From AchaeaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Public News 2575 - Gaia warns about overharvesting. Madelyne 20:33, 3 April 2007 (GMT)

Do we want to keep or delete this page? Note that various other articles regarding overharvesting, such as Oakstone, will need updating. --Krypton 18:12, 23 March 2008 (GMT)

Keep the page for historical reference after updating it as relevant to modern times. Asara 20:00, 23 March 2008 (GMT)
How do we decide what's worth keeping for its historical relevance and what we should just get rid of? Specifically, I am comparing this page to the tagged-for-deletion Dragoncurse. --Krypton 20:33, 23 March 2008 (GMT)
I'm pretty sure Dragoncurse still exists as the Curse ability in Dragoncraft. Overharvesting no longer exists, period. Soludra 23:16, 23 March 2008 (GMT)
I'm not sure I understand the problem. The Dragoncurse article needs to be deleted because it is no longer an independent racial ability and now exists in a skill's list. Overharvesting is a concept that played a major role in centuries of Achaea's history - stick all of it in the past tense and add an IC rationale for why this is no longer the case. Asara 00:49, 24 March 2008 (GMT)

Well, I ended up doing this myself, so we're all set for this article. However, other related articles will still need updating. Asara 23:20, 30 April 2008 (GMT)

Why isn't the first sentence in past tense? The second sentence is grammatically incorrect. "harvesters found that they could no longer strip a room's plants entirely" is not a true statement (for more reasons than one, given the multiple definitions of "strip"), and "rooms" is an OOC concept. This article also doesn't mention when the rules of overharvesting were implemented, so to call it "one of the most longest-standing Achaean ordinances" (which is, incidentally, very awkward wording) makes little sense when only the end date is provided. --Krypton 01:18, 1 May 2008 (GMT)

Ok. The first sentence isn't in past tense because the definition of overharvesting hasn't changed. I don't personally see anything wrong with the second sentence. The third sentence is true, because indeed harvesters can no longer strip a room's plants - "strip" is used correctly within its boundries of definitions, i.e. to possess/deprive/plunder. The third sentence makes sense because it is indeed one of the longest standing ordinances and you can verify this information in the realms. Asara 02:32, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
Technically and firstly, the term "overharvesting" does not even exist anymore, as its definition is now (present) a physical impossibility, though this was never always the case (past). Secondly, the grammatically incorrect sentence doesn't pay heed to how lists involving commas must be structured, i.e. the same way "He likes running in circles, does cartwheels, and jumping in place." is not correct. Thirdly, plants can still be "fully harvested", and that fits with your definition of "deprive"; furthermore, "strip" (short for "stripharvesting") once referred to when harvesting to 0 completely removed a plant from a room, such that it no longer appeared in the room description (though true "stripping" was removed long ago) - usage of the word is thus confusing. Fourthly, that wasn't a good reason for why the start date/year isn't included; that's equally verifiable information in the realms. --Krypton 03:31, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
Ok. Form up! First point: "overharvesting" doesn't exist anymore as a physical possibility, but the concept is still understood/remembered/hasn't changed. Thus what "overharvesting" is is indeed the harvesting of plants below an Oakstone defined number, regardless of whether you can do it anymore or not. Second point: if it helps, trying reading it like so: "Those who chose to exploit nature in this manner risked Oakstone enemy status, risked having the wrath of the forests set against them, and risked losing the ability to harvest plants." whereby the elements of the list are follow-ups to the word "risked" and "risked" is not exclusive to the first element phrase. Third point: your argument does not seem to contradict my usage of the word "strip". Can you clarify for me? Fourth point: this argument does not seem to contradict my statement for this either. Can you clarify this for me also? Hope that helps! Asara 04:33, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
1) Plants can still be "stripped", no? That is the basic point. 2) There is no reason not to include the year the concept of "overharvesting" was introduced, since it didn't "exist" from the start of the Modern Age. 3) Yes, I know about "risked". The issue remains that you shouldn't have some of the three be nouns and others be action nouns (gerunds). 4) On a new note, Oakstone doesn't actually have the power to remove the ability to harvest, does it? --Krypton 04:53, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
Well, for the sake of completeness, regarding point 1: No, they can't entirely, hence I've included the word entirely. Point 2: There is no issue with -not- including this year either, for reasons I've already stated. However, I agree it would be entirely beneficial to include this specific year, even if the lack of it isn't harmful either. Anyone is free to add that if they want. Point 3: To be frank, I don't think the readers could care less since the point of the phrase remains successfully conveyed. Point 4: The ability to harvest could be revoked, yes. This can also be looked up via documentation. Asara 20:55, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
I'm not sure what you mean by "entirely". If you mean plants can no longer be harvested down to zero, well of course they can (hence the "This plant is already fully harvested for the season." message). If you mean entire removal of the plant from a room (i.e. "stripharvesting"), that was something that ceased to exist long before the big overhaul with PLANTS. --Krypton 02:26, 2 May 2008 (GMT)
Ah! Ok. My notion was that when you "harvest fully for the season", the plant is -not- stripped/removed/eradicated entirely from the room: It will return to grow back from "sparse" independently, unlike before, where if it was harvested down to zero, it would stay that way. (Even if it was isolated apart from others in its environment whereby plants would "diffuse" across the rooms if unharvested for longer periods of time.) Thus you can no longer strip a room's plants entirely, because you do not need someone planting to make it return (it's always there). Am I making any sense? Asara 13:20, 2 May 2008 (GMT)
You make sense, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. For a long while, harvesting down to 0 did not remove the plant from the room entirely; this used to be the case ("stripharvesting"), but long ago, herbs were changed to always grow back from 0 - because Oakstone did not apply its laws to blueberries, they perpetually being harvested down to 0 (but always growing back) is an example of this, not an exception. --Krypton 18:10, 2 May 2008 (GMT)
Eep! Ok let's see. I'm going to try and grab someone to verify that, and if that's the case, I'll remove that phrase entirely and replace it with something else. Asara 20:58, 2 May 2008 (GMT)