Category talk:Intelligent Design

Reasons For Deletion:

Your article on Intelligent Design does not, I think, belong on this Wiki.

This wiki is for articles regarding the Discworld MUD, whereas Intelligent Design is a theological stance advocating the existence of a divine being.

Since this topic is

   * Well known for being extremely inflammatory.
   * Not related to the MUD (I'm afraid the reasons you've provided at Category:Intelligent Design are at best a personal viewpoint, and your choice of articles to include in that category seem nonsensical). 

I am going to be deleting it and reverting all changes associated it, with prejudice, unless you can provide a very convincing argument for why it should stay. You have 24 hours from this post.

--Chat 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons Against Deletion:

If you have concerns about the page, delete it by all means.

The page was an I thought friendly, light hearted attempt to collect a number of uncategorized resources and frame them in a meaningful way. Namely, reflecting that the MUD is a social space as well as a collection of code.

Hence, the inclusion of pages in the category representative of socio-cultural or historical information pages.

While I ordinarily resent such heavy handed language, I am a bureaucrat by trade so don't take too much offense from it.

Bests, Rig

My two pence on the subject...

Intelligent Design does exist in the MUD, because the Gods (Creators) code things with a purpose in mind. The code never changes itself through evolution or other means; it relies on its designer to supply tweaks and changes. There's nothing theologically inflammatory about this- it's a simple fact of programming.

That said, after a cursory examination of the articles in this category, I am unable to see a connection between them that could be labeled "Intelligent Design." The category articles mostly appear to have something to do with the player and social dynamics of the MUD- perhaps a more accurate title would be "Player Dynamics" or "Playing Nice Together" (hur hur hur).

We certainly can have a humorously titled category called "Intelligent Design," but if we do, it should have to do with the mechanics of Creating, not player interaction.

-TherionAndAlts 02:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that cultural things tend to arise more organically out of the community, rather than being "designed". The stuff that's designed would be... everything else about the MUD. Guilds, spells and rituals, commands, locations, etc.

There's nothing theologically inflammatory about this- it's a simple fact of programming.

That particular phrase has a very specific history and set of connotations, though. Why use it unless you want to invoke those?

--Ilde 04:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the insinuation is that I was trying to be inflammatory. I perhaps assumed that people have a good sense of humour being associated with a Discworld MUD. I thought Intelligent Design was quite a clever topic feeling it quite thoughtfully played on the idea of creators & design / implementation of the system, and the way the MUD has a mostly intelligent life of its own that comes into being once all the players take that and make it come to life. If my attempt to be smart came across more as an attempt to be a smart arse, or just an arse, Intelligent Design, if some / all resources that I pulled into that category are loosely combined in future, can perhaps find a different heading. MUD Socialism? :-) Rig.

Ilde: We'd invoke them to be clever. "Intelligent Design? Oh, tee hee, he's talking about programming." Of course, I'm agnostic, so other people may be more offended by the religious joke than I am. :-)

That said, I'm of the opinion that clever jokes are best left IN articles- categories should be direct, useful and easy to navigate. Puns and wordplay would make the category pages a bit of a hassle to use.

-TherionAndAlts 07:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that. Rig.

I thought it was funny and clever and that sacrificing humour just so people don't get a bit riled up is always a poor decision, but as therion pointed out navigating articles is always best when it clear, easy and concise to find what you're looking for. 03:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, no harm done. You feel you have learned something important about wiki edits. Rig.