Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Forum:Jack romance after the Suicide Mission page.

Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Lancer1289 (Talk) 14:57, October 28, 2011

Blog Update Edit

Hey, just wanted to let you know I'm writing my blog right now, since you may not have seen my reply to your comment. I will probably publish it on the wiki sometime today, unless it takes too long. If so, It'll probably be up sometime around noon tomorrow. If you want, I can drop a message here once it's finished.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 19:45, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, the alerts for new posts always stop coming after some time :-( And do notify my when you post it, if I can trouble you with this, though I will probably read it only tomorrow, it's getting late around here. --Ygrain 19:52, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

No trouble at all! Expect a message here in the near future with a link. Thanks for all your support!

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 19:55, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) --Ygrain 20:00, July 2, 2012 (UTC)'s taking a bit longer than I expected. I'm trying to make it coherent and organised, but at the same time, I can't make it too lengthy or it will end up reading like a fan-fiction or story. Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you, but it's not what I'm going for with this blog. I'll work my hardest to get it out soon. Then mind melding and blue babies! lol

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 20:00, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, take your time - I guess we all know what happens when things are rushed ;-) - And that fanfic part sounds enticing, as well - you may have noticed by now that I am into that. Maybe that's where we get to the blue babies? :D --Ygrain 20:12, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Haha true! :D I'm thinking of just highlighting the more important choices presented in the game, how I reacted to them, and how it changed my character. At the moment however...I'm switching between lengthy YouTube videos about Dragon Age...and also playing Dragon Age. My blog is still up there just might take longer than was expected :D

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 04:54, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Blog Update, Part II Edit

Hey, it's me again. I'm still working on the blog, and I'm in the homestretch now. I don't know how good it will be, it's mostly just a recapping of the most important decisions. If the blog itself gets to be too boring, I'd suggest just skipping to the different polls.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 17:09, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Nice of you letting me know :-) Are you including the reasons for your choices, role-playing-wise? --Ygrain 17:46, July 8, 2012 (UTC)
More or less. Generally, when you read "he" or "Spartacus" (my Shepard's first name) that also applies to me, because my thoughts are the same as the characters. For example, when I say he feels a pang of guilt for the loss of a friend, I'm really saying that it made me feel guilty. I've been a bit busy, and I know I've said it before, but for realzies this time. I'll publish it sometime today or tomorrow.
--The Milkman | I always deliver. 17:53, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it's been taking so long, but it's almost done now. I'm on the "Earth" section now, so it'll be published after I make some finishing touches.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 15:21, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

For Shame. Edit

So I see you started a favorite quote section, just like me, and that one of the first quotes is Hackett on the events of Arrival, again just like me. A coincidence ? I think not lol--Legionwrex 09:45, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I played the Arrival the day before yesterday, so it was fresh on my mind. I didn't even know you had a quotes section - not that it would change a thing if I did ;-) --Ygrain 12:38, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Guess What? Edit

Welp... it's finally done. Sorry for the wait, I've been awfully busy. Hopefully my next blog won't take so long.

It's fairly long winded and a bit rushed, but there are polls if the actual text is too boring.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 03:59, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

New Blog Edit

Hey don't mean to bother you, but I didn't know if you wanted an update. My new blog is up, which you can read here if you are interested. Cheers!

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 04:42, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's not a bother in the least! Thanks! --Ygrain (talk) 05:02, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
Good then! I just didn't know if you still wanted continual updates on my blogs. I have some more ideas in the pipeline, as well as a couple for Dragon Age II, but I'm still not sure yet.
--The Milkman | I always deliver. 05:28, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
Sure, if it's not too inconvenient for you. I enjoy reading and commenting your blogs. --Ygrain (talk) 06:01, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm about to start working on my next blog. It's a sort of party member wishlist for Dragon Age III. Shall I leave a message on your talk page over on Dragon Age Wiki?
--The Milkman | I always deliver. 15:51, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, do - I like to stick around the DA wiki --Ygrain (talk) 16:27, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Blog Ideas? Edit

Hey, I was wondering, since you like my blogs, is there anything in particular you wanted me to write about?

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 06:03, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just returned from holidays. - I have no particular ideas right now, but generally, any analysis of plot/character development will be interesting for me. - And, yeah, end bashing :P --Ygrain (talk) 17:44, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Bloggage Edit

Just read your message. I'll be taking a look and scrutinising it mercilessly :D

By the way, my next blog will be on Skyrim. I'm a little more than halfway done.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 16:07, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

james dialogue Edit

i'll just continue this here since the topic doesn't seem to be article upkeep anymore.

on to the point, i'm assuming normandy/citadel dialogue since in-mission lines get stated no matter what. there are very few opportunities for vega to really socialize with you: one is the sparring, the next is immediately after that when you start asking him personal stuff and he explains why he calls you loco/lola, the other is in purgatory, then the n7 talk in your quarters, then the tattoo acquisition on the docks. IIRC you have to receive a mail from him at some point in the game in order to trigger the talk in your quarters and you have to read it. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 09:51, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'll check the saves but I'm almost sure I didn't receive the email. - THe guy really doesn't have many lines, hmm...
Anyway, the Purgatory talk is definitely unavailable after the Cerberus attack, which might be worth mentioning in the article. --Ygrain (talk) 10:04, August 12, 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look but the mail is definitely not there. If you still have the saves from those speedy playthroughs you mentioned, could you take a look if you have the mail there? --Ygrain (talk) 18:28, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
i'll get back to you after a few hours of sleep. doubt i'll find anything since i barely even interacted with my squadmates there (worst case says i'll do ANOTHER speedrun just to confirm this). T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 18:47, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
Good night :-)--Ygrain (talk) 18:55, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
preliminary observations:
  • in one save i talked to vega for the first time right before assaulting earth. he's doing the pull-ups, is understandably grumpy ("took a wrong turn at the elevator shepard?"), the sparring session in his words: "less talk, more hitting", and never even offers up the investigate options for his personal life. never even calls you loco/lola. just the backlog of his comments for the previous missions done. obviously can't do anything further at this point.
    • in the process of checking the speedrun save before priority earth i noticed i didn't receive EVEN ONE email from other squadmates for their mandatory citadel socialization calls. bottleshooting, liara offering to be your mate/friend, etc.
  • in another save (after sur'kesh) the first time i talked to him is on purgatory (bought the drinks) then on the normandy (looks like the first time with him always begins with the pull-ups). slightly different dialogue but also less hostile than above (you slumming down here with the grunts? didn't think you'd care to find me). he even throws in a comment about the female krogan being uglier than males before the investigate options come up. speedrun pending to see if shep gets the mail - good guess says s/he won't. read on.
  • in yet another save (right after tuchanka) the pull-ups exchange happens as a mix of the previous two above: he asks what the h- you're doing with the grunts, "less talk, more hitting", the flirting is gone (if femshep) and no more calling you loco/lola. his initial comment will be on the turian/krogan alliance instead of the female krogan. obviously purgatory talk is now impossible.
  • checked saves from all other "proper" playthroughs and the mail is always received sometime after the cerberus coup and before you even get tali. so this means criterion fulfillment of purgatory talk and the sparring AND/OR the aftersparring talk. the timing appears to be critical too based on the initial impression james has on you: if you talked to him asap or delayed talking to him.
  • this probably goes without saying but the chances of james sending you mail may also be determined if you allowed him to become familiar with you or not (allowing the nicknames and/or aftersparring talk and/or probably the purgatory talk, which is what we're set to determine in the first place).
  • the mail is titled "Got a minute?" in case you were wondering.

from what i found above and in tandem with the point about forgetting to go to purgatory i think the issue is not just restricted to james. don't interact with any of them or interact with them too late and you might as well forget about fully gaining their trust further along the game. since james' bit is the N7 talk (in comparison to garrus' bottleshooting etc) i think the reasonable assessment is that james doesn't fully trust you enough if you fail some of the conditions for his story progression. of note, james might've had few lines we'll ever hear but bioware sure did anticipate MANY possible scenarios.

T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:13, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'll check the effect of not allowing nicknames - I've done the sparring and the dialogue about the Collectors, but no way I'm having my FemShep called Lola! I've already done the Purgatory talk, as well, and I will be shortly into the Cerberus sweeping on the Citadel, so I'll see if I get the email. Either way, I believe the article could use some refinement. --Ygrain (talk) 07:49, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

2 internets says that not allowing the nicknames may stay so long as you get james' perspective on grunts (beer!) and you get to know him fast enough (at least before tuchanka) - he'll call you shepard during the n7 talk instead of loco/lola. out of curiosity did you take the interrupts while sparring? did you pull rank on him? that -may- also have had an effect. never played a game without taking those and i was always easy on the guy (just found out you'll spar with him regardless of whether you're nice or mean to him. also, i'm rewording a bit above)
looks like i delved into too much explanation for one simple thing: does forgetting to go to purgatory affect the appearance of the email. the shortest answer appears to be "yes" and the short answer appears to be "yes but with potentially extenuating circumstances". T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 09:27, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
Those wonderful punching interrupts? :D - Sure I did, seeing my slender Shep punch a guy twice her size and five times her weight was precious :DD And, yeah, she's Commander - and besides, I don't like Vega, so I take every chance to put him down. I really fail to see his appeal. - But those dialogue variations are interesting, Bioware did put some thought into this.--Ygrain (talk) 10:02, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
we'll be getting an anime of him soon if you care to watch that kind of stuff. your opinion of the guy may change for the better if the execution is good or degrade further if they managed to screw it up (can't really say they'll screw up in the visuals at least - production IG is almost synonymous to quality). as for myself i just find it amusing to ALWAYS have james go fix some tower/computer/turret/whathaveyou. especially if there's tali or EDI in the squad. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 14:59, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

Question. Edit

Not to sound pushy, but are you planning on voting on the Forum:Flamewar Bans Policy 2.0, because you said you support the idea, and I would feel a lot better about my chances with a support vote, also, if you have any problems with the policy, please bring them to my attention.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:34, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Language Policy Edit

Hello Ygrain I just wanted to inform you I clarified the language policy and added a note to make it more clear. THankyou for reading this I would greatly appreciate your support.--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 16:44, August 27, 2012 (UTC).

Chat Message. Edit

Apparently, you have to be on for me to view the message, so either message me when you're on again, or you could just leave the message on my user page if it's not too private.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:41, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'll be on the chat the next hour or so, are you around? --Ygrain (talk) 04:32, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am.--Legionwrex (talk) 05:20, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

No Need to Fear, Milkman is Here! Edit

Hey, I wrote me up a new blog, if you didn't see my comment on yours already. Thought you might want to add a couple cents.

Click here to read it. Click here if you don't care.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 03:26, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and hey, I have been writing a lot more blogs on Elder Scrolls wiki as of late. I've written a ton there, and will be continuing to do so. I got nominated for the news team, so I'll also be writing some news blogs there as well. I hope to write an Mass Effect blog here there, though. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 09:10, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Fed up with being a teacher? Impossible! :P

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 14:32, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Finally took your advice Edit

I finally followed in your footsteps and posted my first fanfic. I hope my attempt doesn't soil the reputation of fanfic blogs on this wiki. Midnightpiranha (talk) 23:57, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

More Milkman? Edit

In the off chance you might enjoy any of my blogs, I wrote a short one to keep you updated, and if you want to know about any future blogs I write (I intend to do some blogs on a lot of other wikis as well.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 16:22, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

"A lot of other wikis"? Lol, I think I'd better stick with the wikis of the games I actually played, so as long as it is DA or ME, keep me informed, please :-)

- FYI, Long Days, Long Nights 3 is out there :-) --Ygrain (talk) 16:36, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Will do! Also, I'll be sure to check out the third installment in the epic fanfic series soon!

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 17:14, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Delivery Edit

Well, I hope you enjoy it! Be sure to comment and vote if you do! ;) I'll be sure to comment on the thrilling conclusion!

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 19:34, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Update (setback)Edit

So some time ago I mentioned that I was trying to write out something about the blitz. Well I got somewhere into it and then decided to play ME1 for the first time (a bit late I know). Anyway it forced me to scrap what I had since it disagreed with what I leared about the blitz in ME1 on a fundamental level and I am trying to come up with a new storyboard. So if you were expecting something to come up soon, it wont. If you weren't expecting anything... it still wont. Midnightpiranha (talk) 20:26, October 28, 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I was away for some time and couldn't read more of your works. Pls check the latest Akuze chapter for my comment.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 10:16, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Update Edit

Hey, you asked me to update you, and this is me updating you. :P

Chapter two of 'Mass Effect: Neurosis' is up. Sqarkplugz (talk)

Re: special forces trainingEdit

If you could give me clues on anything more specific you wanted then I would know where to start looking a bit more, I could try to pry something out of what para training is like from someone. Midnightpiranha (talk) 16:59, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Still Here! Edit

Sorry, I'm a bit distracted. I'm still in chat though!

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 20:28, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and hey, if you have a YouTube account, you should check out the comments section of this video. Be warned, your IQ might drop!

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 20:58, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to chat. If you need to get my attention, just leave a message on my wall, or email me.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 21:51, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Chat? Edit

I'll be in the chat room if you need me.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 15:46, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Sharrukin's Memoirs Edit

So you checked out that fan-fic I recommended to you a while back? You must obviously like it as you put it in your "Great ME pieces". So what do you find great about Sharrukin's writing?--SolitaryReaper (talk) 06:19, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, except the obvious skill with language, he provides a really convincing Liara PoV - there are a lot of minute observations based on the physical, mental and cultural differences between humans and assari which add depth to her relationship with Shepard as well as to her personality, the way he deicts her makes her future transition into Shadow Broker way more convincing. He also handles the narrative very well - he comes up with clever ways to enhance Liara's role in various quests without making her a Mary Sue (e.g. turning Shai'ra's little quest into a test of Liara's skills and morals) and, what I appreciate most, he plans ahead to foreshadow and make the future development of the narrative fit (introducing TIM and Miranda and the possibility of future cooperation with Cerberus, thus making the transition to ME2 storyline much smoother). Add to it a realistic touch on events, a broad scope of knowledge (from Greek culture to paleontology and star drift), and I am more than intrigued. --Ygrain (talk) 11:09, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

N-training Edit

Sorry this took so long, the holidays can be a pain. Anyway, now we can finally get to discussing ideas on what N-training is like. Considering the important role that it plays in Shepard's background we know surprisingly little about it. Personally, I prefer it that way since it gives the player more leeway in determining what the most intense training the Alliance offers is like.

Since I have no idea where to start with ideas, I'll start at the very beginning and what it takes to get into N-training (at least in my head). Seeing as N7 is the only designation allowed to be worn on a uniform, it always seemed to me that N7's would be the equivalent of Navy SEAL's in terms of recruiting. The SEAL's, at least by name, are one of the most highly visible organizations of the military despite making up approximately 1% of the entire Navy. In fact, Navy statistics show that 79% of people who contact a recruiter on becoming a SEAL sign an enlisted contract despite just 35% actually making it to BUD/S training (and only ~25% of those who get that far tend to pass training). I see no reason as to why this wouldn't be analogous to the Alliance N7 program. Legion even has "N7 Code of Honor: Medal of Duty" listed in his gaming profile. Needless to say, N7's would be an excellent tool to bolster recruiting numbers.

With the premise that a significant number of potential recruits are initially interested in N-training (because who wouldn't be in at least some capacity?), I believe there are three ways to enroll in basic N-training, the N1 class. The first would be the most simple, applying directly for it. Just as a present-day civilian can sign a SEAL contract that would eventually lead them to BUD/S training, a human in the 22nd century should be able to apply directly for the Interplanetary Combatives Academy (and would attend pending the completion of recruit training and meeting various standards).

The second would be applying from another "branch" of the Navy. As a member of the Alliance Navy/Marines, soldiers would be able to request a transfer, likely pending the approval of a superior officer, to enroll with the ICT program. Seeing as Shepard can have a varied background, this would be open to most vocations within the Alliance Navy with the exception of non-combatant MVCs.

The final way that I believe one would gain admission to N-training is via commendation. James Vega tells us that he received an N7 commendation in ME3, and we discuss what it entails in very vague terms with him. Obviously this throws some information from Paragon Lost aside as we have no previous mention of Vega being Special Forces and know that he's not an N7. The N7 commendation, therefore, would not only be an honor bearing the name of the most prestigious Alliance MVC but also an invitation to attend N-School.

So there it is, a maybe-not-so-brief overview of my ideas on what pre-N-training entails. Does that sound reasonable? Did you think something entirely different? Do you not care at all about the selection process and just want to delve right into the issue of what the N1 class might be? I'm always interested to hear what other people think about Alliance special forces training so I won't feel too bad if you think I'm insane. --YamiX0 (talk) 06:20, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the input. I can totally commiserate, Xmas is definitely a pain in you-know-where :-)
I hope you don't mind me continuing over here? I don't much like cross-pages talk, especially when it's supposed to be some coherent ideas exchange.
As I read the wiki (and the Bioware source), I got the impression that to enter the training, commendation is needed, as it says that the school "recruits officers", which, IMHO, means an effort on their part, not on that of the trainees. I'm a bit at a loss, though, why it says "officers" - is this to make sure that the person has both experience and at least some leading skills? There are a couple of hints here and there which seem to suggest an emphasis on leadership - during the basic training, you have there "leading small units", and elsewhere it is stated that successful N-trainees have personalities for "leadership positions".
Now that I have watched the BUD/S and Surviving the Cut (Rangers), I guess I might have a basic idea what and how is required from the trainees but on the other hand, there are quite a couple of questions unanswered - two of them, sort of interrelated:
First, how do females do their N-training? Because, equal rights or not, at the end of the day an average tough girl is inevitably less strong than an average tough guy - not sure if this applies to endurance, as well, but there would definitely be different levels of e.g. cold resistance. Do women train separetely, then? But how would mixed units work if the members qualified according to different standards?
Second, to what extent might the 22nd century high-tech equipment affect the requirements of the training? Apparently, there would still be some emphasy on physical fitness but perhaps not merely on strength. Somehow, I think that speed, endurance, stress resistance, nimbleness of hand and attention to detail might be highlighted.
What do you think, how would these issues affect the training? - And I certainly won't think you insane, I've spent too much time delving into particular details to be entitled to such criticism :-) --Ygrain (talk) 14:44, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
my impression was its a course for officers only, probably initial recruitment runs more along the SAS style i.e. anyone can be considered, but only a few are chosen, already having served in the military (rather than just sign a form and try to go striaght there). If you are chosen you take part in the first course at the N-villa. If you pass that you get N1 (lots of candidates would drop out about here), if you pass with flying colours you get invited back for the second course etc. At the end of the 6th course you are given the N6 designation. Then having got an N6, you get commended for N7 for work in active combat. Just how I thought it would work. Midnightpiranha (talk) 15:49, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
These are my impressions, as well. The tricky part is figuring out some details, and guess why I want to know ;-) How's your writing going? --Ygrain (talk) 15:53, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
bad to the extent that I should read the whole codex before thinking up ideas next time. So much for crashing a fighter into a reaper at ftl speeds to get revenge. Midnightpiranha (talk) 15:58, December 31, 2012 (UTC) p.s. what wikipedia says roughtly about training for the SAS and the like
Oops, sorry to hear that. You know, I (mostly) stay out of technical descriptions for a reason :-)
Thanks for the link, it's one more highly useful insight. However, it still doesn't shed any light on the two issues I poised above: female training, and role of high-tech. Any ideas? Because, correct me if I am wrong, but not many girls in the special forces today, if any, right? --Ygrain (talk) 16:52, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Interesting points. I completely missed the whole "officers" line but I'm not quite sure there would be enough candidates if trainees are limited to only officer ranks. I definitely agree that the strongest candidates would be found by an effort of the Alliance, meaning the highest pass rates would be held by attendees who arrived via commendation. Also, leadership is definitely emphasized throughout N-training as it is in most special forces. Trainees are expected to develop into at least small unit leaders and if someone doesnt possess the necessary traits, they're sent home. And while I believe that enlisted soldiers (including NCO's which likely make up a large majority of the Alliance and may fulfill the officer requirement of N-training) can participate, I always had in my head that NCO N7 graduates would be conferred officer status.
Your point about females in N-training is an intriguing one. While I have to agree that an average man is physically stronger than an average woman, there is really no debating it, most of N-training is really more mental than physical. N1 training especially, like almost all special forces training, would likely focus on mental toughness and overcoming the physical problems making you want to quit. The general standards for men and women would have to be roughly the same, otherwise you risk a lesser qualified candidate succeeding. Unfortunately it is likely inevitable that men outnumber women in N-training and likely by a wide margin. Present day, I believe women are not even allowed in most special forces organizations.
However, despite the emphasis on physical fitness, all Alliance soldiers undergo gene therapy upon enlisting. While this wouldn't make someone like Ashley as strong as Vega, odds are it would bridge the gap enough to reach an acceptable standard. But strength is just one aspect of physical fitness as you already touched upon. An ideal N7 Operative would need to be well rounded, which means a combination of strength, stamina and agility (i.e. someone who lacks for physical strength can perform endurance operations that another soldier would struggle with). Just because a woman may not be able to match the physicality of her male counterpart, she could easily make up for those shortcomings with greater endurance and dexterity. It is even arguable that someone with a more well rounded level of fitness would be more ideal for clandestine insertion operations.
You took the words right out of my mouth with technology. Even by current standards technology is becoming more and more prevalent on the battlefield. In 150 years it would be even more so. While a physically tough candidate may excel at certain portions of N-training, the other side requires advanced technical skills and precise body control. Seeing as electromechanical systems dominate the ME universe, precise technical skills would likely be required of even non-tech specializations. Also, the omni-tool seems to be an essential piece of military equipment. The mechanized nature of warfare means that a woman could easily disable a stronger foe by simply playing to her strengths.
Hopefully that at least began to address the issue. There is an episode of "Surviving the Cut" about the Sapper course. If you haven't watched it then you may be interested in it. I believe the US Sapper course is currently the only special operations-like school currently open to women and the episode intreviews one in particular. The SAS link is a great one. While my personal ideas revolve a lot around the US military, it's a safe bet that an Alliance training program would draw from the ideas of many countries. --YamiX0 (talk) 17:58, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Haha, I feel like I'm mining a bonanza :-) So, Sappers allow in women? Will definitely have to watch that one, though I have no idea when I might get round to it (I hope I won't have to fall ill again to find the time!).
Now, how about some particular skills and disciplines that Shepard certainly had to pass? I bet on some kind of vertigo test - as one actually suffering from vertigo, I nearly get a fit whenever I see him balance on a catwalk. Also, a driver's course would be logical, given the Mako (and Hammerhead, grr - don't know which one was worse), not to mention that cab chase in LotSB. And, what about resistance to the effects of sensoric deprivation, which, if I'm not mistaken, is what astronauts have to go through?--Ygrain (talk) 18:46, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
some other points that came to mind. due to the wide number of environments that the alliance could be deploying people to, there are likely to be several endurance tests and combat exercises with extremes of gravity (so you could look up high G training for fighter pilots as well as having trips to high gravity planets), atmosphere pressure and viscosity, temperature. Probably stuff about how to fight on board ships with precision. The codex mentioned jet packs and rocket boots so there will also be training not so distant from paratrooper training. advanced flying of common vehicles (e.g. UT-47) although unlikely to be to fighter pilot standard. Because all indications show that N7 people are few and far between I would expect quite a lot of training about how to deal with numerically superior enemies.
Chances are there is going to be a very slanted man/woman ratio.
If you don't want to focus on that much tech stuff, you could set it out that there is a minimum level in combat and technical skills required, but candidates must also reach a higher level in a couple of specialisations or a much higher standard in a single specialisation (which could then evolve into the separate classes that shepard can be). But it would be sensible to portray N- candidates as generally being more technically adept than vega. Midnightpiranha (talk) 18:59, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
p.s. Mako is the worse, its practically a turret and would get easily overwhelmed by hand held anti tank weapons.
p.p.s Where do you think N-training fits into the timeline? I think N1-6 happens before akuze/elysium/torfan and then s/he is given N7 for his/her actions there.
Yep, evolution's a b*tch and there would definiely be no quotas for females in the special forces :-)
I'd also say that an N7 should be highly versatile and, if need be, able to operate very efficiently on their own (much like in Arrival), so there must be a really broad spectrum of situations in the training - it would also correspond to what is typical of Shepard, as he always fidns a way out, no matter the odds.
I decided to put the N-training only post-Akuze and make it the feat that brought him the commendation. --Ygrain (talk) 19:15, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Tactical driving is one essential skill that all N-operatives would have to master. I believe it's the modern day Green Beret's that learn how to hotwire cars properly and it would probably the be the same principle for N-training (its worth checking out the Green Beret's, they have similar training in medicine and language as N7's). These soldiers need to have the skills necessary to operate whatever they might come across in all kinds of hostile territory so proficiency in all methods of driving on many different platforms would be essential. Just looking at the Mako and X3M skycar, Shepard's driving may not always be pretty but it's clearly effective. As for vertigo and stuff like that, in 150 years that may be fairly simple to correct.
Sensory deprivation would be another important aspect (I have it multiple times in my ideas of N2, N3 and N5 classes). It would be difficult enough operating in amphibious/high-g/low-g/toxic environments. Removing the ability to see, which is a legitimate concern, actually has come precedence in underwater demolitions where visibility is at a minimum. Granted, the battle suit that Shepard wears should be able to counteract most of the ill effects from any environment.
I agree whole heartedly about minimum combat and technical skills required of N7's which really fits into the classes that you can choose. Clearly in ME2 Shepard can hack/bypass mostly anything he needs to which shows some level of skill but we see in the Omega DLC that an Engineer is far more advanced than other specializations when it comes to rerouting the reactor power.
We know that N-training focuses primarily on small unit tactics. Special Forces would never engage a numerically superior force head on, so training would also deal with stealth reconnaissance and guerilla warfare (like the description for an Infiltrator, just not as in-depth for other classes). But I always had in my head that while N1-N5 emphasized those small units, that N6 would be a highly focused class on the individual working to develop the skills necessary to survive deep in hostile territory while performing high risk operations (as was said, like Arrival).
Lastly, I always felt that Shepard was tagged for N-training early on and was an N7 prior to the psych profile event. One of the nice things about the lack of detail provided in the background though is that it really fits whatever you choose to believe. I'm really trying to make these posts shorter. Not sure if it's working... --YamiX0 (talk) 20:32, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Never mind the length :-)
OK, adding Green Beret to the list-to-watch, those skills definitely seem like something Shepard could use. I'm not sure, though, to what extent the training should rely on compensating undesirable traits by tech - to find out that someone responds badly to sensory deprivation only after their hardsuit has been damaged might be quite fatal, so I guess this risk must be eliminated during the training. Concerning vertigo, I have no idea where phobias stem from, therefore I cannot assume if it could be treated somehow or not, either way, it would still be safer if the trainee didn't suffer from it.
I gave quite some thought to the timeline and discussed with several people whether Akuze should be pre-training or a part of it, and decided that I like better the former option - it gives Shepard the time to prove himself in the military and I feel that achieving the feat without the special training makes it more admirable. Basically, I think that the potential was always there but Akuze brought out the resolve. --Ygrain (talk) 21:08, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
I can respond to this quickly! If anything, suit ruptures should be part of training. An N7 needs to prepared for any possibility in nearly any situation and suit failure is fatal in many instances. Whether its a rupture in a toxic atmosphere, the oxygen line like in ME2, or something more simple like the suit just not responding or visibility dropping to zero, N-training needs to put the student in that scenario so that the graduate won't panic in the field.
Also I think phobias and the like would be addressed early on. If it can't be fixed medically or overcome through sheer force of will, I think that candidate would simply fail out of training. It's unfortunate, but even today people fail out of this kind of training due to relatively minor medical problems. --YamiX0 (talk) 21:31, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the suit ruptures being on N- training. That is important enough to go entirely in basic training. Some degree of high/low G too but N- training would have greater depth. Working with little sleep is a part I remember from the codex. I am pushing again for high viscosity atmospheres since those would be physically very tiring to travel across and difficult to shoot accurately through. N- training should also probably have very long range marksmanship so absolutely ever N7 can snipe to some reasonable extent. Midnightpiranha (talk) 03:19, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
True enough, suit maintenance should be the basics for every soldier. But, perhaps an N-trainee would get an advanced course, perhaps simulating effects of poisonous environment etc. High viscosity environment would definitely complicate things - I think it's even mentioned somewhere that this can be a specialisation in the advanced training.
I love getting me some sniping, my soldier Shep was sniping all the time :-) --Ygrain (talk) 06:39, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as every soldier wears a combat suit there should definitely be basic skills associated with it, but an N-trainee would be required to go above and beyond. Where a normal soldier might quit with something like a suit rupture, an N7 would be expected to perform repair and continue on with their mission.
I agree with the high viscosity environment idea and believe that goes rather well with the combat diving portion of N-training. Water is a highly viscous fluid (at least comparatively) and the ocean fights you every step of the way. If you can operate in water, other environments shouldn't be much of a problem.
And as I play an Infiltrator, sniping tends to be my bread and butter. I believe that Infiltrator specialists would attend schools akin to the US Marine Scout Sniper course but every class of soldier would need to meet certain proficiency requirements on all weapons platforms. The requirements would just vary depending on specialty. --YamiX0 (talk) 07:00, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I have nothing more to add until I do my homework. You are, of course, most welcome to come up with your ideas, I'll be looking forward to reading them :-) - Oh, and on a little sadistic note: any thoughts about the actual procedures the N-trainees are put through? --Ygrain (talk) 09:10, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

If you fail the physical endurance tests, you would be told at the top of the hill/as far away from home as possible just out of spite.

Blocked Edit

You have now been blocked for two weeks for canvasing for votes on an official policy forum page. The precedent for this was established by Commdor when a previous user canvased for votes on a policy forum page. In addition, that user was banned for longer because of what they did afterwards, which does not affect you in this instance.

However, you have to be notified that what you did was completely unethical. It showed that you had no faith that you could win the vote fairly and therefore had to resort to dirty tactics to win. You only went to people who you know would have voted against the policy, and drew people who you know would have voted against it. There are way to many coincidences here to say that you didn't do something to get additional votes. You couldn't win the vote fairly, so you went out and needless to say committed unethical acts. If users do not care enough about the wiki to check in to see these things, then that should tell you something.

In addition, you are hereby banned from voting in the next real policy forum debate. That would be one with an actual proposal. This is because you have shown that you cannot do a vote fairly so you cannot take part in the process to promote change, not once, but twice. Lancer1289 (talk) 08:54, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

I protest against being blocked on the basis of merely alerting users to the vote. The precedent about informing users on a selective basis is NOT included in the current guidelines, therefore I was not aware this would be considered inappropriate.
Furthermore, I hereby proclaim that I never used chat to urge people to vote, nor asked anyone to do so on my behalf, and unless you can produce a chat log to prove me lying, which I am not, you cannot use your unbased suspicions to justify my block. --Ygrain (talk) 17:50, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

I concur with this protest.

The next part of my message is mainly directed to Lancer1289, and this time I expect answers, would you kindly.

Please give your definition of "canvassing". I feel it might differ from the commonly used one, found here.

Can you provide direct evidence of Ygrain "canvasing" the votes? Links, logs, screenshots, whatever works. Because neither here, nor on on the policy page you never presented any evidence at all, that said user was indeed "canvassing the votes". Without presenting evidence, you are basing your ban on your personal opinion, and by referring to some mythical "solid evidence" without presenting it, you are making an impression that you are simply making it up.

Well, you can't do that, admin or no.

I, however, can present evidence, that Ygrain, in fact, did NOT canvas the votes. She did contact me during both votes about the chat policy, but she did not attempt to sway my opinion at all, she merely informed me (I'm grateful, btw).

Link 1 For your convenience just type "Ygrain" in the search filter of your browser.


Needless to say, there were no canvassing in her messages. As for your allegations of Ygrain swaying the votes of other Wikia users, again, there were none. Being present at the moment, while Ygrain INFORMED the Dragon Age wiki chat users of the voting going on, I claim that there was no canvassing. You, Lancer1289, however, were NOT present. I can also bring eyewitnesses per your first request, the very users I mentioned. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a screenshot of the chat window. Humorously enough, neither can you.

"You only went to people who you know would have voted against the policy, and drew people who you know would have voted against it" - That statement is false. Moreover, it is a blatant lie. Ygrain INFORMED a number of users on the chat about the voting. The majority of them did not care, therefore refused to vote. You can't find their votes on the page now, can you?

In my personal opinion, I find this ban frivolous and voluntaristic and imply abuse of power. -Algol- (talk) 19:03, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

No what you did was almost the exact same thing. I will not get into a debate about it but when three admins agree that it was canvasing, especially one who is known for impartiality, which isn't me, then clearly something was wrong. You specifically went to people who you know would vote against the policy, and then encouraged them to tell more people who they knew would vote against. That is canvasing. The ban will not be overturned. You brought this on yourself and have no one to blame but yourself. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:26, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Don't avoid the topic and show me the REG where this is defined as unacceptable. You're blocking me on the basis on non-existent policy. And once more, I encouraged no-one to do a thing. --Ygrain (talk) 19:34, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

"clearly something was wrong"

Something was wrong? Really? You cannot base your accusations and bans on "something". You are only authorized to base them on FACTS. Present the facts. Present the evidence.

"You specifically went to people who you know would vote against the policy, and then encouraged them to tell more people who they knew would vote against. That is canvasing"

1. Lie. She did not go solely to those people you mentioned. She was informing a relatively vast amount of people on DA wiki chat, the majority of which did not care and did not vote.

2. That is NOT the definition of canvassing. That is not what canvassing is. Check the link I provided earlier.

And please stop avoiding the topic.

Present the evidence (if you have it, of course and if you don't - just say so).

Provide the REG (if you can, and if you can not - just say so).

Lancer1289, if you allow me a personal opinion, I assume you are a grown up man. Part of being that means taking responsibility for your actions. Own up to your responsibility. -Algol- (talk) 20:17, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

She did nothing but raise people's awareness about the vote. She didn't dictate to them one way or the other. If one is afraid of people finding out about the vote, I think that says something.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 21:57, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been asked to respond by multiple parties:
First and foremost, this block was not a unilateral action on the part of Lancer1289. It was brought to the attention of Lancer, SpartHawg948, and myself that Ygrain was informing users on other wikis about the vote on the Chat policy. We concluded that this was a form of canvassing, and it was decided that a block was necessary. We do not believe that Ygrain acted with deliberate malicious intent, but this is a serious issue which has to be addressed in a manner that makes clear it is not acceptable.
Second, to my knowledge, there is currently no written policy explicitly describing canvassing or classifying it as a block-worthy offense. The reason for that is simple: we are a small wiki, and we do not maintain an exhaustive list of all punishable offenses because many have not occurred here (or they occur so rarely that going to the trouble of setting them in writing is superfluous). When an act is identified as a possible offense that is not listed in our policies, we examine any relevant precedents (if they exist) and follow their example in handling the matter; if there are no precedents, we also check the policies found at Wikipedia, upon which many of our own policies are based. In this case, we drew upon a precedent which I set several months ago when I blocked a user for canvassing votes with clear malicious intent, and at the time, I had used Wikipedia's behavioral guideline on canvassing (most pertinent was the "Votestacking" section) in determining whether that user had committed an offense.
Lastly, if anyone still believes that the block on Ygrain was not justified and should be lifted, ME Wiki does have a Ban Review Panel. If you intend to utilize this venue, please read the instructions carefully. Note that the review process will take a minimum of seven days, so even if Ygrain's block (two weeks in duration) is lifted by the panel, half of it will still have elapsed. It may be simpler to wait out the block, but the decision to use the panel or not is ultimately Ygrain's.
To conclude, admins made a judgment call that was well within our power to make. It was not made lightly, or by a single admin. Administrators hold an important position that balances authority and trust, and I have seen firsthand the consequences of upsetting that balance and the abuse of admin privileges. I would not condone this block if I believed it crossed a line, and I know for certain that Spart, as ME Wiki's bureaucrat and a person whose judgment I hold in the highest regard, would not either. Should Spart choose to comment on this matter, he'll be able to elaborate on any details I missed or correct anything I may be mistaken about, but I believe I have thoroughly explained all of the major points of contention. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:15, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

You did not explain all major points.

Point 1

You said the decision for the ban was made based on your precedent. But it is irrelevant here. In your precedent the user was canvassing the votes. In this case Ygrain did NOT canvas the votes. I base this on the links I provided earlier.

Point 2

You said you believe this was a form of canvassing. To quote the Reaper AI, "your belief is not required". You can NOT base bans on beliefs and assumptions. Only facts.

Point 3

Ah, yes, facts. Where are they? Where is the evidence against Ygrain? Please present it. -Algol- (talk) 22:36, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, it is already explained in the "votestacking" section of the wikipedia article that Commdor linked to how Ygrain's actions where a form of canvassing.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:43, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, a few things:

1. Since when is Mass Effect Wiki considered a "small" wiki? Mass Effect is a hugely popular series, and as such traffic is high.

2. This is not Wikipedia. If the rules of this wiki do not clearly state it, she didn't do anything wrong.

3. She never once encouraged any of those people to pick one side or the other. She was merely bringing the discussion to them. In reality, this could have easily led to votes being cast on either side.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 22:50, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

All of the people she went for are most likely to vote against the policy, given their previous opinions on similar matters. Heck, I saw this happening before this was even brought to the admins attention, and even I could see what was happening.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:53, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

"Most likely" and "similar" are not grounds for a ban. She never once endorsed any side. There is nothing here that states this is against the rules, and most, if not all, of the messages were sent on other wikis. This is an abuse of power.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 22:56, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia's definition of votestacking (which is what Commodor stated that the previous incident's judgement was based upon): "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Is there any evidence that Ygrain believed that the people she encouraged to vote would vote against the proposal? Unless there is something that points to this, it is unjust to accuse of votestacking. Regardless, a user is being punished for something they would have had no way of knowing was considered against the rules. A warning would be understandable, given that mention of this rule was only added immediately before the block, but a block for an unstated rule is unwarranted. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 23:05, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

About that Wikipedia rule. As you might have noticed, it is on Wikipedia. To quote Lancer1289 himself, "We aren't Wookieepedia, we are the Mass Effect Wiki so don't go applying policies from other wikis here as that doesn't work" (source). There was not a single rule on this wiki concerning the alleged "canvassing" when Ygrain was banned. Commdor's precedent does not apply, because Ygrain was not canvassing, and the admins cannot prove the opposite.

As for Ygrain allegedly targeting specific audience, it is, again, a false statement. She did inform people on DA wiki chat, but most of them did not care and did not vote. I was present at that moment. Lancer was not, Commdor was not, Legionwrex was not. Please desist from making wild assumptions about events you have no idea about.

Recently the Community Central Wiki notified me about a vote going on their wiki about the best game of 2012. Where they canvassing? Of course not. And that is exactly the same thing Ygrain did. Also, during the first vote on the chat policy I myself informed another user about it. Source, keywords for search: "I was asked to spread the word". Dear admins, are you banning me too now? From your logic, you should.

For the third time. PRESENT THE EVIDENCE OF YGRAIN'S "CANVASSING", otherwise your claims are null and void. Logs, screenshots, links. Lancer1289 evaded the topic, Commdor evaded the topic. We do not trust your words, so you have to back them up with facts. If you can not do it, lift the ban, admit your mistake and apologize. -Algol- (talk) 23:42, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

You know what, get off of your soapbox, because you are just not helping. Ygrain the second time clearly went to users who they knew would vote against based on their opinions voiced the last time and their votes last time. So it was votestacking and canvasing. Ygrain also told other users, who they knew would vote against, to tell other users about it. If a user cares about this wiki and its policies they will come around and find them. If not, then it shows their focus to this wiki. That is canvasing, and is therefore not tolerated. I will not argue this point further since everything has already been laid out and the evidence, especially the second time, is clear. Now, the block will stay in place and arguing over it further is pointless. All admins voted yes to the block and that is the way it will say. You berating admins is not helping your case, nor is you yelling from your soapbox. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:54, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

And what rule did she break? What warning was she given? None. She merely raised awareness about your policy, and didn't even endorse a side. They could have sided with you. If you rely on ignorance to get a policy passed, that says something. This is not canvassing, but you know what? That's a moot point entirely. There is no rule here that restricts that. If she truly did "votestack" then the fault is yours.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 00:12, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Look, you want evidence? I'll give you evidence.

Copy-pasted, so not formatted. Deal with it. Why lookee here. Someone demanding evidence who already had the evidence. Cuz that's cool. I posted the info about what she did in the forum. Stare decisis. Precedent matters, and Commdor set the precedent a while back. You want to attack someone? Attack me! Leave Lancer be. This is pathetic. SpartHawg948 (talk) 01:04, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

How about a link to the policy she broke? --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:09, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

See my previous comment. SpartHawg948 (talk) 01:13, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
-Algol- says there was no canvassing, and that Ygrain was merely informing people of the vote. -Algol-, I don't think canvassing means what you think it means. Let's check the dictionary. "to solicit votes, subscriptions, opinions, or the like from." Ygrain was soliciting votes and opinions. She wasn't soliciting votes for one side or the other, but that's not part of the definition, is it? SpartHawg948 (talk) 01:16, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

What the dictionary says is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the policies say.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:55, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Commdor covered that more than adequately in his comment. And, when discussing whether or not canvassing occurred, the dictionary is extremely relevant. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:00, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

@SpartHawg Splendid. At least you response was relatively more mature then Lancer's. The person who accused me of "snide commentary" now tells me I'm "yelling out of a soapbox". A statement not really worthy of an admin.

See, the definition you provided might not be what you think canvassing is. I can provide my own definition (again!), here it is. I mean, if you decided to apply Wikipedia rules all of a sudden (except that they do not apply here), I think it will be logical to apply Wikipedia definitions and NOT your dictionary. I can give you a definition from MY dictionary which says that canvassing is a "thorough examination".

The "evidence" you have provided is a strawman argument. You're grasping strings. Per Milkman, Ygrain did not solicit votes from anyone, because soliciting implies persuasion. She did not persuade anyone. As for this definition, where canvassing literally means "asking urgently", Ygrain NEVER asked anyone to go and vote. Spread the word - maybe, go an vote - nope. She was INFORMING and you are still unable to prove otherwise.

I had provided you an example where the Community Central notified, INFORMED me of a vote. Care to comment? Were they canvassing?

I also asked Lancer a question about my possible ban. I did the same thing as Ygrain during the first vote. Care to comment?

And no, I did not attack Lancer, neither I am going to attack you. I argue, I do no not attack. You know what's pathetic? Grasping strings. Abusing power. Saying that "the admins decided and so it will be" without adhering to rules we ALL must abide. That is pathetic. -Algol- (talk) 02:02, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

No, -Algol-, you didn't provide the definition of canvassing. This is the definition of canvassing. What you provided was an article about canvassing in the context of political campaigns for electoral office, which would be relevant if we were talking about a political campaign for electoral office. We aren't. So, whereas I have provided the definition of canvassing, you have not.
The evidence I presented is consistent with the definition of canvassing. If anyone is grasping at straws and trying to knock down strawmen, it is you when you present us with a Wikipedia article on canvassing in political campaigns for electoral office. Speaking of straw men, your query about Community Central is only relevant if Community Central has previously banned individuals for canvassing votes. It is irrelevant here. This is not, shockingly enough, Community Central. So no, I decline to comment about how an entirely separate entity on Wikia conducts their internal business. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:15, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and out of curiosity, what rules, specifically, are the admins not adhering to that we ALL must abide by? SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:16, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

This is not, shockingly enough, Wikipedia, or the dictionary. This is Mass Effect Wiki. So using outside rules and definitions doesn't matter. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 02:20, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

When the definition of a word is questioned, and whether or not an action qualifies as an example of that word, yes. They do matter. Unless you're saying we should invent our own definitions for everything now, that is. I'm cool with having special "Mass Effect Wiki-only" definitions for the words of the English language, I guess. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:23, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about special "Mass Effect Wiki-only" rules. Y'know, the ones you ban people for? --The Milkman | I always deliver. 02:28, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and speaking of Wikia Central, I asked them to have their say on the matter. I don't particularly care as to what they decide, but this is just getting tiresome. Nice day to everyone. 4Ferelden (talk) 02:29, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

@The Milkman - Great. I, on the other hand, was addressing a point -Algol- made where he disputed the definition of the word "canvassing", substituting instead a Wikipedia article about a specific kind of canvassing. Then you started arguing for the irrelevancy of dictionary definitions, which were of course entirely relevant to the discussion between myself and -Algol-. And that's where you lost me. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:31, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and what I'm saying is that there is no actual policy on this wiki. That was my point. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 02:36, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

And Commdor addressed that point a while ago. He did so admirably. There isn't policy for every single eventuality. For example, there's no policy saying I can't ban you right now. There's no policy saying I can't lock down the entire wiki right now. There's no policy saying I can't demote all the admins and then delete every single page on the wiki. Since there can't be a policy for every single possible eventuality, some things depend on the Wiki equivalents of common law and stare decisis. And, as Commdor has amply pointed out, this falls under the latter case. There is existing precedent for this. We've made this point several times over. If it's not good enough for you any of those times, it likely never will be. If so, maybe go easy on that dead horse. It's been through enough. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:41, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't grant admins unlimited power. There was no justification for doing this. If Ygrain did anything wrong, she didn't know about it. Thus, you should warn her. That way, if such an action is repeated, you have cause to block here. Here, there was no reason. You are simply trying to retroactively justify an uncalled for ban.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 02:46, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Far from it. The ban wasn't agreed upon until the prior incident was reviewed and discussed. I personally opposed the ban until being informed of the previous incident. Don't presume to know what went on while the admins were deliberating. You're way off the mark. I sympathize with people saying she should have been warned. If a similar incident occurs in the future, I'll make sure we incorporate a warning first. I'm not saying this went down flawlessly even from the perspective of the admins. But you're way off the mark assuming we shot first and asked questions later. Again, you're assuming bad faith on the part of the admins while expecting us to assume good faith on the part of everyone else. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:51, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

And you're assuming bad faith on the part of Ygrain. If you believe this was poorly handled, and you intend to warn people in the future, Ygrain should be shown the same courtesy. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 02:54, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're way off the mark. No bad faith was assumed on Ygrain's part. I went to great lengths to ensure that the message left here for Ygrain didn't besmirch her personally. Telling someone they violated a policy and have been banned for two weeks isn't an assumption of bad faith. People break laws and policies through ignorance and negligence all the time, with no intent of malice or wrong-doing. That's what happened here. Nevertheless, if Commdor, of all people, felt the situation merited a two-week ban, I'm inclined to agree. I've never known Commdor to act rashly or without thinking. And I neber said that this matter was poorly handled. I said a warning may help in the future. I still feel our actions were completely justified. SpartHawg948 (talk) 03:05, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
A warning would have helped now, considering this is her first offence, breaking a rule that doesn't exist. You see, it's one thing to say that she was ignorant to a rule she was breaking, it's another entirely to ban her without warning for something that is not clearly defined as wrong. If you feel that what she did was wrong, fine. They you all should have warned her. One warning, and that's it. For something that's clearly written in as a rule, I can understand. For blatant vandalism or harassment, I can understand. For something like this? An automatic two-week ban is uncalled for. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 03:10, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Which is, of course, an opinion you are more than entitled to. Myself, Commdor and Lancer1289 felt differently given the circumstances and the existing precedent. If anyone wants to ask for a ban review, I'm certainly prepared to hear them out if asked to judge the matter, or to explain my actions to whoever is judging the matter. As Commdor has stated, we do have a mechanism in place for that. I will say though that I appreciate how you have approached this calmly and rationally. At least one other editor here has been, IMO, doing Ygrain a disservice by ranting against the admins and attracting vitriol and negative attention to her talk page. I know I personally was livid when I read some of those comments, and I like to think of myself as pretty easy-going. Thank you for taking a different route and discussing this maturely. SpartHawg948 (talk) 03:18, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll do this through the proper channels then. Thank you. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 03:20, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

"No, -Algol-, you didn't provide the definition of canvassing. This is the definition of canvassing. What you provided was an article about canvassing in the context of political campaigns for electoral office, which would be relevant if we were talking about a political campaign for electoral office"

Political campaigns. You could safely name a referendum, where people vote for or against certain laws, a political campaign. We voted for or against a certain chat policy. See, you're not the only one, who likes very loose analogies. That's why I brought up this article. Because one of the pieces of "evidence" you provided was Ygrain's message to me on my Dragon Age wikia talk page. What relevance it bears to the topic at hand? Ygrain was banned for her actions during the second vote, this message was about the FIRST one.

About the definitions. I agree that you can't make a special ME wikia dictionary for the entire English language. However, Commdor's precedent does not provide a clear definition of "canvassing", while in my humble opinion, it should. It's a rule. Rules need to be clear, and that doubles for the ones that punish people in form of bans. But this absence of clearance is not Ygrain's problem, she shouldn't be the one suffering from it.

About the specific definition of canvassing you provided. Soliciting votes. Alright. What's "solicitation" anyway, as it seems to be the important part of this definition? Here is a definition from your favorite dictionary. Please note, that it directly implies PERSUASION. Ygrain never persuaded anyone.

Also, I'll ask an admin for the third time. Am I getting banned or not? I did exactly the same thing as Ygrain during the first vote and linked it.

And an abstract question: don't you, or at least some part of you, think you went too hard? It's still not late to correct that. However, if you determined to stand by your decision, at least thank you and Commdor for noting a possible channel for ban review. -Algol- (talk) 06:37, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I see that my page was used as an argument for the "canvassing" of Ygrain. I totally disagree with those accusation. First, if we organize a vote on the wiki to change a policy, the idea is that most of the users can give their opinion and their preference. If you do a vote only to "democratize" your opinion and that you still apply your policy if people voted against, it is really bad faith. Especially if you say to every user : your vote don't count because your arguments are bad and that you don't know the problem. When i go to vote for a politician, he don't say me that i don't know the economical problem to dismiss my opinion. And if my opinion is not needed, he will not attempts to ask my vote. Furthermore you chose a "bouc émissaire" to defend your position and to destroy the opinion of other. By doing so your are saying that everyone's opinion is directed by Ygrain and that nobody can make an opinion on his own (or only a bad one cause he is "unaware" of the problem). And i will also add that you can be "unaware" of a problem but you still can be able to find a good solution to this, everyone on this wiki is not a brainless.

Regarding the vote on the forum policy, i clearly stated in a previous discussion that I was against this policy and I gave arguments and sense to my statements regardless of the opinion of Ygrain or anybody else. Then the vote was engage and I didn't saw it, I think that it was a good think that Ygrain told me that the vote was on its way because I was clearly interested in that matter. And since when are people forbidden to defend their position ? Since when people are not allow to seek support to others ? When you propose a vote, don't you seek support to other admins ? don't you tell to others admins that your statement is the right and that they have to vote for ?

I really can't understand the man hunt against Ygrain who only try to defend his opinion. If he deserves a ban then majority of this wiki should be banned... And once more, I’m not arguing against the work of admins/editors but only against this bad ambiance on the wiki because of such irrational decision. And once more, I’m not speaking on behalf of Ygrain... --DeldiRe 10:08, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

ask yourselves the fundamental nature of this question instead.


because you were all in MEWiki one time or another but decided to be "more active" in other wikis? if that's the case then you're all actually ignorant of the recent goings-on in here, of the happenings on chat that caused the proposal to be drafted. which is why you shouldn't be voting in the first place. ain't that right. lancer already posted the MEWiki behavior of most of you, who voted against the proposal because you were "notified", in the forum page. i need not lengthen this sh- with it. turns out i did below but you can still check his assessment out on the policy page

not to mention how suspicious messages pertaining to this wiki find their way onto walls of users with 0 edits in another wiki. case of parax, deldire, etc, see evidence above. even funnier is why midnightpiranha (or even deldire), who's somewhat active HERE, hasn't even been contacted through his talkpage IN THIS VERY WIKI.

here's the heart of the matter. if ygrain didn't "notify" any of you, what are the odds you'll just stroll in the policy forum and add your mostly irrelevant two cents on the matter. milkman, LLH, can probably expect their opinions there regardless, but how about the rest of you. 100%? 50%? 0%? 100%, you sure you stalk the wiki that much? again, are you even aware of the goings-on in here if ygrain didn't pull that stunt of hers? guess not. you'll be busy "socializing".

  • of those "notified" (as seen in evidence links above), only HELO and midnightpiranha can be inferred to have responded to the call directly. alexandr for some reason didn't chip in his all-important opinion on this, commandercousland, parax, mittens, all dead. deldire didn't vote. algol got a notification in november but not now. nikapoll and matt-256 are, what, one-time "voters" who only showed up after a certain DAwiki chat session?
  • let's dissect for, neutral and against.
    • ALL of those in the "for" camp have been known to hang around regularly in the wiki. (excepting spart but he does drop in time to time and probably knows the state of affairs from lancer)
    • the ones in the "neutral" camp have reservations, but mostly reasonable because we all know the policy is still flawed to some extent. side point, all (except arby) are more or less recently active in this wiki.
    • what about the "against" camp? LLH, milkman, ygrain. all active here ON BLOGS ONLY (ygrain, somewhat on chat). midnightpiranha only slightly more active on mainspace. phantombootieslap and shockstorm, came from nowhere (PBH had been around since nov, made a couple of good edits, had a legitimate change of mind). the rest? 4 virtual sockpuppets from the DAwiki. algol included.

keep deluding others that no "vote tainting" happened because of that "notification" spree and i'll point you this. put a sock to that "canvassing" nitpicking and let's use the words "notifying" instead.

you babble with misplaced indignation yet avoid the nature of that question. that's just low. (cruise control /off)

i wasn't even planning on voting on that proposal (initially) but your army of whiteknights clearly do not even understand the chat situation. i myself was initially ambivalent-against the proposal. details on spart's page. i just think it's in bad taste to "notify" others to a page where people can vote/voice opinions on matters they have zero knowledge or care of.

at the very least, you could've just "notified" people on their talkpages in this wiki. if they care enough, they'll check and respond. there's no real reason why you had to go "notify" people on other wikis especially when some of them haven't even edited there at all. it's not like wikia doesn't have a catch-all notification system that alerts you if you're active on DAWiki and someone posts on your MEW talkpage.

if i were you, i'd consider the two-week block a "warning". it could've been a permablock but it isn't. i'd even push for you to be "chat mod" after your block's over if i had any voice in it (i don't). partly as a stopgap solution to the newbie-unfriendliness you were harping on and partly due to your people skills.

T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 11:33, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

@Temporaryeditor: Amen to that a thousand times. To DeldiRe and some others, just ask yourself this question: if Lancer and other admins had chosen not to end the vote and instead responded in kind by notifying as many people as possible over other wikis, until the non-MEwiki voters vastly outnumbered anyone from here, would you really find this fair, balanced, democratic or anything of a kind? If not, then you're simply being hypocritical. 4Ferelden (talk) 11:49, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

@Temporaryeditor68: I will not respond to your ad hominem attacks and I would like to ask everyone else to refrain from doing so, as well. I will only reiterate for you that my ban was issued on the basis of a policy which is not explicitly stated, or linked, in the community guidelines, nor in the forum policy, and the precedent itself was neither discussed nor approved by the community vote. Whether what I did was right or wrong, I believe I’m well within my rights to demand that my actions should be judged according to the existing regulations and using a due process. The same then applies to your complaint that only all-time active users should participate in a vote: until you pass a policy establishing this as a prerogative to the right to vote, all users are considered equal in this respect.
4Ferelden: Check the contributions of the users I contacted as listed above, all of them had been members of the wiki prior. --Ygrain (talk) 13:01, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

@4Ferleden indeed it would be unfair, but Ygrain didn't do so. At least not with me and I’m listed as one of the people harassed by its "canvassing" campaign. And how can you be against such a behavior when you deny the opinion of people often present on the wiki (such Milkman, Ygrain or even me)?.

@allThe arguments against their opinion was "you are not aware of the situation and you are not a good editors, you are more present in blog,... I can agree that people who contribute, most of their time, to the general wiki may have more legitimacy to be admin or chat moderator but how can they be more "brained" than the others?

I will take an example of a bad contributor (most of its time editing in blog,  bad edit, complaining about the admins,...) : Me. Why i m such a bad editor ?
  • No good skills in wiki layout (never used a wiki before and not always easy to do a great layout), I'm then a wiki noob
  • English is not my native language, it is then hard to write great story or correct story telling of others
  • I don't have much time to spend on the wiki because I’m a full time worker (i have some time to respond here because i take a break during my day but i can't make a proper edit because I do not have access to tools such Mass Effect to check for information, screenshots,...)
  • I'm a bit lazy of being always undo
  • I'm a bit lazy of being mocked or treated like a retard when i propose an idea

There is something you need to understand before criticize the noobs editors :

  • 1) The quality of the wiki is very important and it is really hard to reach such quality when you are a beginner
  • 2) The quality of this wiki give low chance for people who want to correct minor grammatical errors, …
  • 3) The MEWiki is very complete and then, it is really hard to find new and relevant information, the only thing that can be proposed is reorganization or minor change
  • 4) When new contents appears, the wiki is immediately updated, I never had a chance to edit something with the news DLC because the edits were done too fast. It is a good thing but do not criticize new editors who came too late.
  • 5) When you propose something which come not from an admin mind, everybody don’t care about it and say that it is only stupid, even a new image to improve the layout of an article. Layout is a choice of taste, not everybody have the same taste than you…

Well there is some argument you need to take into account before treating people of brainless of “socializer”. If you do not want any of socialization on this wiki, how will you improve it’s communitarian aspect ? Wiki is not a forum and truly not a place for speculation, but this wiki is the only place where you can find true fan of the ME Universe and then people do want to share their question about this universe…

--DeldiRe 13:37, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I promised myself I wouldn't comment again, but I'm just sick of these semantics:

  • Temporaryeditor78: As usual, you hit the nail on the head of the matter, and as usual, you did it "anon" style.
  • 4Ferelden: Same to you.
  • Ygrain: (This whole thing is unnecessary because it is actually stated, but here goes) Something doesn't need to be explicitly stated in order to know not to do it. When Gethhavefeelings2 was banned, it wasn't explicitly stated, but it was still obviously a rather shady and somewhat unethical thing to do, and it's the same with this situation. The very fact that all this happened on another wiki (as if so that no one here would see it) is even shadier.
  • DeldiRe: Ygrain might not have had malice intent, but that's what happened. The rest of your comment has not purpose to this conversation what-so-ever except to re-hash the same "excuses of why I can't edit" and "can't we all just accept the newbies with open arms" arguments that have been used to death.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:49, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Legionwrex. All the time, everyone keeps complaining how people misbehave because they don't read the rules. I had read them. It wasn't there, even though a precedent dealing with this problem had already occured and had to be addressed. The paragraph about canvassing appeared only shortly before I was blocked, and as of now, still does not contain a definition what exactly falls under canvassing. I took care not to sway anyone’s opinion in any way, therefore I presumed that my actions of merely informing about an issue still fell within the range of acceptable.
As for using means to inform people other than the ME wiki talk pages, I’m afraid there are quite a couple of precedents for talking things in private, as proved by the talk pages of all three admins as well as [own].

Thank You Edit

On behalf of the Mass Effect Wikia, I would like to thank you for asking for your painfully ignorant whining about the ending to be removed from the site. As this site values accuracy of information, blogs which completely lie about the ending and aspects related to the ending are frowned upon. We hope that, in the future, you will make sure that all blogs do not include attacks on the ending that anyone who's played the game would know are false and stupid.

On behalf of wikia users everywhere, I'd like to inform you that a true representative of any wiki would bother to sign their posts and would not be so needlessly offensive. ----Isolationistmagi 20:45, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
Get your head out of your *** random anon. It's hilarious to see insignificant gits like you try to be sarcastic and insightful when you're nothing more than basement dwelling troglodytes trying to attention whore themselves. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 21:56, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

final goodbyesEdit

In the light of the recent events, and especially, I am leaving the wiki for good. I would like to thank those who expressed support to me, as well as everyone who read, commented and discussed on my blogs. Goodbye. --Ygrain (talk) 11:45, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

It's sad to see you go. We all wish the best for you! LilyheartsLiara (talk) 11:59, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go. You were a tempering voice on this wiki. Trandra (talk) 21:33, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
I never talked to you, but I supported your crusade from the sidelines. Your post on Spart's wall has never rung truer. You will be missed. Lksdjf (talk) 00:01, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. I have replied elsewhere, and I would like to ask anyone who might yet wish to talk to me to contact me elsewhere, as well. --Ygrain (talk) 08:49, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.