up "whites only" signs --Krimpiekat 00:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

7

This one: It peaked with the eRepublik team putting some national peace proposals on hold indefinitely, and even suspending a MoD gazettes that published "Hold Fire" orders in the official national military newspapers. Not even I cannot add references if the team did or did not put laws on hold (we never do that by the way, because we need the dev time for other more important things); or if the team did or did not moderated the articles mentioned in this statement. Thus, I propose we remove the whole statement because they cannot be referenced. --Belea2008 18:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous; alot of things can't be referenced simply because the admins delete articles, threads etc, or because logs are not available. - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a screenshot proving it in the references, and the Polish military gazette getting its article deleted (also FP) is known by all.--Quicksilver 19:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Fact is the laws were put to hold at the same time, and only the admin team is capable of doing that. After all erep has no gus, right? As for the military gazette, it was very definitely deleted, and reference shows it too. I suggest to leave the sentence as it is.--Quicksilver 18:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the false information about the peace proposals. Regarding the MoD gazzetes, I gave references to zamrg, he wishes to improve that statement/section. --Belea2008 00:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe you, as the team used this putting laws on hold in the past, and I am 99% sure that they did it this time, but you demand proof for something that only admins could give, and it is against their interests to give. Even so that you delete it, we will remember.--Quicksilver 12:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced stuff doesn't belong to wiki. -- sampo555 | Talk 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The part about the laws is already deleted, and the MoD gazettes are referenced.--Quicksilver 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

8

Removal of wording like: major countries or (at least out of the biggest countries) - because you need to add an explanation was a major or big country is... Also, both terms: major + big are highly debate able and controversial. --Belea2008 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is hair-splitting, and should be beneath you. The terms are obviously refer to 'major' countries.--Quicksilver 18:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well according to that logic, just delet the entire wiki and start by definyn terms like "is", "and", "maybe" first...--GeBe 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's quite irrelevant, and can be left until other things are sorted. Belgium is undoubtedly not a major or big country, compared to the USA - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Valid points. --Belea2008 00:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This section The only ones not participating (at least out of the biggest countries) were Romania and Croatia - who deliberately pursued their attack against the No-War signing Hungary [13]. isn't true. 27 countries didn't sign that document and among them are Greece, Canada, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine, Turkey, Denmark... So name all countries or none, because this is just propaganda if you leave it this way... --Dalibor Talk 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removal. :D --Belea2008 00:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I re-added it but reworded. - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Royal Navy} 17:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To remove the sentence would mean that we hide the fact of the attack from non-signing countries, while it was an important incident in the rebellion. I suggest you add any other attacks too, if there were any.--Quicksilver 13:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

9

Removal of these statements: The only ones not participating (at least out of the biggest countries) were Romania and Croatia - who deliberately pursued their attack against the No-War signing Hungary [11]. It later became known that the top Romanian players were behind the suggestions to the admins about the leaked changes that angered so many players. (REASON: Portraying countries as "evil". Second statement biased.) --Belea2008 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not, as it is a fact that they did not take part in the talks and signing of documents.--Quicksilver 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"It later became known that the top Romanian players were behind the suggestions to the admins about the leaked changes that angered so many players" COULD be removed, but not the entire quote you provided. - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 18:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can provide chatlog proving it. From smif.--Quicksilver 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed second statement. It is not about references here, Quicksilver. It is about the purpose of the statement and if it is within context. --Belea2008 00:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

27 countries didn't sign that document. Why only name few? Greece is top3 country and it isn't mentioned but Croatia is? This is totaly bias, that first sentence should be removed too... --Dalibor Talk 00:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

All right. I removed it until consensus is reached about that first statement. --Belea2008 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Greece has signed at first then wished the signing removed. I still think it is hair-splitting what Belea says, and the sentence is perfectly truthful and neutral as it is. --Quicksilver 12:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC) The purpose of the statement is to show that why Romania didn't sign the charter - because they were in league with admins. It is also something that you can delete as unproved, but we will still remember it. --Quicksilver 13:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to keep this neutral, you need to list every country that didn't sign the agreement - not only Romania and Croatia. That's totally biased stuff. -- sampo555 | Talk 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Khm. The sentence now is about who attacked Hu. --Quicksilver 14:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Croatia didn't attack Hungary so this statement is not true. I don't like that Quicksilver is changing this wiki page without reaching consensus about it with rest of community. --Dalibor Talk 12:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Dalibor, YOU have deleted the whole thing without discussing it here first. I put it back until consenzus is reached.--Quicksilver 13:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quicksilver, this sentence (the Romania-Croatia part) isn't about consensus. Not anywhere near it. The whole sentence is as biased as it can be. And if you say that the sentence is about who attacked Hungary, I must say that it doesn't belong here. You can put it to Hungarian history or something but not here. This is about rebellion - not about Hungary-Romania war. Also the context is pretty biased if you ask me (but I'm pretty sure you don't care what I say). Biased stuff doesn't belong to wiki. Is that too hard to understand? -- sampo555 | Talk 16:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You say it is not about the rebellion that the signing presidents agreed on peace, and the non-signing ones continued with attack? I say it is connected. Also connected that admins also are enforcing war ever since - reference is the three new, hastily made missions. The connection is obvious.--Quicksilver 17:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much fed up with the whole page. The peace stuff is part of the rebellion but the Romania-Croatia-Hungary part isn't relevant at all. It's only purpose is to portray Romania/Croatia as evil (like Belea said). This wiki isn't place for propaganda. -- sampo555 | Talk 18:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You write half-truths here, I will write the whole in another page. I find it distasteful that you consider the 'major countries' expression all right in the who declared Hold Fire orders - but not in who attacked in spite of the no-war agreement. It shows total bias, the thing you accuse me with.--Quicksilver 07:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm having hard time to believe that I'm really saying this, but the current version is fine for me. -- sampo555 | Talk 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

10

This section: Many of the Presidents present and the onlokers in the #Rebellion chatroom thought that Belea's declaration might have been an excuse - he apparently did not want to talk at all (if his behavior was anything to go by, as the chatlog shows) and when he found a convenient excuse to leave he took it. He firstly demanded that legitimate heads of states must not be attending (the banned presidents, who were the initial leaders of the rebellion; also Presdents egitimacy comes from players, and lasts until impeachment); he then specifically demanded that certain persons, whom he did not like, to leave the channel (he expressed this through SirMokeShag, the coordinator of the meeting); he then said nothing while Nalaja, one of the spokespersons, started the meeting with emphasis on the importance of communication; he then declared the negotiations over, not waiting even a second in order to anyone to react. The so-called 'non-negotiable' items that he cited as excuses were in fact the points that the rebellion considered the most important that must be talked of - from my point of view has good intentions, presenting how my response was perceived. But it goes to far. I would leave it to 2-3 phrases only detailing that my statement received mixed reactions, some of the persons present in that conversation feeling disappointed and/or offended. Also, I would add also a phrase how the discussion went after I left the meeting. --Belea2008 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; we can use the IRC logs from the channel to do so. - John F Baker ^Talk/_{Special Boat Service} 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How the talk wnet on after you left? Incredulous Presidents looked at each other, saying WTF and LOL, and then went on to discuss the next steps - as admins obviously do not intend to negotiate/listen/communicate at all to users.--Quicksilver 18:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference/docs/IRC logs here, please? --Belea2008 00:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(12:35:50) - Belea left
(12:35:57)<ErwinS[FI]>:)))
(12:35:59)<Nameisis[LAT]>:D
(12:36:00)<Garmr[NL]>What the fuck
(12:36:01)<Hinokai[AUS]>Ahahahaha
(12:36:01)<_Kibla_[SRB]>LOLOL
(12:36:02)<ReinaBorg[Arg]>fuck
(12:36:04)<Mav[Ind]>lol
(12:36:06)<Blagota[THA]>lol
(12:36:07)<Nameisis[LAT]>and fuck you too
(12:36:07)<ErwinS[FI]>Sensitive man, that
(12:36:13)<Rangeley[AUT]>looool
(12:36:15)<MK[JPN]>rofl.
(12:36:15)<Mav[Ind]>very.
(12:36:23)<clopoyaur[KOR]>what was that?
(12:36:26)<Garmr[NL]>Time for more rebellion

[reference]

11

This section: On top of this, it is estimated that hundred of articles were made in support of the rebellion, many of which were moderated by the team for breaching the eRepublik Laws or Terms of Service. Thousands of other articles, many simply reporting on the events as they happened, or making fun of them in the best traditions of eRepublik media, or even just remotely connected to the happenings were deleted as spam or flaming. - I have an issue with "hundred" and "thousands".... yes, it is true that a higher than average (per day) of articles were moderated on that day, but the wording sounds like we moderated 100000000000000000000000000000 articles. Also, the second statement, I consider it a way to push a "personal agenda". I'm open to any suggestions how we can improve that. --Belea2008 19:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider 'hundreds' as an acceptable estimate, although it was rather in the thousands in number. As for the references for the types of articles moderated, I am compiling a collection. It is not personal agenda, as I wrote nothing since you banned me, so that is not correct.--Quicksilver 19:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure, Quicksilver? Look, in the above two statements, the usage of the following words, transforms your good intentions into a personal agenda:

• on top of this
• it is estimated (by whom?)
• hundreds
• thousands
• simply
• in the best traditions of the eRepublik media
• just remotely

So, my suggestion here is, complete rephrase to remove any "weasel words" from it and to remove any personal opinions from it. --Belea2008 00:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. I am against this rephrase.--Quicksilver 12:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

12

And one last detail - Admin Censorship - and the usage of the word censorship in this page. What defines censorship? The "public debate" rule on the media is a long standing one (Yes, I know that a lot of citizens disagree with that.) But rules are rules, even if the rule says: "public debates and/or complaints regarding the eRepublik team's action(s) or lack of action(s) toward one citizen or a group of citizens or regarding any changes in game mechanics performed by the eRepublik team is prohibited." A lot of citizens call it censorship, I just call it moderation. From this point I would create a separate page about this topic. Here's an attempt of such a page draft: http://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php/User:AgentChieftain/Sandbox/Censorship_in_Dioism --Belea2008 19:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Long-standingness doesn't make it less cenzorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicksilver (talk • contribs) 22:18, March 5, 2011

May I suggest that you just take the article publish it on wikipedia.org and see how unbiased editors react upon these suggestions. To me most of them seem hair-splitting as Quicksilver mentioned earlier, but I might be wrong on that and would love to see unbiased editors to prove me wrong on that.--GeBe 19:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A conversation on IRC clarified this topic for me. I'm all right with it now. Thank you! --Belea2008 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath - Positive Results

Could someone please make a paragraph outlining the positives that have come out of the rebellions - Increased communication of Plato on the forums (incl. Gucio16) - Increased admin participation within the game - the article released by Alexis and the comments of George on other citizens articles. Pierric Bross 01:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not avare of any positive results so far. Plato still answers only empty things, Gucio is by now hated by everyone for his enraging answers, and increased admin participation only visible in the bans still. Alexis and Lemnaru answered once each, but then gave the same non-answers than before. Basically nothing is changed.--Quicksilver 12:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You may not see these efforts to be an improvement but they most definitely are from a time when there was no words from bonte or lemnaru nor a visible forum moderation (we are in fact getting play forum moderators see - http://forum.erepublik.com/showthread.php/109196-Plato-s-Helpers-(Forum-Moderators)). Before no-one knew how to change your name or if it was even possible - now everyone knows that you can do so if it is your real name - thanks to responses by Plato and current forum moderation. Lemnaru is also actively increasing awareness about the game through his feeds (most recent post - 'Damn you monetary market') and these things should not be tossed aside as arbitrary especially when they have come in an arguable way as a result of the 'rebellion'. Pierric Bross 23:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, they came with empty lies (like Bonte with the 'nobody was banned who didn't break the laws', and empty promises (like Lemnaru 'all of those things are on our list too' disregarding the fact that nobody believes their promises any more). As for the forum moderation, they produced a Gucio, about whom I said, that the one who chose him for moderator deserves to be locked up in a mental asylum. And ofc we still have Plato-Belea, who doesnt answer anything, only bans, and closes threads. O yeah, and new missions, hastily thrown together, with strength rewards, to defuse the rebellion. Really positive improvements. No real talks, only empty promises and more bans.--Quicksilver 11:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

.....communication has still improved..... you can argue all you like about how everything they say is a lie but it is irrelevant to the point that they have improved admin-player communication Pierric Bross 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In The Further development part I wrote about it - I am 99% sure that you will consider it biased, but well, that's life.--Quicksilver 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Belea, you know whose neutrality is highly questionable? Yours. And I say that independently from the 2-week ban you slapped on me, and which incidentally proves what I wrote in the 'Further developments' section. --Quicksilver 21:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That is one of the many reasons for which I added the tag. I trust that Wiki policies will be followed even in this highly debatable and controversial article. --Belea2008 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was all right before you started to enforce your admins' viewpoint - it is you who is not neutral. And vengeful to boot.--Quicksilver 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that either one of you is neutral: Quicksilver is 100% rebellion supporter and Belea is 100% admin supporter. Both of you have different views about the events. You'll just have to deal with it. To the matter, I can hardly call this article neutral. There's so much stuff only displayed from one point of view. Mostly this article is stuffed with anti-admin propaganda. -- sampo555 | Talk 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I say, until admins - including Belea - ruthlessly and barbarously delete and ban anyone who even dares to mention the rebellion's VALID points anywhere on erep, and this wiki article is the only place where truth can appear, until then this article is neutral, as opposed to the ruthless censorship. The article is NOT anti-admin propaganda, but the faithful and good description of the rebellion. It is true, that the rebellion was more right than admins, and that can cause the article favoring it - because truth was on their side, not on admins'. --Quicksilver 07:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean - your truth? This article is not relevant anymore... --Dalibor Talk 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean TRUTH.--Quicksilver 14:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The bias this article has is unbelievable I agree. It was a good move from Belea to add the neutrality tag. I just wish I had more of a stomach for the wiki so that I could edit it myself but I am avoiding that as much as I can. Pierric Bross 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

External events related to rebellion

• Twitter account created: http://twitter.com/#!/eState_Enemy
• Facebook page created: http://www.facebook.com/pages/ECitizens-declared-eRepublik-as-a-Natural-Enemy/196841623673338

--Belea2008 22:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

haha seriously? lol. erep is so weird it's unbelivable. after i saw beleas facebook & twitter pages that i believe the "ecitizens" created something struck my mind, what if erep team themselves are fueling on this a bit to generate free advertisement lol. --Aryamehr talk 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One last idea

This document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hX8qcG62sWiNpKj8WzdvYgmWYHP6r492sUiouFUJtYQ/edit?hl=en&authkey=CMjhxsYM&pli=1 - included, at the time of the "negotiation", at point 1, with caps letters: "NON NEGOTIABLE ITEMS" (I see it is removed now).

My honest opinion about the events, expressed in this interview: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/interview-with-belea2008-member-of-the-erepublik-team--1718709/1/20 - "Valid concerns. Wrong leaders. :S"

I have expressed my (biased) opinions and concerns regarding this article. I do not longer with to participate in further edits or debates related to this Wiki page. The quality of an encyclopedia is directly proportional with the passion of its contributors and the openness of the debates/discussions in it; thus thank you to all editors (yes, Quicksilver included - being serious) which have invested time and energy to improve the page. May you contribute much and well! --Belea2008 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

YOUR HONEST OPINION IN THAT INTERVIEW INCLUDED LIES, HALF-TRUTHS, AND OMISSIONS. And your total cenzorship on the forum, with your provoking and trolling brownnosing twerps that you call moderators would be outrageous in any civilized country. Besides if you considered the concerns valid, you wouldn't delete them from the forum. So it is a lie.--Quicksilver 10:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can say one thing completely honestly Belea: I hate you totally, for being unfair towards me, and for banning me for no reason, and letting your mods do the same. I am honest in this, unlike you, who backstab me with your fucking bans.--Quicksilver 10:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I too remember that the document contained the sentence "NON NEGOTIABLE ITEMS" during the rebellion. BTW, I hope you feel better now Quicksilver after laying it all out to the open :> -- sampo555 | Talk 15:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If I ever again go to Bucharest, I migh be inclined to kill Belea, for being an unfair bastard. Yes, I do feel better now, that people know what kind of a person he really is. --Quicksilver 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And yes, it contained that phrase but NOT with capital letters. Perhaps you can imagine things changing, even if you are incapable of it, Belea.--Quicksilver 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just read the demands and chat log...

truly sad... and no, i am not talking about beleas or the teams action, but the screw up of the rebellion side. what a joke. what stupid demands. what stupid statements. what stupid act.

after all that rebelling, what happened? yhe rebellion side did not play their cards well, and that is a pity--Aryamehr talk 14:08, 27 May 2011 (PDT)