Talk:Aertheca/Archive dispute

It seems that the administrators of Aertheca have found this entry and have taken exception to some of the critical remarks made here and reflected their views by editing the page.

Reflecting their views is fine of course, but wholesale deletion of critical remarks which seem to be factual, balanced, and respectful, is not what a Wiki is about and should be avoided. (Edited by Exacompta November 2007, and by 86.147.203.58 November 2007.)

I have undone the deletion of the critical notes by "lunaticRoo", and have put his comments in a separate section called "Retort by server administrator". --86.147.203.58 November 2007


 * Personal opinions are not encyclopedic style. Neither are statements which only "seem" to be factual and balanced. In addition, many of the comments were not respectful, and are now gone once again.
 * The last time I looked at this page, I removed the most blatant personal attack, but left the rest as questionable (partly due to a shortage of time). This time, I've revised the whole criticism portion in an attempt to bring the focus back to facts, and away from some people's apparent desire to bash the server. --The Krit 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; the article has been much improved as a result of your edits, and I'm glad to see that you didn't delete the criticism entirely because:
 * a completely uncritical account of a server can be just as biased and far from the truth as biased criticism. Sometimes there is justified and justifiable criticism.
 * A wiki isn't an advertising section, and criticism can be a lot more informative than the usual gushing talk about what stories and doodah's a server contains. Of course personal attacks shouldn't be there, and any criticism should stick to facts. However if a server wants to advertise itself it can use its IGN pages. But even there people can post their opinion in a way that can't be deleted by opponents.


 * I admit that it's impossible to gauge whether personal opinion does or does not correspond to the truth, so it shouldn't be a part of the Wiki article. However the original criticism section contains 2 examples of why communication via the forum isn't working as well as it could
 * the sentence about areas being removed without notice on the forum which seems objective enough
 * the bit that implies that broken treads were reported, but subsequently ignored
 * There is such a thing as the "freedom of speech climate" of a server. On some servers you see e.g. a forum that contains no critical posts at all, and where any debate posts that can remotely be interpreted as criticism are prefaced by a grovelling and hand-wringing apology that the post isn't intended as criticism. When I see enough of such forum posts and no or very few critical posts, I tend to believe that the climate on the forum really is repressive. In such cases removing criticism from the Wiki on grounds that it is "personal opinion" can only lead to bias. Unfortunately you have to study the forum in order to get an idea if a personal opinion is or is not justified.
 * That's why I would plead for generally allowing a small "criticism" section even if that is unflattering for the server in question, possibly with a built-in "retort" section.
 * Exacompta 1 December 2007


 * "Criticism" and "retort" imply a debate style, and that would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, I think those sections would tend to attract more opinion than fact. A single "critique" section encompasses both criticism and promotion and is less likely to fall into the pitfalls of the individual sections.


 * As for mentioning areas being removed without notice, I kept that. It's just been downplayed since it seemed to me that the major point was the broken transition. Are unpublicized removal of areas common enough to warrant more emphasis?


 * I might have missed something in regards to the other point you think got reduced (deleted) too much. Which part exactly did you mean by "the bit that implies [...]"? The closest match I see to stuff I deleted is the part about bug reports being classified as "fixed" even though the bugs still exist. (That probably should come back in some form; I'll think about what form would work well.) Is that what you were referring to? --The Krit 17:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "prematurely marking bugs as fixed" info has been restored. --The Krit 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Critique section is all personal opinion, and only one persons at that. For example: "One gets the impression that the current maintainers and builders have inherited a module which is simply too large and too complex for them to understand and maintain."  There is no truth in this as the module hasn't been inherited at all (original designers are still here).  The module is large but how can the builders of the mod not understand it?  The problem is that some players don't understand that some things cannot be fixed in a flash as they sometimes expect.


 * In regards to the broken transitions not being fixed, the problem there is players not reporting them properly. When they report the exact location it's usually fixed straight away.  "Bugs in quests are common, to the point where a player who can't complete a quest first tends to suspect a bug in the quest before anything else."  This is simply not true as well.  There are so many quests in Aertheca and most of them are working as intended.


 * critical remarks which seem to be factual, balanced, and respectful I also take exception to this as I don't believe the comments were factual, balanced or respectful.  You have one person's biased opinion, and this person is not someone that knows what goes on behind the scenes at Aertheca.  We have a fairly large playerbase and there is always going to be players who don't agree with the way we do things.  We have a developers section on the website, which some players have access to, and an area where players can submit their own work.  Our DMs all come from the playerbase as do some of our Admins (the ones who weren't here when we started).


 * If you want to leave this section here then that's fine, but personally I don't think it should be. Imagine if every player on Aertheca came here to give their own personal opinion about the server.  This page is going to get pretty big and then most people won't even bother reading it... --LunaticRoo 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The critique section is not all personal opinion, just the quoted example. (And that statement is technically true since someone did get that impression. You would be better off debating the more factual points.) Also, the majority of players don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and you can't discount someone because they are "just" a player.


 * One valid point you do bring up is about the quests. We now have one person claiming bugs in quests are common, and another claiming that they are rare. The question now is how do we resolve this disagreement? Can either side present evidence as to how bugged the quests are? (I'm inclined to think the burden of proof lies with the side claiming the bugs are common; if no evidence can be found in a reasonable time &mdash; let's say a month &mdash; I think that portion should be deleted.) --The Krit 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The retort by LunaticRoo, and especially his suggestion that there is nothing wrong with Aertheca's maintenance, is likewise based on personal opinion. His note about developers I accept, but I choose this formulation not to have to write unflattering characterisations of the builders. His further exposition has no bearing on the veracity and applicability (or otherwise) of the criticism vented here.
 * I have not compiled a detailed list of all bugged quests; I think that I might do so simply by re-reading the quest bug reports. --Exacompta 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A recent thread on the Aertheca forums echoes the problems highlighted here. (see http://www.aertheca.com/index.php?topic=3970.msg44339#new) --Exacompta 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (In response to "The problem is that some players don't understand that some things cannot be fixed in a flash as they sometimes expect."): The bugs that I list below have been open for 12 months or longer.
 * (In response to the paragraph on broken transitions and bugs in quests): Of late many areas have been deleted (see the reference to the post by DM Jivundus), so this might even be true now. It wasn't true at the time the visitor's comments were posted.
 * (In response to the paragraph about critical remarks seeming to be factual, balanced, and respectful): I fear that this retort misses the point. The claim to bias on part of the person providing criticism is opinion. Likewise the sweeping generalisations about factuality. In fact, LunaticRoo describes the reasons for his editing in different terms on the Aertheca forums (http://www.aertheca.com/index.php?topic=3620.0), where he voices the opinion that a Wiki isn't the place for such comments. The claim that this person doesn't know what goes on behind the scenes is irrelevant, except insofar as it might show that relevant information is not shared by Aertheca staff. The existence of a developers section is irrelevant, and DM Jivundus'later post proves that even this forum was frozen out. The bit about where developers and DMs come from doesn't address any issue mentioned. --Exacompta 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed
"One gets the impression that the current maintainers and builders have inherited a module which is simply too large and too complex for them to understand and maintain."
 * As Already mentioned, this is incorrect. The two main script writers are still active and we have some new equally talented script writers as well. --LunaticRoo 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fact that you did not inherit the module does not mean someone cannot get the impression that that is what happened. Eh, if it's more acceptable (and if this part is ultimately kept), we could always drop the word "inherited". (Still waiting for the other side to make a case.) --The Krit 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I base this (among others, but I don't have a complete list ready) on As a matter of fact, the storage problem has recently re-surfaced after being fixed. Nevermind that many other servers are able to provide players with trouble-free storage in the form of vaults or pack animals or bags by including a single script file. Aertheca does it in its own way, doesn't deign to tell what it thinks it's doing, then ends up with broken functionality, and doesn't want to talk about it anymore to anyone. Especially not its players. Which confirms what I contended from the start. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully reiterate my opinion that Aertheca seems to have a set of scripts that its builders seem unable to control. Regardless of whether they are new developers or old hands. If the original builders are all still active, then perhaps they let the module run away from them. That can happen with large code bases. LunaticRoo's eulogies of Aertheca's scripters despite.
 * the fact e.g. the crafting scripts confuse what crafter 1 is doing with what crafter 2 is doing a room away. Lately a minor change in a crafting script that produces an (unintended !) factor-10 increase in the amount of produced tanned skins,
 * There was no change to any crafting scripts. This problem was there all along and has only just come to the surface (and was quickly fixed).  --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The bug-report post clearly stated that the module behaved in a *new* way in and *old* situation. Beats me how that can happen unless someone modified the scripts. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * class-specific menus which have been demonstrably copied from the IGN vault, don't work on Aertheca, but *do* work on the servers where they originate from (Olander's servers)
 * They were modified because we didn't want them to work the way they were originally intended. --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Modified so that they, by and large, no longer work. Which is again a maintenance problem, albeit one that's hotly denied. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * mountable horses, which crash people's NWN client roughly 50% of the time when used. When queried about this on the Aertheca forum, LunaticRoo counters that it's too much work to remove the (buggy) horse implementation and use the (bug-free) CEP implementation.
 * This affects a small number of players, for most people horses work fine. And it is a lot of work to remove the current horse system and use the CEP horses.  --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why you (a) see almost no-one using horses (b) find that whenever people form groups they don't use horses (because it's almost guaranteed to crash someone) (c) have a standing (but unofficial) ban on using horses when DMs run events. Averring that "This affects a very small number of players" is a form of poopooh-ing the problem, which is again contradicted by the unoffocial ban on husing horses that I already mentioned, which flatly contradicts the view that the problem is insignificant. The claim that it would take a lot of work to change the horse implementation is remarkable because we see other modules use the CEP horses without difficulties and without much effort. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the crafting slave bugs, which took about 5 whole months to rectify. If only Aertheca had used version control, this bug could have been removed in a week by restoring the version of just before the bug manifested.
 * As mentioned several times on our forum, the problem with the crafting slaves was due to the nwn database file. It has nothing at all to do with the module code.  And we do have version control, we have since we started the mod.  Besides, if there was a problem with the latest version of the mod, it would only take a few minutes to revert to the previous version and restart the server.  It's comments like these that show how little you really know about Aertheca and scripting/server admin in general.  --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This information did not become available until well after the problem was resolved (i.e. after 5 months), and when it did, the real cause was only mentioned in an unrelated discussion, as an afterthought. The claim that Aertheca does in fact have version control dates from the same thread where -for the first time in 5 months since the start of the problem- any information was given. At no point was anyone informed of the real nature of the problem, let alone provided with any specifics that would enable them to understand what (if anything) the administrators were doing. This shows clearly how poor the communication between Aertheca administrators and players is when there are technical problems (the usual state of affairs) and has absolutely nothing to do with "knowing little about server administration / scripting".
 * the "banking bug" where the item bank randomly destroys items put into it. The bugreport relating to this bug was put in the "resolved errors" thread, despite an administrator admitting that the bug was still open. Subsequent posts to the forum to have the bug report re-classified were ignored.
 * the old (and properly reported) bug in Aertheca's adaptation of Olander's class-specific menus that the scrying option for mages produces just 1 page of names, where there should be many. The retort that not all PCs are scryable and hence on the list fails given the observation that of 30 online players 8 were shown, and the rest really did not have the warding spells up that would make them unscryable.
 * As to LunaticRoo's counter that players are too impatient, I wish to note that these scripting problems have been in existence for at least 12 months (i.e. as long as I have played there and noticed the problems).
 * What probably galls me most is the response of DM Quaz(shown here http://www.aertheca.com/index.php?topic=3531.15) to the effect of "why would you want those scrying menus to work anyway"? I admire the restraint of the first poster in the thread to drop the issue at that point. I am sorry to say that this attitude, to me, has come to exemplify the mentality of Aertheca staff, which is why I believe that information on this aspect of Aertheca should be available to players who are considering Aertheca as their server. Definitely not in places where Aertheca staff have editorial control. Exacompta 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like this is personal for you. You mention a couple of bugs and nothing about all the others that are fixed.  Some things can be fixed easily and some can't.  And some things have priority over others. The ones you have mentioned are rather small and inconsequential, they do not really affect game play much at all. --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to resist the temptation to include ad-hominem arguments. They only obscure the real ones. Significantly, I note that LunaticRoo now acknowledges that there really *are* problems, but now takes the line that they are insignificant. I'm afraid that talking down problems is commonplace on Aertheca. Incidentally I disagree that the problems mentioned are "small and inconsequential", especially considering that it's custom editing that caused the problems in the first place. All in all it seems no more than fair to *mention* the problems listed on this Wiki, and then let players decide for themselves how insignificant (or otherwise) they are. Hence the criticism section which LunaticRoo so wishes to see suppressed. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I read DM Quaz's comment, it sounds more like a question about how much priority should be given to fixing scrying, albeit with undertones implying that it can't be that important. Asking how high a priority something should be is a legitimate question. --The Krit 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"While some consideration must be given to the fact that the module is maintained in the builders' spare time, some form of feedback would be beneficial. Currently, no feedback (or any other form of transparency) is available on status, bottlenecks, or maintenance needs, let alone on guidance as to how to provide assistance."
 * I don't really understand this. There is a Mod Update thread which is regularly updated.  There's a separate developer's forum for those working on the mod to communicate with each other.  There's a player submission thread where players can submit ideas and/or scripts/mods for the developers to look at.  There are some things we choose not to inform players about and most players are happy to just play and let us worry about status, bottlenecks and maintenance.  --LunaticRoo 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me explain if you don't understand. The "Mod Update thread" is (a) updated perhaps on a bi-monthly basis when changes happen on a weekly basis (b) was admitted by LunaticRoo himself to be quite insufficient to follow changes and (c) contains no useful information whatsoever, only the vaguest, most un-informative generalities. One might even suspect it was there only because someone said you'd have to have one but didn't explain why or what to put into it. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In this thread (http://www.aertheca.com/index.php?topic=2338.msg40804#msg40804) DM Jivundus explains that there has been no maintenance for several months:
 * "We are just about done with a massive cleanup and have returned close to around 11000 objects. This is to make way for a center isle and some other goodies as well that ALL players will get to enjoy. This is why many of you that have asked to build or submit areas have fallen on seemingly deaf ears.  It isn't because we like to ignore you.  Its because we can't take anything else".
 * Whilst this statement is of refreshing honesty and clarity, unfortunately, in the spirit of what LunaticRoo describes as "there are just some things we choose not to inform players about", this was never made known to the players. What players saw was a massive lapse of communication coupled to an absence of maintenance. Great that the builders de-cruft the module, but apparently they don't feel it serves any purpose to inform the users that that's what they are doing. They just refrain from responding. Besides ... it has been suggested to maintain a list of currently-worked-on issues on the server, a list of pending issues, and a list of completed issues. Just to communicate, in the very simplest way possible, where maintenance time is being spent. This suggestion was never heard of again. [...]


 * You seem to have totally misinterpreted that post. Nowhere in that post does Jiv say anything about there being no maintenance for several months...  There has always been maintenance, we just stopped adding new areas for a short period while we cleaned up the mod.  --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jivundus' post explained why the developers had been totally "off the air" for months ("This is why many of you that have asked to build or submit areas have fallen on seemingly deaf ears."). That is precisely the way in which I interpreted it. No "misinterpretation" at all, and I never claimed that there "was" no maintenance. Whatever the developers were doing is beside the point: they weren't talking about it and they weren't responding to anyone. That's what I said and that's born out squarely by Jivundus' words. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [...] As a result maintenance is totally opaque. Players haven't the foggiest idea what is being done, what is planned, what is scheduled, or what has been done. This is what I mean by a lack of feedback. --Exacompta 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Players are there to play and have fun. They don't need to know every little detail on what is going on behind the scenes.  It is our choice not to inform players of everything we do.  I'm sorry if you don't agree with that, but that doesn't make it wrong.  --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't try to confuse the issue please. The issue is that Aertheca developers don't communicate about major or minor problems. Not even when asked about them, and certainly not on the forum. The question isn't whether this is "right" or "wrong".  At least you admit now that this communication is poor or practically non-existent, despite your earlier claims that it is adequate or even great. This is what I put in the criticism section which you suppressed. You just admitted that you don't let players know about maintenance (even when they ask you for it), and I think that players can decide for themselves how important or unimportant that is. For that reason alone it should be mentioned in the criticism section. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide links to the mod update thread, the developer's forum, and the player submission thread? Thanks. --The Krit 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The mod-update posts can all be found here: http://www.aertheca.com/index.php?board=13.0 Note the paucity of posts (the module has been changed, tweaked, and updated *far* more than the posts suggest, and note also the paucity of useful and relevant information in the posts that do appear. See also LunaticRoo's admission that the update log is quite incomplete. Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the "player submission thread", I know of at least one offer of help, e.g. to help collect all world-specific lore where it can be found by players. A concrete suggestion from a helpful soul about 11 months ago, which drew applause from the DMs on the forum, and since then radio silence despite relating to the forum only, and not the server. (see http://www.aertheca.com/index.php?topic=2657.msg27990#msg27990)
 * In addition, and enterprising soul ventured to post a theory on the structure of the Aertheca universe, the Planes. No response from any of the DMs, and especially no guidance. Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, that was you... Most of these comments you have made about posts have been your posts...  Which I guess is why you are here trying your best to make Aertheca look bad.  You offered your help and we didn't accept it.  Mostly because we don't want your help.  I'm sorry, but you're just not the sort of person we want working with us.  Also, we have since created a Wiki site of our own that players can update as much as they like.  --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to again try and make thing personal. The fact that I copied a coherent thread with complaints doesn't mean I wrote it. Just for your understanding ... I'm not "trying to make Aertheca look bad". I'm simply stating verifiable facts. If those facts are bad, people should _know_ about them. The fact of the matter is that Aertheca has a big maintenance problem and that Aertheca administrators simply won't accept help from anyone, won't talk about how they might sollicit help, don't want to think about how they might let people help, don't want to let on what they are doing, nor what they have done or what they plan to do (or when). Instead they either complain that the problems are sooo large that they can't manage, and then basically nothing happens for months on end. Or they simply maintain that the problems mentioned are "small and inconsequential". This isn't just me, this is what I hear from about 5 long-term players who have regularly submitted contend and ideas and are simply left hanging.
 * My problem is that you really can't tell if the admins/builders really are swamped or just plain lazy and incompetent, and that they carefully refrain from giving any information that would allow you to tell the difference. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see a thread called "Aertheca Updates" that hasn't been updated since the end of 2006, and three new topics since then that provide updates (with one update per topic) at very irregular intervals (February, March, and September of 2007). I wouldn't call that "regularly updated". --The Krit 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"In addition, the administrators and DMs tend to shun help on the grounds that giving anyone other than themselves something substantial to do takes a lot of trust."
 * It does take a lot of trust. It's very easy for a player to submit something that could contain hidden scripts or items.  But we have players working on the mod and submitting items/areas/etc for the mod.  We also have a lot of dedicated people working on the mod already.  We don't want too many people working on it though, so we tend to invite people when needed based on past contributions and character.  There are some people we don't want working on the mod!  And I think that's our prerogative to choose who we want helping us. --LunaticRoo 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, maintenance is currently a major bottleneck on Aertheca. It's not being carried out as quickly as it could or (as I and others feel, should). On asking a DM (who shall remain nameless) that worthy professed that DMs were *far* too busy to make headway with maintenance (despite the fact that I see 80% of them less than one a week online and nothing happens in the module according to the module updates). When asking said DM why the work wasn't farmed out, the answer was "lack of trust". When asking why there wasn't an effort to parallelise the work and separate out those parts that *can* be safely farmed out, the answer was "we don't have time to think about how to solve that problem". Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DM's are not necessarily server admins/scripters/builders. They are DMs.  --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily is not the same as "they are not". And besides ... those DMs who aren't scripters/buiders don't seem to put in an appearance very often. The DM I spoke with _was_ involved in development (he said, and I have no reason to doubt him). And the point is that this provides documented insight into the (lack of) effort made to either clear the maintenance backlog or to allow people to help. People are always encourage to "post ideas", of which nothing is subsequently heard for the next 9 months. It's indistinguishable from a polite form of redirecting ideas / suggestions into a garbage can and then saying "it's being considered" (i.e. we lost the file) or "it's being actively considered" (i.e. we're trying to find it back). Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the fact that you see 80% of the DMs online less than once per week an indication that they are not busy? I'd think that would indicate just how busy they are. Or are these DM's supposed to be full-time employees of Aertheca? --The Krit 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is when you know that the development of (DM-owned) plotlines has just about ground to a halt, that we see coy announcements of "new additions to the team", and that we hear from the few DMs who are prepared to talk that they have no time. It shows that whatever they my be doing, there is almost no visible output. Not in presence, not in maintenance, and not in plotlines. Apparently whatever the DMs are busy with, it isn't Aertheca. And about "full-time employee" ... when you don't see DMs for weeks on end while they have open plotlines, I think one can legitimately say that they are _absent_. Their right of course, but absent they are. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What I was referring to was that being busy with non-NWN stuff would account for both the lack of online presence and the lack of maintenance. (Some people do give real life priority over NWN.) --The Krit 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Secondly I immediately acknowledge that you must vet every line of code that goes in, but some areas (outdoor areas) don't contain code at all. Such areas are safe. When this was pointed out to an administrator in an exchange of PMs, no reply was received. Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's more then just scripts that can be *unsafe*. --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nicely a-specific. There are lots of things in areas that *are* safe, mainly if they aren't there. If an area can interact with players it has triggers and/or placables, and such things show up at a glance and you can check them. Limit the contributions to areas without triggers and without placables and you *are* safe. It all depends on whether you are willing to take the time to think about it and try to maximize the amount of help you can safely get or whether you're trying to minimize it. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In third place, scripts always show up in the directory modules\temp0 when you open a submitted module addition in the toolset. So you can check if your contributor wrote any scripts, and even what they were. Checking of those scripts can then be done within an hour or so. Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"One example of this lack of feedback is the existence of (at least) one broken transition that resulted from the removal of an under-utilized area. The removal of the area was never posted on the forum, and the broken transition surprised players."
 * Areas are added and updated all the time (and sometimes removed because they aren't being used). Sometimes transitions will be left behind after an area is removed, but all it takes is a post in the appropriate forum and it will be fixed.  So maybe this section should just read "Every change in the mod by builders will not be posted on the forums."  Because that is true.  --LunaticRoo 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is certainly True that the "Module updates" give no clear indication at all of what has been changed in the module. It is also true that no log of deleted areas is kept where players can see it, if at all. Such a log is a very small effort compared to the effort needed to delete an area in the toolset, provided that developers work systematically. As to the claim that forum posts will be addressed, perhaps that has been improved of late. However, a major change (read many area deletions, including quests) took place 2 months ago so many broken quests will have been wiped as well. Before that time I have found broken transitions that were reported in the proper place with all relevant information not being fixed 6 months after they were reported. Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Also unposted have been several scripting bugs known to the builders."
 * What scripting bugs would that be? There's a separate forum for scripting bugs, and problems would most likely be posted in there.  Some things may not be deemed as important as others so may be overlooked until the scripters have time to fix them.  --LunaticRoo 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. In the meantime, can you provide a link to this forum? Thanks. --The Krit 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See the list I provided above. I also note that the the first edit of this page with "visitor's comments" provided detail which LunaticRoo deleted.  129.31.242.112 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"However, some bugs are marked as fixed when they still exist."
 * This may be true as sometimes bugs are thought to be fixed but aren't, or they become broken again after an update. That part of the forum isn't locked though, so players can simply post in the same thread letting us know that they are still broken.  --LunaticRoo 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See the "banking bug" problem mentioned above. Still classified as "fixed" despite at least one admin acknowledging (in the thread itself) that it isn't.Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It does look rather bad for a bug to be reported by a DM, confirmed by an Admin, later bumped by players over a period of several months, yet still reside in the "Fixed Bugs" forum: http://www.aertheca.com/index.php?topic=790.0 --The Krit 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Bugs in quests are common, to the point where a player who can't complete a quest first tends to suspect a bug in the quest before anything else. Simple issues are not fixed quickly (within a month or two) after being reported in the server's bug-reporting thread."
 * Looking in the quest bug thread, the last post was October 11th. Before that, Sept 30th, Sept 18th and May 20th.  If there's a quest reported in there that hasn't been fixed then a player can simply bump the thread asking if it has been looked at yet.  I'd say if bugs in quests were as common as suggested then that thread would be full of recent posts.  --LunaticRoo 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the quest bug thread? Thanks. --The Krit 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quest bug thread can be found here http://www.aertheca.com/index.php?topic=90.0 --Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that players should be bumping threads if their bug reports are not addressed soon enough to their liking. A bug report does not disappear by itself. It is either resolved, in which case it is moved to a different thread, or it is in the thread and still open. Saying that it hasn't gotten attention because it wasn't bumped hard enough is an admission that the bug-fixing procedures don't work. Another explanation for the dearth of recent posts is that players have simply given up. They expect Aertheca to be buggy and know that it's a waste of time to post bug reports. Also quests tend to be there for low-level characters, and most Aertheca players are habituees who know the quests and also know more lucrative ways of gaining gold or xp. In other words: they know the quests, usually know if they're bugged, and avoid them. This leads to reporting bias. Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But you believe that Admins/scripters/builders/DMs should spend all their free time working on the mod so you don't encounter a single bug in your play time. It only takes a moment to bump a thread. If you couldn't be bothered doing that then... --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't try to confuse the issue and leave straw-man arguments out of it will you? My point is that if (hypothetical case when we are talking about Aertheca) someone is tasked with maintenance, there is no *need* to bump anything because that someone will simply find the bug messages in the bug-report thread. Without any further input or intervention. A proposal (a very simple one) was submitted whereby the one dealing with the bugs annotates the bug-report post with comments in colour like: "verified", "being worked on", "solved". Bumping only comes into play if bugreport aren't used to steer systematic maintenance. So either you admit that module maintenance is haphazard, or you don't need bumps. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"The scripts on Aertheca are complex and ambitious. For example, a complete chat-system has been implemented (using NWNX and SIMTools). However, this has led to maintenance problems, such as the need to disable the "crafting slave" after a server-crashing bug was discovered. (This was a high-priority issue that was fixed in five months.) Other scripted facilities (e.g. "bank vaults" and "scrying") are currently unusable because of bugs."
 * There are some scripts on Aertheca that might be called complex and maybe even ambitious, but most are rather simple! The chat system was rather easy to implement and works great.  The players and the DMs love it!  There's always going to be some scripting problems however, and any programmer would understand that.  The crafting slave problem was a rather unique one and did take some time to fix/find the problem so it did take a bit longer then usual.  The scrying problem still exists, though it does still work, it just has some little quirks that will be fixed in time. --LunaticRoo 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for presenting your side. (However, supplying some links would be a great help to anybody who can be considered impartial since they won't know the server or its forum.) Now we'll have to wait and see what the other side has to present. By the way, you might notice that there is nothing left in the article to imply whether five months is a long or a short time for fixing a bug. ;) --The Krit 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad that LunaticRoo calls the scripts simple. It leaves me with the question why they are so buggy.
 * The crafting slave problem took 5-6 months to resolve. It could have been handled in a week by reverting to the latest non-bugged module.
 * Wrong.  Reverting to a previous version of the mod would not have made any difference whatsoever (as already mentioned). --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The scrying function does not work. This has been reported. Only 8 out of 20 or 30 players are listed as scryable when it's absolutely clear that there should be many more listed. Complaints are ignored or ridiculed (see DM Quaz's response).
 * The text was phrased as it was because the alternative is that Aertheca maintainers aren't very active and aren't very clever. Aertheca has a higher "script density" than most other servers I have encountered. It also has the highest proportion of buggy scripts I have encountered (see shortlist above). Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The scrying function is not a big concern. It works, just not perfectly as you mentioned, but certainly not *unusable because of bugs*. --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well ... that's an opinion. In fact it seems to be the standard reply. Either "It's not a big concern", or "it's of no great consequence" or "it takes too much time to fix". Take your pick. I think that (with the examples provided plus the documented evidence that Aertheca maintenance is uncommunicative) it shows that Aertheca suffers from a clear maintenance problem. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All through LunaticRoo's responses I saw the image being portrayed of a server with adequate problem reporting facilities in place, speedy maintenance, and meaningful dialogue when bugs occur. I'm sad to say that this does not correspond to my experience of over 12 months.
 * I note that this is the *only* server out of several (Amia, Arelith, Avlis, Battlequest, Elrond's World, Heartlands of Fearun, Hybrid LOTR, Lands of Lore - Horn of the Fox, LoME, Stormplay, SP-2, StormNexus) where I have played or am still playing which prompted me to write a comment like this. I am *not* trying to slag Aertheca. I recognise and value the many good qualities it has to offer (or I would not spend the time to write about it). It is just my considered and documented opinion that Aertheca maintenance is sub-standard when compared to almost any other RP server and that complaints about it are systematically denied, poohpoohed, and ignored. It is my considered opinion that the only way to prompt the current maintainers to improve their act is to objectively describe the current status and their efforts in a location outside their editorial control. I welcome discussion on this subject (which is something I miss on the Aertheca forums), and I am happy to substantiate my allegations. Exacompta 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why do you spend so much time here writing *bad* things about it. Most of your opinions expressed here are about how *you* think we should be running the server.  I'm sorry to say that it doesn't work like that.  We are the ones spending hundreds of dollers running the server each month.  We are the ones spending a lot of our free time doing Admin/scripting/building/DMing.  Therefore we are the ones who get to run the server the way we think it should be run.  You are free to have your opinion of course, but that doesn't mean we are not doing it correctly.  If you want a server run the way you think a server should be run, then go make your own!
 * However, I should say that we do listen to players. There has been a lot of content added over the years due to player suggestions.  Obviously we can't please everyone, but we do our best to give the players what they want.  --LunaticRoo 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you confuse the issue. You may run your server any way you like. No problem. What I would like to see is a little less one-sided information about the server than the usual gushy commercial-type stories about how great a server is and how many gods there are in its pantheon. It's that sort of information that you'd want to find in a "traveller's guide" to servers. Such as a Wiki. Some servers have unfriendly DMs; others have a clique'ish structure, others aren't RP servers but masquerade as such, still others use HCR rules, some have perma-death, still others have balance problems, one or two have a miantenance problem. You wrote the gushy infomercials, I wrote the critical counterpoint. I think that people should be able to read both the positive and the negative, and I submit that I have substantiated that there really *are* negative points that should be made about Aertheca. Mainly about maintenance, participation, and communication. A Wiki isn't a commercial. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the links to the forums, but regrettably they do not do me much good since almost all of them lead me to a page saying "The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you." :( --The Krit 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Err ... that might be because you aren't a registered user of the Aertheca forums. Registering is fairly easy; just got to the Aertheca main page (http://www.aertheca.com/), select the top-right button ("Register"), and you should be able to follow the links. Exacompta 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Registering might be easy, but I'm not going to register just so I can settle a dispute. Nor should anyone else who wants to review this have to register at another web site to see the details that are being disputed. --The Krit 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the Aertheca website does not make the treads I referred to available to unregistered users (I tried to follow the links I provided without being logged in and found that I can't access them unless I log in). This poses a porblem since much of what I state can only be verified by looking at the Aertheca threads. What I could do (if that is helpful) is to register a new account on the Aertheca website and post the account name and login here. Let me know if that is acceptable. Exacompta 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is acceptable to the forum admins, it's good enough for me, but it's really their call. (I'd think they would prefer to make the forum anonymously readable instead of having login info posted here, though.) --The Krit 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Registered new account on Aertheca. Login: nwnwiki  password: nwnwiki   The board admins would have to approve to give the new login full access. Posted in the "new arrivals thread" stating that this account only wished access to the forum; together with the name, this should inform the admins who exactly is asking. Exacompta 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

--Exacompta 12:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See also the NWNvault page for Aertheca. The latest entry is from a long-term player (Highway_Man, who I know built a complete city that has been incorporated in Aertheca !), two I don't know (Ploobywoo, NWNauditor), one whose thread I used for arguments (Golodh), and one really long-time player (aqualung555). Note how they all basically echo my critical remarks (especially on broken quests and lacking maintenance !), and how they all mention the good with the bad, and how they span several months, if not years. I think that these reviews are all honest and balanced, which should lend additional weight to my critical observations here. http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Gameworld.Detail&id=927    Exacompta 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There does appear to be a downward trend on the Vault page, but some of that has to be taken with a grain of salt. SirPrice and NWNauditor both registered their accounts on the day that they voted for Aertheca and haven't been seen since. Golodh was similar, but registered the day of his first comment on Aertheca, logged in the day of his second comment (the one with the vote), and hasn't been seen since. While there is nothing expressly wrong with this, it does raise the possibility that some of these accounts might have been created by someone with another account, making them duplicate commentary. Not a large possibility, but just large enough to consider. Still, the lack of recent positive comments is not a good sign. (Even the recent vote of 10 notes that there are flaws.) --The Krit 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True. The reason is that I very rarely take the time to vent criticism or even an opinion about a PW. Usually if I don't like a PW I leave it and don't bother to spend even an additional minute on it. If I like it, I usually don't write about it because I'm too busy playing. The fact that I actually take the time to write something means I'm emotionally involved, which rules out 95% of all PWs I visit. While I do try new worlds I don't spend my time hopping from one world to another. Come to think of it, people who write criticisms are always emotionally involved. This involvement can make for valuable comments, but it can degenerate into a rant. So, yes, you have to be careful with one-time usernames and you have to take both eulogies and criticism with a grain of salt.

Agreements?
I'd like to see if there are some things that can be agreed upon:


 * 1) Aertheca has a large player base of role-players.
 * 2) Aertheca welcomes ideas from the player base, but does not accept implementations; only the development team is allowed to do development work on the module.
 * 3) Developer responses to posts in the server's bug-reporting forum are scarce.
 * 4) There is a general breakdown of communication from module builders to the player base. Often, the only way for players to discover what has and has not been done is to enter the world and see for themselves.
 * 5) The module seems to be too large and complex for current maintenance resources.
 * 6) *Using "seems" makes this a statement of perception, which may differ from reality, and given the topics I saw in the bug forum, I'd have to agree with this assessment. (I did a semi-random sampling over the past nine months and almost none of the topics I looked at had any replies from DMs or Admins, and most said nothing about being resolved. From the same time frame, there is one topic in the "Fixed Bugs" forum. That certainly makes it appear that bugs are not being fixed.) --The Krit 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Bank vaults are buggy, and it is recommended that players not use them.
 * 8) Some bugs (e.g. horses) are unlikely to be fixed because they only affect some players.
 * 9) Area removal has been known to lead to broken transitions in the live module.

Are these fair statements? --The Krit 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, many thanks for taking the time to actually research the matter. I have not visited for some time to give you time to check up on what was alleged. I have have lost my password for NWNWiki (Exacompta) due to a browser reinstall. My comments on the proposed list of agreements are:
 * ok
 * Hmm ... a little too generous I feel, but I rest my case.
 * ok
 * ok
 * Agreed. I can *see* that the module is large. I can *guess* that the customization is involved and extensive. What I can *see* is a maintenance problem. Given the opacity of development work I have no real way of knowing what causes this, hence my used of "seems".
 * ok
 * Agreed that they don't seem to be slated to be fixed. Disagreed that it only affects few players. Using horses at DM events is unofficially banned (i.e. the DM will ask you not to use horses because people crash) where casting haste and group haste is not (so it's not about people moving too fast but only about the horses).
 * ok

--Exacompta 12:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A good summary I think, and really all that I wanted to have included.


 * Just get rid the entire section,
 * it is rather rare to have such a section in this pw-category
 * it is disputed
 * it appears to have started from a rant
 * it is highly subjective and opinionated
 * it is hard to validate the critiques
 * Take a look at wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, this is similar. Amywien 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, critiques are hard to validate, but I think we can handle them. Plus they provide a balance to the main articles, which tend to be written by the module builders. --The Krit 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. What use is Wiki if it can't be critical? None. Only the truth matters. The scarcity of critique sections is most probably a reporting bias: people who are disaffected with a player world tend to leave it for another and rarely take the time and effort to document the reason. Provided people can substantiate their allegations by pointing to objective external references (such as a forum log) it's possible to get to the truth, which neutralizes the criticism about opinionated or subjective contributions. The problem with criticism is that it's controversial by definition and may require (time-consuming) conflict resolution. But I think it's one of the more valuable ingredients a Wiki can have. --Exacompta 12:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)