Talk:New Order

2014-10-06 Kadin Arbosa: The New Order have been claiming that E-Uni "vouches" for them, pointing to the section that says:

     there is some evidence that the New Order honors these "indulgences."

I have changed the language used to hopefully make it clearer that E-Uni is not actually vouching for the New Order, and simply reporting that there is some evidence for their indulgences being honored. Perhaps a simple "E-Uni does not vouch or in any way endorse the New Order" declaration would be better.

2014-10-07 Kadin Arbosa: I believe that the "not written from a neutral point of view" tag is not warranted. I am simply stating the facts. Unless E-Uni IS going to vouch for CODE, then the facts are: 1) we have had reports that CODE have honored their indulgences. 2) we have no evidence that it is universally honored. Given that my changes have been labeled as non-neutral, I will revert the changes I made, so as not to cause any issues.

Placed Under Protection and NPOV Template Re-Added

This page has recently seen high traffic and it's neutrality and validity is under question by Wiki Staff. You may file complaints under this comment. Enta en bauldry (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This page has been scrubbed on the grounds of abuse in-game, misinforming players instead of providing educational value. Enta en bauldry (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that the New Order misinforms players? The most common advice is "Buy a permit, don't afk and tank your ship properly". The buy a permit bit is subjective, but the rest is definitely good advice. -Tear Jar

I originally wrote this page with the intent of giving readers a POV into the New Order that didn't involve parsing the RP Hell that is James 315's prose. As it seems that it has been used for unsavoury purposes, and Azmodeus Valar has removed the page, I'm okay with its removal and defer to the CEO's decision. Makie tachibana (talk) 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 7th 2014 Revision

Prior to this date the this page gave a mostly unbiased explanation of the player group in question with only some minor sections that could use cleaning up. Why was this changed? The Uni claims to be a neutral organization, but in this case a Uni director has changed the page to denounce another organization. - Dragoslove

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ Enta en bauldry (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (CST)

The page merely states that we do not support them, and that they should look elsewhere for information on that group. I fail to see how that is denouncing anyone. As you stated, the Uni is neutral. The definition of neutral would imply that we don't support them. Azmodeus Valar

What I really don't get is why this page exists at all. Most groups in eve do not have a write up on UniWiki, but someone decided to post (an admittedly excellent) write up about the practices of the new order. Some of the wording around how they deal with permits could be argued or removed to reduce bias, but instead the entire page was condensed to pointing out that we don't support them. No other group gets that distinction either. Yes, technically neutrality involves "not supporting" other groups, but pointing out a specific group as not supported does not sound neutral in any way. I strongly support reverting the article and changing the wording involving the validity of permits, or barring that, removing the page all together. By your own words, this page provides no information that is not already understood under the Uni's neutrality clause, and looking elsewhere for more information is understood if no page is returned when searching the wiki. Dragoslove (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2015 (CST)