Talk:Faendryl Socio-Political Structure

No reason to delete the original version. It still contains concepts players can use.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. With the conflicting versions and issues that some players are having with NPCs, I think the official version should be revised rather than having a competing version. I will not be formatting this document or linking to it. I will leave the decision to delete it to Scribes or other similarly wiki aware GM. Let's have one document, not two. If you want it up because there are sections that aren't referred to at all in the official document, those sections should have their own pages and a disclaimer. VANKRASN39 (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2015 (CDT)

Having both versions up is confusing, specifically because of the overlap. It gives the appearance of being a rough draft, which it ultimately was. If you want to put up an article that's identified as a player work discussing the topics not addressed in the official final version, that should probably be fine. For example, see A Treatise on Faendryl Historiography. So you could write a player essay that talks about the possibility of a crystal computer, but it's important to make it identifiable as a player work, not something with material endorsed by the present Dark Elf guru as canon.GS4-SCRIBES (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2015 (CDT)

The original version was not a "rough draft" in any sense of the term, as you well know. Also, having both versions up is not confusing, because nobody who can turn on a computer is that dense. But feel free to purge it from your wiki, it's not like players haven't had their own copies for four years now anyway.

Alternatives were provided to on how to post the content, no one is banning the content from the wiki, but it matters how it is posted. It is confusing to have unofficial and official versions with pretty much the same name, and saying different things about the same subject. Part of coming to an agreement in the ongoing process is to be willing to work with staff, and as staff removed the content, reposting it does not help the cause. VANKRASN39 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2015 (CDT)

I understand there are a number of players who'd prefer the published version of the document to be revised. I sincerely wish them the best of luck.