Non-coverage
What is the basis behind us not covering the rest of Hellscape? The only reason given on this site is a link to a seemingly random user on GallifreyBase talking about the situation. No context is given as to who this user is and why we should believe their version of events over the BBV people. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Does BBV deny that the FP rights have been taken from them? Which is what GB is being used as a citation for. (Also, there's far more evidence for that than just that GB comment.) Najawin ☎ 17:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- The official stance of BBV is that the rights were removed however the agreement was that they could continue using the Faction Paradox license for the rest of Hellscape S1 (which includes all releases until Lilith Fades). I don't see the "far more evidence" listed on the page where it should be? Who is that GB user and why should they be trusted? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 19:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Technically I believe the agreement was to use the FP license for all works they currently had in production which they claim included all of Hellscape S1 - a claim many people doubt, but I digress. The GB user, Jacob Keith, was involved in other FP BBV productions. I also, you note, didn't say that there was far more evidence on this page, and that claim was about the rights being stripped. I'm not sure what your objection here is, since you agree that the page is accurate. Najawin ☎ 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's been no explicit ruling to not cover this series, User:NightmareofEden just deleted a redlink on their own. Indeed, there can be no ruling because the forums are down. My guess is just that nobody here cares to actually do upkeep on this series. Najawin ☎ 20:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I do not agree that the page is "accurate" if, by your own admission, there is "far more evidence" that isn't even on the page. There is nothing on the page telling the reader who the GB user is, and I still do not understand why their word is being held to a greater standard than those working on these specific projects. @ScroogeMacDuck also removed quite a lot of redlinks for these pages and therefore this whole discussion that I've created is asking the question... why? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 20:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's been no explicit ruling to not cover this series, User:NightmareofEden just deleted a redlink on their own. Indeed, there can be no ruling because the forums are down. My guess is just that nobody here cares to actually do upkeep on this series. Najawin ☎ 20:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Technically I believe the agreement was to use the FP license for all works they currently had in production which they claim included all of Hellscape S1 - a claim many people doubt, but I digress. The GB user, Jacob Keith, was involved in other FP BBV productions. I also, you note, didn't say that there was far more evidence on this page, and that claim was about the rights being stripped. I'm not sure what your objection here is, since you agree that the page is accurate. Najawin ☎ 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- The official stance of BBV is that the rights were removed however the agreement was that they could continue using the Faction Paradox license for the rest of Hellscape S1 (which includes all releases until Lilith Fades). I don't see the "far more evidence" listed on the page where it should be? Who is that GB user and why should they be trusted? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 19:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
What? He did? Where? Certainly not on this page, he hasn't edited it once since he created it. And as Nate noted, the page absolutely does say who the GB user is. (It also isn't being held over those working on the specific projects, the two accounts don't disagree!) Najawin ☎ 20:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, after looking through relevant pages it seems to be some edits about a month ago at Audio Adventures in Time & Space. Which, okay, I can't comment on, perhaps he can weigh in. Talk:Faction Paradox (series) suggests to cover it (unless the spoiler-y stuff is disqualifying). Again, there's been no official ruling, there can't be an official ruling, and, if I remember Scrooge's promise correctly, he would not be involved in any official ruling unless we explicitly ask for him to be. Najawin ☎ 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- If Scrooge has personal dealings/drama with BBV perhaps he might not be the right person to make a ruling, nor would he probably want to. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 21:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed I am not and don't. BBV in general may be too broad a thing — but as to their Faction Paradox in particular, the fact is that I was so placed as to retain some insider information which taints my judgment even though it cannot, procedurally, be counted as evidence here, being unsourced. So I really am in no state to make a ruling. For what it's worth, I caution (personally, not as an admin) that work done to cover Hellscape now would in the long term be wasted, because I do expect the information will become publicly available one day, and make plain that we never should have covered it… None of which, of course, is a policy reason not to have pages on it while the state of the evidence allows it, if consensus leans that way. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yet another reason to have the forums back. The truth is, I don't think the usual FP editors here are particularly, well, receptive to BBV's current output. Even if this ends up being covered, I'm going to state right here right now that I will not, under any circumstances, buy stuff from BBV to summarize. The original BBV scripts are online for free, I'll be using those, if the more recent BBV creators want to send me their scripts when I finish everything else, I might use those. I'm willing to buy the Magic Bullet stuff, as much as I'm not a fan of audio dramas. But BBV will not get a cent from me. This isn't even about the particular employee, it's about BBV in general. (And sorry to all the creators who worked with BBV on the FP stuff if they can't get me a script. I'm just really not comfortable giving any money to a certain individual whose business model is horrific.)
- afaic, maybe these are technically valid, idk, it's pretty dodgy. But you're never going to get me to support them in any way in my editing. I'll never include references from them in IU pages, I'll never include stuff from them in templates, I'll never update stuff related to them based on new pages/sources. I'm just going to ignore them if they exist on this wiki. Najawin ☎ 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed I am not and don't. BBV in general may be too broad a thing — but as to their Faction Paradox in particular, the fact is that I was so placed as to retain some insider information which taints my judgment even though it cannot, procedurally, be counted as evidence here, being unsourced. So I really am in no state to make a ruling. For what it's worth, I caution (personally, not as an admin) that work done to cover Hellscape now would in the long term be wasted, because I do expect the information will become publicly available one day, and make plain that we never should have covered it… None of which, of course, is a policy reason not to have pages on it while the state of the evidence allows it, if consensus leans that way. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- If Scrooge has personal dealings/drama with BBV perhaps he might not be the right person to make a ruling, nor would he probably want to. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 21:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Given all the details given here, I'd be against coverage of Hellscape. And @Najawin has a point, even if the series scrapes by into validity — which may not even be permanent — there are very few, if any, editors who are willing, on the ethical side of things, to edit these releases. 22:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I am still in favour of coverage due to two main reasons.
- 1) even if it is later deemed not to be covered I don't think that the information would be wasted as it can be moved to the BTS sections of covered pages such as this page and character pages like Lucifer and Babylon, and the information could be transferred to another Wiki like the Expanded Universe one which has broader coverage.
- 2) I don't think that we nor the Wikia should look like we are taking a stance against BBV before anything has been confirmed outright, which I fear is what it would look like if we chose not to cover these for the time being. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 22:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I am taking a stance against BBV on the licensing issues. I can understand if other users aren't. But I am. Also, I'm neutral on coverage, but let's be clear that the "transfer to another wiki" idea wouldn't work, it would violate FANDOM rules. FANDOM requires that you show a clear edit history on a page so you can identify what users contribute what parts of said page. This is why the migration/re-merging of FP was such a headache and required Czech, a staff member, to get involved. He had to transfer over the edit history as well. (At least, this is my understanding from reading the forum threads and user talk pages.) Najawin ☎ 22:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Mh, no, in fairness, exporting a page to another Wiki with its page history is not so great a matter as you seem to believe. Any admin can do it without too much fuss. The hurdle with the FP Wiki was just doing it at scale, and while dealing with duplicate pages on both ends. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- From what you're saying Najawin it does seem a little too close to disrupting the Wiki to prove a point. If you are going to be actively and purposefully ignoring their content when completing pages/infoboxes/templates, as you said earlier. It is one thing to take a personal stance against a company but we are supposed to be neutral here. At this moment in time there has been no concrete evidence that BBV has done anything wrong. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 22:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm truly perplexed at how this is a violation of T:POINT? My edits are my own, you can't force me to edit info from a series I'm uninterested in. Consider it like how I have no interest in Class (TV series), except I'm actively ignoring these audios and everything from them, walling them off from my "headcanon", as it were, rather than simply not caring. Najawin ☎ 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
(Also, let's be very clear, there's abundant evidence that BBV has done stuff wrong, it's just not necessarily evidence that invalidates this particular set of audios.) Najawin ☎ 23:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wikifying content without bias is certainly not the same thing as being opposed to editing pages based upon a moral choice. It is not a break of T:POINT to do the latter — although it may be if an editor actively removed already Wikified information, but this isn't the case — and @Najawin is right about the fact he cannot be forced into editing an article. You have to remember, @DrWHOCorrieFan, that we are all volunteers, and if the vast majority of us have issues with BBV, that is perfectly within our right. This is a fan wiki after all.
- For instance, I enjoy P.R.O.B.E.. I have written out plot summaries for the Arcbeatle Press releases, and I may write plot summaries for the earlier films and concurrent webcasts, but I am almost certainly never going to write plot summaries for anything post late-2021 when everything hit the fan. Is this a break of T:POINT? No. I'm not obliged to Wikify everything under the P.R.O.B.E. brand, and that is perfectly fine. 23:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Come on, guys. Does this really need to be litigated out loud?
- Of course you cannot be forced to edit pages about stories that you don't want to. Wikis are inherently collaborative projects, so there is nothing wrong with publishing an incomplete page and leaving it for others to finish with details about stories you haven't seen/read/listened/infosorbed. In fact, the rules recommend this!
- But a corrolary is that there's absolutely no reason to tell other people, "I refuse to edit about these stories for reasons XYZ." Discussions about moral objections have nothing to do with the wiki! For the same reason, there's no reason to weigh in on talk pages for stories you refuse to read or cover. You'd might as well go on a talk page and write, "Hmm, the trailer for this one doesn't look great."
- Connor, you asked a reasonable question: what is the evidence that Hellscape is unlicensed? If this is a question which can't be answered right now, it shouldn't have been answered right now; if this is a question which can be answered later, it should have been answered later! All we get in the meantime is an opportunity for empty rhetoric and spinning wheels. – n8 (☎) 23:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I was responding to
- For what it's worth, I caution (personally, not as an admin) that work done to cover Hellscape now would in the long term be wasted, because I do expect the information will become publicly available one day, and make plain that we never should have covered it… None of which, of course, is a policy reason not to have pages on it while the state of the evidence allows it, if consensus leans that way.
- I simply won't be contributing to the work, and I think many people won't, so I didn't think this concern was relevant, given that there were users who were interested. If there are people who want to do the work, I have no objection to validity. Najawin ☎ 00:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Like Nate said, I didn't suggest that you should be forced to make any edits but wading into discussions to repeatedly state that you are taking a stance against a certain project and not going to be acknowledging it is slightly disruptive, is it not? If you are taking a stance against BBV perhaps you should also distance yourself from the discussions surrounding them? Nothing is being gained here from you repeatedly stating that you refuse to acknowledging/edit their work. Also, it looks like you are trying to assert some moral superiority over those who may still want to edit this material, I hope that isn't the case. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 11:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Now I've had some coffee and am no longer inside a hurricane, I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean to come across as chastening as I seem to have, and I don't quite endorse Connor's reading of my post: things can be pointless without being disruptive. I just have to throw my hands up when the original question might have best gone simply unanswered. – n8 (☎) 14:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ian? Hope everything's ok. I've got relatives down there who are going through it right now. Shambala108 ☎ 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Now I've had some coffee and am no longer inside a hurricane, I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean to come across as chastening as I seem to have, and I don't quite endorse Connor's reading of my post: things can be pointless without being disruptive. I just have to throw my hands up when the original question might have best gone simply unanswered. – n8 (☎) 14:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Like Nate said, I didn't suggest that you should be forced to make any edits but wading into discussions to repeatedly state that you are taking a stance against a certain project and not going to be acknowledging it is slightly disruptive, is it not? If you are taking a stance against BBV perhaps you should also distance yourself from the discussions surrounding them? Nothing is being gained here from you repeatedly stating that you refuse to acknowledging/edit their work. Also, it looks like you are trying to assert some moral superiority over those who may still want to edit this material, I hope that isn't the case. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 11:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I was responding to
The only comment I'll make on the "repeatedly" subject, is that at the time you had suggested there was perhaps a T:POINT violation, I was responding both to Scrooge's statement, as I noted above, and to your statement:
- I don't think that we nor the Wikia should look like we are taking a stance against BBV [Emphasis my own]
As for the morality issue, I'm not sure if we're morally required to not support BBV. I do think it's a moral good to decline to support them. But it's quite possibly supererogatory. Regardless, my view on morality is idiosyncratic and I fully admit that. I tend not to get too upset with people disagreeing with me on the subject except in extreme cases. (Metaethics, however...) Najawin ☎ 18:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm posting in the wrong spot, I don't really like the editing layout of the site, so I try to stay away from it. Now to the point. REGARDLESS of people's personal opinions, there have never actually been this magical "evidence" that Hellscape season 1 didn't fall under the licensed Faction Paradox banner. When I pitched season 1, I pitched it all together, and had already planned the following 2 seasons at that point, SPECIFICALLY as a non-FP entity post Season 1. All of season 1 was licensed, and the people like Keith and Hunter who have tried to claim otherwise have zero knowledge of my pitches, nor my development. Noone has to like the Hellscape series, it's niche, exactly how I intended it to be. That's not to say it hasn't been popular, because it has exceeded my expectations, but that all said, from reading this debate just on this thread alone, most issues are related to individuals' PERSONAL issues with BBV, and not actual fact with licensing. Let me be clear, if for some reason I couldn't use a character due to not having licensing access, it would be just as easy for me to create a new character, or to just use another existing one... It makes ZERO sense for me to waste my time claiming something that's unlicensed, when I could continue creating on my own. Hellscape was always designed to branch off into its own series, and it has done that. I have found that due to issues people have had with BBV have also caused many inaccuracies, many of which I'm sure will resolve themselves by future editing, but a primary example is the latest webcast release of 'Hellscape: MorningStar' being titled on this wiki as "Name That Cameo!"... The title on the splash screen blatantly says it's called 'Mission: Find Lilith'. It's ignorance like that that's running rampant on this wiki. Long story short, season 1 is FULLY licensed in everything that it's used... Believe it, don't, whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. SegaStoner ☎ 13:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)SegaStoner
- My dear, you merely reiterating that it is licensed is simply not enough, and anyhow, we couldn't cite this page for it even if you were able to provide solid proof. What we need to cover it is verifiable, off-wiki proof, and until that is provided we simply cannot cover this series. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 17:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)