Talk:Orcus/Archive 1 - Revision history

Umbire the Phantom: Umbire the Phantom moved page Talk:Orcus to Talk:Orcus/Archive 1 without leaving a redirect: old extensive "discussion" that's long since been settled

2024-02-11T13:44:32Z

Umbire the Phantom moved page Talk:Orcus to Talk:Orcus/Archive 1 without leaving a redirect: old extensive "discussion" that's long since been settled

Umbire the Phantom: pothole

2024-02-11T13:36:25Z

pothole

Phol ende wodan: Reverted edits by Magicmaster (talk) to last revision by Tone

2019-11-05T20:58:32Z

Reverted edits by Magicmaster (talk) to last revision by Tone

Magicmaster at 20:50, 5 November 2019

2019-11-05T20:50:36Z

Magicmaster: style guide

2019-11-05T20:45:12Z

style guide

Magicmaster at 20:40, 5 November 2019

2019-11-05T20:40:46Z

Tone: /* I've mostly stayed out of this discussion previously but figured I'd offer my 2 cents */

2019-10-02T14:43:11Z

‎I've mostly stayed out of this discussion previously but figured I'd offer my 2 cents

Bluescreenofdeath at 09:01, 2 October 2019

2019-10-02T09:01:30Z

Bluescreenofdeath at 07:45, 2 October 2019

2019-10-02T07:45:57Z

Pinkbeast at 02:27, 2 October 2019

2019-10-02T02:27:07Z

@@ Line 342: / Line 342: @@
 :I would note here also that from experience over a relatively large number of games that it is more likely for Yeenoghu to summon Demogorgon than for Orcus to do so. The reasons for this are that Orcus is a spellcaster and will sometimes opt to cast spells instead of making a melee attack that can gate in demons, and that any reasonable character can smash him in the face  and kill him before he uses up the wand of death. This isn’t true of Yeenoghu, who will melee you every round and can paralyze an unprepared player. You can argue that Orcus can summon Yeenoghu, but for the reasons above Orcus is also very unlikely to do this. --[[User:Luxidream|Luxidream]] ([[User talk:Luxidream|talk]]) 05:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
-::I was a bit confused by that one but have looked into it in more detail. It's not actually the melee attack that gates in demons; it's done by mattacku() but all that is necessary is for the monster to be next to you when mattacku() is called, so Orcus can summon while using his wand. I uncovered this in wizmode testing and it was that which made me suspect [[Demon#Demons_summoning_demons]] doesn't work quite as it was described there.
+::I was a bit confused by that one but have looked into it in more detail. It's not actually the melee attack that gates in demons; it's done by mattacku() but all that is necessary is for the monster to be next to you when mattacku() is called, so Orcus can summon while using his wand. I uncovered this in wizmode testing and it was that which made me suspect [[demon gating]] doesn't work quite as it was described there.
 ::As far as I can see the monster's wands and spells make no difference; for a covetous monster that is not endeavouring to hide and heal, wizard.c does
      if (!rn2(!mtmp->mflee ? 5 : 33))

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 5 November 2019
Line 548:		Line 548:
	:Edit: thanks Paxed. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 09:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:Edit: thanks Paxed. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 09:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
	:For what it's worth, I disagree with this addition. It's more convoluted, resource-intensive, and dangerous (although that's largely irrelevant at this point in the game) than the strategy that's already included in the article (just pulling Orcus downstairs). It even allows Orcus more time to use his death wand charges. I could go into great detail here but it appears to have been rehashed many times on this page already. Furthermore this is a solution for covetous monsters, not just Orcus himself, so in my opinion it really should be on that page (if anywhere) to reduce duplicate information (which can be problemsome since nethack is still under active development and these details can change). Based on the author's past comments here, it seems to me that the only reason this addition is being pushed for is due to their misunderstanding that Orcus is neither covetous nor a follower (when he is in fact both), which would require alternate strategies such as the proposed addition -- but this is not the case and there are simpler methods for dealing with him efficiently. ——[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 14:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:For what it's worth, I disagree with this addition. It's more convoluted, resource-intensive, and dangerous (although that's largely irrelevant at this point in the game) than the strategy that's already included in the article (just pulling Orcus downstairs). It even allows Orcus more time to use his death wand charges. I could go into great detail here but it appears to have been rehashed many times on this page already. Furthermore this is a solution for covetous monsters, not just Orcus himself, so in my opinion it really should be on that page (if anywhere) to reduce duplicate information (which can be problemsome since nethack is still under active development and these details can change). Based on the author's past comments here, it seems to me that the only reason this addition is being pushed for is due to their misunderstanding that Orcus is neither covetous nor a follower (when he is in fact both), which would require alternate strategies such as the proposed addition -- but this is not the case and there are simpler methods for dealing with him efficiently. ——[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 14:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
−
−	~~Okay, a couple of things.~~
−
−	~~First of all the need for consensus is not listed in your rules. I'll say that again in all caps so you don't miss it. THE NEED FOR CONSENSUS IS NOT IN YOUR RULES.~~
−
−	~~One more time.~~
−
−	~~THE NEED FOR CONSENSUS, THAT IS, HAVING ADMINS AGREE TO AN EDIT, IS NOT IN YOUR RULES.~~
−
−	If you make that clear from the beginning, there would be a lot less confusion. The need for permission from admins, or a majority of admins, or not even a majority, but a consensus (meaning an overwhelming majority) is not listed anywhere in your rules. NOWHERE.
−
−	I've never heard of any other wiki site where an overwhelming majority and consensus was needed for every particular edit. That's not what a wiki is or how it's set up. If that's how you're set up, then you need to tell people that.
−
−	~~Secondly, information in any wiki should be included not because people agree to it, but because it is true.~~
−
−	If someone says "Using this method uses more resources" when in fact the method may use no resources at all, that truth should carry the day. You shouldn't promote false things on your wiki simply because people agree not to have it. The truth of the matter can be investigated and demonstrated logically and empirically.
−
−	~~-magicmaster~~
−
−	~~THIS is your rules and your style guide. Nothing about consensus from editors exists in this guide.~~
−
−	~~https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/NetHackWiki:Style_guide~~
−	~~_________________________________________________________~~
−
−	~~I have edited the style rules to make people aware that any edit beyond punctuation, syntax, etc. cannot be done without the overwhelming consensus of the Admins.~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 5 November 2019
Line 570:		Line 570:

	https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/NetHackWiki:Style_guide		https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/NetHackWiki:Style_guide
		+	_________________________________________________________
		+
		+	I have edited the style rules to make people aware that any edit beyond punctuation, syntax, etc. cannot be done without the overwhelming consensus of the Admins.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 5 November 2019
Line 566:		Line 566:

	-magicmaster		-magicmaster
		+
		+	THIS is your rules and your style guide. Nothing about consensus from editors exists in this guide.
		+
		+	https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/NetHackWiki:Style_guide

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 5 November 2019
Line 548:		Line 548:
	:Edit: thanks Paxed. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 09:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:Edit: thanks Paxed. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 09:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
	:For what it's worth, I disagree with this addition. It's more convoluted, resource-intensive, and dangerous (although that's largely irrelevant at this point in the game) than the strategy that's already included in the article (just pulling Orcus downstairs). It even allows Orcus more time to use his death wand charges. I could go into great detail here but it appears to have been rehashed many times on this page already. Furthermore this is a solution for covetous monsters, not just Orcus himself, so in my opinion it really should be on that page (if anywhere) to reduce duplicate information (which can be problemsome since nethack is still under active development and these details can change). Based on the author's past comments here, it seems to me that the only reason this addition is being pushed for is due to their misunderstanding that Orcus is neither covetous nor a follower (when he is in fact both), which would require alternate strategies such as the proposed addition -- but this is not the case and there are simpler methods for dealing with him efficiently. ——[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 14:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:For what it's worth, I disagree with this addition. It's more convoluted, resource-intensive, and dangerous (although that's largely irrelevant at this point in the game) than the strategy that's already included in the article (just pulling Orcus downstairs). It even allows Orcus more time to use his death wand charges. I could go into great detail here but it appears to have been rehashed many times on this page already. Furthermore this is a solution for covetous monsters, not just Orcus himself, so in my opinion it really should be on that page (if anywhere) to reduce duplicate information (which can be problemsome since nethack is still under active development and these details can change). Based on the author's past comments here, it seems to me that the only reason this addition is being pushed for is due to their misunderstanding that Orcus is neither covetous nor a follower (when he is in fact both), which would require alternate strategies such as the proposed addition -- but this is not the case and there are simpler methods for dealing with him efficiently. ——[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 14:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Okay, a couple of things.
		+
		+	First of all the need for consensus is not listed in your rules. I'll say that again in all caps so you don't miss it. THE NEED FOR CONSENSUS IS NOT IN YOUR RULES.
		+
		+	One more time.
		+
		+	THE NEED FOR CONSENSUS, THAT IS, HAVING ADMINS AGREE TO AN EDIT, IS NOT IN YOUR RULES.
		+
		+	If you make that clear from the beginning, there would be a lot less confusion. The need for permission from admins, or a majority of admins, or not even a majority, but a consensus (meaning an overwhelming majority) is not listed anywhere in your rules. NOWHERE.
		+
		+	I've never heard of any other wiki site where an overwhelming majority and consensus was needed for every particular edit. That's not what a wiki is or how it's set up. If that's how you're set up, then you need to tell people that.
		+
		+	Secondly, information in any wiki should be included not because people agree to it, but because it is true.
		+
		+	If someone says "Using this method uses more resources" when in fact the method may use no resources at all, that truth should carry the day. You shouldn't promote false things on your wiki simply because people agree not to have it. The truth of the matter can be investigated and demonstrated logically and empirically.
		+
		+	-magicmaster

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:44, 11 February 2024
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 2 October 2019
Line 547:		Line 547:
	:I suggest that the user "magicbymccauley" be blocked for an infinite duration due to not being able to adhere to the rules of a wiki. I'm not seeing a way to contact the wiki admins though, so if there is one, could someone kindly point me to it please? --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 07:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:I suggest that the user "magicbymccauley" be blocked for an infinite duration due to not being able to adhere to the rules of a wiki. I'm not seeing a way to contact the wiki admins though, so if there is one, could someone kindly point me to it please? --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 07:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Edit: thanks Paxed. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 09:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:Edit: thanks Paxed. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 09:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
		+	:For what it's worth, I disagree with this addition. It's more convoluted, resource-intensive, and dangerous (although that's largely irrelevant at this point in the game) than the strategy that's already included in the article (just pulling Orcus downstairs). It even allows Orcus more time to use his death wand charges. I could go into great detail here but it appears to have been rehashed many times on this page already. Furthermore this is a solution for covetous monsters, not just Orcus himself, so in my opinion it really should be on that page (if anywhere) to reduce duplicate information (which can be problemsome since nethack is still under active development and these details can change). Based on the author's past comments here, it seems to me that the only reason this addition is being pushed for is due to their misunderstanding that Orcus is neither covetous nor a follower (when he is in fact both), which would require alternate strategies such as the proposed addition -- but this is not the case and there are simpler methods for dealing with him efficiently. ——[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 14:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 2 October 2019
Line 546:		Line 546:
	:I suggest that page protection be extended when an editor states so clear an intention to make controversial changes without seeking consensus. [[User:Pinkbeast\|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast\|talk]]) 02:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:I suggest that page protection be extended when an editor states so clear an intention to make controversial changes without seeking consensus. [[User:Pinkbeast\|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast\|talk]]) 02:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
	:I suggest that the user "magicbymccauley" be blocked for an infinite duration due to not being able to adhere to the rules of a wiki. I'm not seeing a way to contact the wiki admins though, so if there is one, could someone kindly point me to it please? --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 07:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:I suggest that the user "magicbymccauley" be blocked for an infinite duration due to not being able to adhere to the rules of a wiki. I'm not seeing a way to contact the wiki admins though, so if there is one, could someone kindly point me to it please? --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 07:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
		+	:Edit: thanks Paxed. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 09:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:45, 2 October 2019
Line 545:		Line 545:

	:I suggest that page protection be extended when an editor states so clear an intention to make controversial changes without seeking consensus. [[User:Pinkbeast\|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast\|talk]]) 02:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:I suggest that page protection be extended when an editor states so clear an intention to make controversial changes without seeking consensus. [[User:Pinkbeast\|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast\|talk]]) 02:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
		+	:I suggest that the user "magicbymccauley" be blocked for an infinite duration due to not being able to adhere to the rules of a wiki. I'm not seeing a way to contact the wiki admins though, so if there is one, could someone kindly point me to it please? --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 07:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:27, 2 October 2019
Line 543:		Line 543:

	Unless someone can disprove 1-3 I will add the sentence when the block expires.		Unless someone can disprove 1-3 I will add the sentence when the block expires.
		+
		+	:I suggest that page protection be extended when an editor states so clear an intention to make controversial changes without seeking consensus. [[User:Pinkbeast\|Pinkbeast]] ([[User talk:Pinkbeast\|talk]]) 02:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)