Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 surgo Sep 05, 2009 9:23:20	Some of you may have known of the older D&D Wiki, www.dandwiki.com. Some of you may have even used it. Most of us who were regulars there, including all of the active administrators, have had apparently unresolvable conflicts with the owner of said site, and after being told to do so have taken our toys to make a new playground. We are all well aware that one of the reasons that people were leery of the old D&D Wiki was its complete lack of quality control. When creating the new wiki, we have attempted to change that (in fact, it's built right into our mission statement) -- we have attempted to double-check all the pages brought over for quality and balance, the idea being that you can pick something right up and use it in your game based on what else you allow in your game. (If you're wondering what most of our stuff is balanced around, we're fans of the Tome series.) We're still working out all the kinks. Navigation pages are currently bugged, and will be until next week when Wikia fixes our installation of Semantic MediaWiki. However, the categories at least work for browsing things, and people are welcome to upload what they want to upload. (We're also sick of having to delay our 'grand opening' until every last kink is worked out.) We might be new, but we already have a strong and well-sized community. We are mostly 3.5e, but we have some 4e content as well. So come check us out: dungeons.wikia.com. Hopefully you'll find our material useful.
#2 ogrehooper Sep 06, 2009 10:08:02	The old wiki is still as active as ever, and many of it's users find balance  issues with the articles of the newer wiki.  Good luck to both, and please make sure you find the wiki that best suits your idea of balance.
#3 surgo Sep 06, 2009 10:49:17	By "many of its users" you mean just you, right? Because you're the only one I've seen say anything about it. Regardless, it brings up an important point -- balance is entirely dependent on what is included in a campaign world. To that end, we are striving to mark everything with a tag that essentially says "this page should be fine to include in your campaign if {this WotC-published thing} is already included". Hopefully, all the pages should be tagged before long.
#4 ogrehooper Sep 06, 2009 10:55:54	No, I mean everyone who agrees with civility and being nice to other users, as well as not accepting overpowered thing as "balanced."   I won't argue.  I understand why you made your wiki, and I hope it goes well.  However, being misleading and condemning of the old wiki is wrong, which is why I posted. So far, your wiki is moving along nicely, and I hope it continues to do so.  Good luck.   EDIT: That is a good idea for the tags.  I look forward to seeing that implemented. EDIT: Much time has passed and no further discussion on your wiki regarding a possible change.  Also, in-chat threats of using pirate software to destroy the original wiki.  Lots to be concerned with with this younger wiki, and will keep watching.
#5 surgo Sep 23, 2009 18:53:49	EDIT: Much time has passed and no further discussion on your wiki regarding a possible change.  Also, in-chat threats of using pirate software to destroy the original wiki.  Lots to be concerned with with this younger wiki, and will keep watching. Let's keep the outright lies to a minimum, hey? You have never once showed up in our chat, and I've never seen such discussion (not to mention the extremely ridiculous concept of "pirate software" to "destroy" a wiki). The tags have already been implemented, and the wiki should now be substantially more usable for DMs everywhere. Soon you will be able to search by the tags.
#6 jhonesy Sep 24, 2009 9:20:51	*snort* I'm not sure what's worse; Nerd rage between two D&D-themed online wikiboards, or nerd rage between two geeks because of some faux-perceived threat of ego-slappin'. Really? You had to post a thread for this? Next time (both of you), take your pettiness to the Message System. Also, thanks yo! Good too see that both wikis are doing well enough to stand on their own. I don't put much stock in either of them, but I know a lot of people who do. Hope things prosper for the lot of ya'll.
#7 zombie_babies Sep 24, 2009 9:31:13	Awww.  Don't tell 'em to stop!  It was starting to get really good.  You know, in that it's so pathetic it's hi-friggin'-larious sort of way. :P
#8 jhonesy Sep 24, 2009 9:35:27	Aw, okay. Just for you, Z_B, 'cause you know I love you. In that special kind of way only one nerd can love another nerd. Also, shall I bring the popcorn, maybe fire up the barbeque? Look's like this is going too be a long stand-up routine.
#9 zombie_babies Sep 24, 2009 9:43:59	BBQ sounds great.  Now who's sitting on who's lap? :D
#10 jhonesy Sep 24, 2009 9:46:21	Now, that there is a tough cookie to crack. What says we flip a coin and whoever makes callsies right on two outta three gets to decide? I'll flip first... ... Dammnit! Tails! The most unluckiestest side to flip for a coin evar!!!11!1!
#11 zombie_babies Sep 24, 2009 10:11:37	I was gonna suggest we just switch every five minutes or so - that way nobody's lap feels left out.
#12 ogrehooper Sep 24, 2009 15:43:15	To the other two - yes, this is hilarious.
#13 zombie_babies Sep 24, 2009 15:45:20	Well, it got a lot less funny when you decided to get all 'here's evidence' on us.  Jerk. :P
#14 surgo Sep 24, 2009 15:48:20	I'd love to know who said that then, so I could beat some sense into them (what was discussed certainly won't be happening on my watch). Really? You had to post a thread for this? Next time (both of you), take your pettiness to the Message System. Are you seriously suggesting with your minimodding that I shouldn't post a thread advertising a new service to the community? Because that's what you're suggesting with your post.
#15 zombie_babies Sep 24, 2009 15:49:15	Umm.  I think it's more of a 'take the fighting elsewhere' thing than a 'don't tell us about stuff' affair.
#16 ogrehooper Sep 24, 2009 15:52:22	Surgo despite our not getting along I actually do believe you when you say you'll give it to them, and as I was in the chat at that time can vouch that you were not there to witness that particular conversation.  My email is provided on my wiki page, and if you wish for me to forward you the full conversation with the names of those involved, just email requesting it.   EDIT: Still no email requesting information.... EDIT: Information requested today (9/26/9) and sent.  Good luck.   EDIT: Imagine that.  "Someone" reported the link that showed the log of your wiki's chat because it included the link to the DOS software.  Amazing.  Too bad the evidence still exists.