Talk:Erinyes (Individual WarShip)

Bombardment of Taurus

Has anyone got a reference for the Erinyes being blamed for the bombing of Taurus, as mentioned in the article? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

Ask, and ye shall receive. Though I must say I was a bit surprised, as earlier sources suggested the asteroids were equipped with thrust drives and not fired from a mass driver. Well, I guess we can canonically say the Erinyes is blamed for Taurus although the veracity of that claim is questionable. Frabby (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

Thanks for the reference - Rev's always told me to cite a reference for any facts in an article, and given the tone of some of the conversations over on the CGL forum whenever Sarna's mentioned, I'm a little sensitive towards making sure that any detail we add here has a link straight back to a canon source. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

I can feel ya, BM (I always giggle when I call you 'BM'): I am a little sensitive too about that. I really do feel the majority of the group does a good job referencing canon; what creeps in is usually some IP editor's presumption as to what is correct, and it usually is a change to something that is referenced! Not to say IP editors by-and-large aren't doing a great job themselves. Plus, there's also the hive-mind regarding wikis in general that has to be overcome.

I do feel better, tho, when I travel around the internet and find a corner of the BT world I hadn't seen before, yet they link to a Sarna article to assist their posts. Can't say I see that done back to official information, which says a lot about the trust the general BT fandom has (and not just CGL fans) for Sarna.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:17, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

It doesn't help that I don't find the CGL forums to be a particularly friendly or welcoming set of forums, which possibly jaundices my view a little as it's one of only two BattleTech forums I read. I gather that the MWO forums are big fans of Sarna - I wonder if Sarna's popularity is down to the amount of information available here, compared to other sites? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

BM, you found the right words, when some guys from the BT forum have some problems with sarna, why they not come to sarna, talk to the contributors or make edits, when they think some must changed or have problems with the content? This is what Bad Syntax pointed out on his Engineer blog and other problems the forum had, and the result was, he was banned on the forum, but Syntax is a fox in sheep cloathes, i have some sympathics to him.--Doneve (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

Bad Syntax (or do you mean BrokenMnemonic?) was banned on the CGL forum? Seems like I missed that part.

Anyways, while I do understand your frustration, I can also see how people are frustrated when they need to look something up and find a bad (or worse, wrong) Sarna article, believe what they read here, and later learn that the Sarna info they relied on was incomplete, outdated or plain incorrect. If we want to be taken seriously as a resource, we need to cater to exactly those people who, for whatever reason, don't want to contribute but come here looking for accurate info.

Finally, keep in mind that CGL freelancers with a lot of knowledge (typically the ones pointing out errors on Sarna) might be legally obliged to stay clear of Sarna, at least under their known names. Sarna is not and does not want to be an official site, so you can't expect the "official" people contributing much. It might cause legal troubles for them (NDAs) and CGL (unseen). Frabby (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

Frabby, Bad Syntax was banned.--Doneve (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

But the other question is! At first. The BT forum members look to sarna and found a bad writen article (ok we have some grammers and typos), but our editors, linked almost to canon sources, and there is the problem, some was fixed by talk to the Ask the Writers etc. sections on the forum, but not yet posted to sarna. Now i kick the ball back, why are so many sources must become errated, or have so many typos, wrong Maps, details etc., i know the CGL writers do a hell of job, but i don't understand the process to bring up some canonical sources with so many datamine errors, when i want to publish a product i datamine and fix some errors before the product was published, this make sense, i think so.--Doneve (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

I am among the volunteer factchecker pool, and I can assure you, the products are reviewed by experts who find problems I'd never see. But there's always errors and inconsistencies that creep in without anyone noticing them. That's just the way it is. I think CGL is already doing a decent job on the errata front - a lot of those problems are solved, after all, even though they don't make a penny from all the efforts. When the previous forum was hacked we all lost around six months' worth of recent data that couldn't be recovered and that hit the errata team as bad as anyone else, if not worse.

It's a good thing for BattleTech that the Sarna community exists as a totally independent party and double-checks all this. I too wish sometimes that the CGL officials would be a little more helpful, but I can see how much they have on their plate already so I'm not angry when a question goes unanswered. In urgend cases I reckon there's always the possibility to corner Herb in a BattleChat. ;) Frabby (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2013 (PDT)

Glad to see Rev back. As a new observer who has vast experience handling people in public (teaching, moderating, beta testing, etc) I'm glad to say the social climate at CBT is changing. When I was new to the forums, I found CBT to often be hostile to new users (not really wanting to say "hostile towards me" though that was the case). After only a little bit I was fed up with it and cracked back at a few people nice and hard but measured to their own hostility level. It might not have been the very best choice, as I dug a deeper hole of unpopularity for myself, but in spite of that I stuck around because someone has to be cool to the new folks, who are often knowledgeable vets of the game who just happen to lurk because they too felt they could not talk without getting a three page negative litany from someone with 5k or more posts dropped on them in the middle of the night. But as I told a few of the mods recently, I can see the change already in only a year. Lots more new people, and also, the flock of moderators that they brought in were there for a reason. I don't know for sure, but I feel that they were there to change the climate too (I get that from comments made by Mr Ghostbear himself about a year ago that even he felt that CBT was an unpleasant place to read at). I've seen a few of the freelancers talk down about Sarna too, which is not cool, as it encourages the prevailing attitude, but there's not much one can do about that except ignore it.

Anyway, I thought this was a great article, but yeah, like a few others around here, if you rely on the information here too much, you will get burned by some of the know-it-alls who I shall not single out by name as they often have Battlemasters above their names. I do what I can with the Clan stuff, which is all I can do. I would write Star League stuff, but Cyc and Broken handle that better than I, and I like reading their articles. Also, I have learned to not speculate - unless something about the text actually calls for speculation (too many examples to site) but then I have to lay out all options and not just my opinion, as that's then an essay and not an article. As Frabby suggested, we could corner someone in Battlechat, or even pm people (I've had luck with a certain very knowledgeable person answering private questions, though not always). Whenever I get down about it, I log into my anonymously named account at MWO and feel the love :) of a community that is appreciative. Thus I put that little note on my page that though our articles are often good, and it's fun to read here, e real deal is the books themselves that inspire us to work as hard as we often do. Sorry to drop my own litany here, but at least it's not all negative I figure :) I try to always add to a conversation in some way, that's just how I am, and I think we all have that in common here at Sarna, we're the nurturers, not the bashers. That's a very good thing. --Rebs (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2013 (PDT)