Forum:Game masters and lore

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Village pump → Game masters and lore


Continuation from User talk:Mordecay/Archive01#GM.
(Screenshot)

TL;DR

Whether the player's screenshots of a discussion with a GM who provided lore answers can be cited here. --Mordecay (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The message seems legit, IMO Xporc (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Even if it was a real GM, they don't really know any more than you do. They don't have the direct lines that you think.--SWM2448 20:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
My question regarding the removal of references linked to the image was more based on MyMindWontQuiet mentioning that the "GM" might not have been a legit GM to begin with (which makes it less viable than it already is ofc). I didn't really partake in the original convo so I have no idea. Hence I don't want to make any hasty removals. WarGodZajru (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, SWM, they may not know about lore as the other Blizzard employees, but what when the GM says he checked with lore guys? Mordecay (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
We have no way of verifying that.--SWM2448 21:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


My thoughts on the matter is this: Game Masters are not a reliable enough source of information. That's not to say a GM is never correct, just that it's easy to receive conflicting information (especially if it's info that isn't easily verifiable).
So I'm very reluctant to have the answers provided in that screenshot cited in Wowpedia's articles. Perhaps under a speculation section, but nowhere else until we can get confirmation from someone higher on up regarding those answers. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 21:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Even if that screenshot is of a real conversation, and the GM did indeed contact the appropriate lore authors, this screenshot is still not a valid source, for reasons already mentioned. The answers may well be "true", but if we don't have anything official, we can at best put it under speculation where it makes sense to include. PeterWind (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
IMO you guys are going too far in purging it from everywhere in the wiki. I'd suggest keeping it while properly explain why it may not be completely accurate. Xporc (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I uploaded the screenshot there so you people can wrap it properly in warning texts. That way we can centralize properly its handling. Xporc (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The way I see it, there's no real need to purge meaningful/reasonable statements entirely, but if there's no credible source, it probably should be placed under speculation, instead of just being removed. PeterWind (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Next time you guys go on a content removal spree, even if it's to put it under Speculation", I'd appreciate if you tried to be more careful about maintaining the proper content of the rest of the articles... Xporc (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay so, some new "info" about this subject and the screenshot in question. The supposed "game master" states Rokhan unofficially took leadership, yet Ion Hazzikostas is not backing this up by saying the Darkspear trolls are still figuring things out, and doesn't mention Rokhan once in the reference video, they also haven't really thought much about faction lore with the Legion still running amok.[1] Aka, the screenshot might very well be false. – WarGodZajru (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if no one started going on a rampage on the related pages, at least not until tomorrow. It'll already be hard enough to check and validate the ~700 edits that were done on the wiki today (seriously, wtf?) Xporc (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
So essentially it sounds like more or less what we've been saying: Game Masters are not really reliable sources and we shouldn't be using them as a source for lore. I will note, though, that the Game Master being wrong does not necessarily make the screenshot false. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Lmao, sure thing Xporc. :')
And of course, the SS might still be valid, but we don't know if it is or isn't. The less credible it ends up, the more false it feels to me. But yeh, could still be legit, won't deny that. – WarGodZajru (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I was skimming through the screenshot again and noticed... the "GM" misspelled his own name... hmm.. intentional or not? :^) – WarGodZajru (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Eh, typos happen. But yes, several things make this screenshot unable to be used as a reference. First, its very nature: it is a screenshot, as such it can't be used as an official source. Because it can't be verified. Moreover, it was taken by a random person on the forums who, if I recall correctly, used a lvl 1 toon to post, which adds to the suspicion. Secondly, even if the screenshot was legit, as stated before GMMs are not always the most reliable sources either, though this doesn't necessarily mean a GM's words should be dismissed : the problem here is that they directly contradict those of the current Game Director of World of Warcraft. -- MyMindWontQuiet 13:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The screenshot was taken by yours truly; both GM lore ticket and GM lore ticket 2 are from me, posted to the forums on my level 110 main, Cannibal. I can't remember the last time I posted on the forums under a different name. Either way, even though my word is honestly just as good as anyone else's, it's legit. This is the first I'm noticing the misspelled name as well, though I also know that those names tend to be randomly generated as it is so that Blizz Reps can't be targeted. I know Ion recently contradicted it, though I'm hesitant to think that's contradictory at all at this point. Ion says the Darkspear are "still figuring things out", the GM says Rokhan is "unofficially" the new leader and he even appears alongside all the other racial leaders after completing the Brawler's Guild quest, which we've used as evidence before for the Dragonmaw clan, for example. Cannibeans (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we just need to make a blanket statement that "GMs and other customer service representatives are not a reliable source of lore" and be done with it. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Until we get confirmation that that's the case from Blizzard, none of us are really in any position to make that call. Cannibeans (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Uh, no, the wiki admins are definitely in position to make that call. There's even precedent with it happening with RPG materials. I think saying GMs are not reliable sources of lore is certainly indicated with this situation. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand the importance of being an admin, but that certainly doesn't give anyone here the power to determine what should and should not be considered canon. None of us (that I know of) work for Blizzard, therefore none of us have the authority to discredit something Blizzard says. Unless you have a source stating that Blizzard Customer Service reps do not have the authority to clarify lore, you don't have the power to say they don't. Therefore, it's a grey area. Hence leaving it in the speculation section with proper notes clarifying its ambiguity. Cannibeans (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hence leaving it in the speculation section with proper notes clarifying its ambiguity.
That's what I'm saying we should do. Properly tag such things as unreliable and at best "official speculation". --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, then. I understood your other statement as saying that we should completely remove and disregard it. Keeping the source in speculation seems to be the consensus thus far, so I'll add it back to the Rokhan page under Speculation. Cannibeans (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Even more than that, GM tickets (on an even lower scale as GM posts on the official forums) should not be used as any kind of reference, not even with a tag saying they're unreliable or might be false. Because
1) using unreliable/potentially false information seems odd and possibly unprofessional for WoWpedia in the first place
2) it can't be verified. It's not even about it being unreliable or not, it's about Wowpedia's inability to confirm whether the source is official or not in the first place. I cannot stress this enough. People might claim they come from GMs, it is not possible for us to verify that. Same way we can't verify whether this screen is legit/official or not. These screens have as much weight as "I've heard from my friend who works at Blizzard that Sylvanas is going to become Odyn's new val'kyr-queen" - which means no weight at all.
All this leads to the actual point : WoWpedia does not use un-official sources as references. That's fact. This screen here is not an official source, and as such it can't be used as a reference, the end. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Keeping it within the scope of speculation is satisfactory, I think. Otherwise you might as well throw out all speculation. ---PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"using unreliable/potentially false information seems odd and possibly unprofessional for WoWpedia in the first place"

Then let's remove all RPG sources, since it's all confirmed false information and no longer canon. Or, we can clarify that RPG sources are not canon, and leave the information there. Just as we can clarify possibly false lore as the same. You're arguing with yourself and using that as an excuse to keep outright removing information from Wowpedia when just about everybody else is fine leaving it there with the footnote... Cannibeans (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that RPG lore is 1) distinct from canon 2) still relevant to the RPG universe 3) and that Wowpedia is not just about World of Warcraft, but about all the Warcraft universe, of which the RPG is part of.
So it is not the least comparable to plainly false or un-verifiable information. The RPG is official. -- MyMindWontQuiet 21:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, I did actually receive clarification from Blizzard on whether CSRs can clarify lore. I was told "they are liaisons to our Dev team and therefore have a better shot at talking to the right folks to get the answers. That really isn't something we can guarantee a response on though, but it is worth a shot." I'd take that as a pretty strong maybe.[1] Cannibeans (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's distorting the original quote. Community Managers may be able to answer questions about lore, but GMs certainly are not reliable. I think most of us would agree if a known entity like Nethaera or Bornakk spoke publicly on a topic, what they said would be more reliable than some random GM. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 21:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstood or misinterpreted what they were saying. CMs are not to be confused with GMs. Plus that support literally said nothing your GM said could be considered canon :
"- since Blizzard's posts here on the forums are considered canon... should I consider this canon?"
"- they really aren't in a position to provide an official response, Cannibal. [...] if you are looking for confirmation of canon lore you'll need to talk to one our Devs."
This plus the fact that two of the answers provided are incorrect and directly contradicted by Game Director Ion Hazzikostas for the first one and Lead World Designer Alex Afrasiabi (+ Jeremy Feasel iirc) makes me really wonder why we would still be using your screen. It was literally described as a non-official answer, and is contradicted by official statements from employees who actually have a say on these things. -- MyMindWontQuiet 11:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy proposal

Created a policy proposal to try to resolve this situation once and for all. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References