Talk:Twinking

etymology

What is the etymology of the term Twinking? 218.214.18.41 02:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The common wisdom is that it comes from the famous 'Twinkie Defense' but the term is old enough that, as far as I know, no one really remembers where it really came from. Ehheh 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was because the superior quality items and enchantments usually have improved graphics, and hence "twinkle". This is true at least in WoW and FF XI. BTW, I'm going to remove the POV statement in the first line of the article that it "compromises" the game somehow, and move it to a criticisms section. --DDG 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The term originated in text gaming (MUDS) well before WoW or Everquest were released. I'm certain it had nothing to do with graphics. Ehheh 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since major etymology sources/researchers don't consider rather trivial things like RPG terminology, it's hard to say. Twink (as in the more known gay slang term) has been around since at least 1963 it seems, which predates MMO gaming by a decade. As for myself? I've honestly NEVER heard the term until World of Warcraft, and I've played a good deal of online roleplaying games before that. Even then, I never heard the term until a little more than a year ago. This is no place for original research, but I'd guess whoever coined the term did it by mistake and was probably thinking of a more proper word, like tweaking. 67.11.140.20 18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having played MUDS a long time ago, I can verify that the term at least was used then. On another note, I altered the sentence about twink guilds in World of Warcraft - there are exclusively twink vs. twink guilds, but it's hardly the standard practice, and certainly not the standard position of the 'twink community' in WoW. Myrkabah 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I first heard the term used in Everquest, and that its meaning comes directly from the gay slang. That seems very likely since the meanings are so close -- older gay men showering younger gay men (twinks) with gifts. John Bolton 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That'll need a citation to go into the article. Ehheh 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I also first heard the term in EverQuest, but the word's origin had a slightly different meaning. A higher level character would give money or new items to a lower level character. While graphically the money or new items may not twinkle, in popular culture someone who is rich adorns themselves or others with new things that are often portrayed as sparkling, shiny or twinkling, such as a "shiny new car" or a "twinkling diamond necklace". So, if a player receives these new items or wealth which they normally could not obtain without help, they are called a Twink: which is a negative connotation for someone who receives wealth beyond their means. --SwitchLink 20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The term was always thrown around when I first had started playing Everquest in 1999, but it was often used to describe the bronze plate clad individuals at level 20. We had naturally presumed it was because of the color of the armor and how it allowed these low level characters to presume to be a higher level then they were as only very high level characters could wear plate armor. Reading a few of these posts makes me wonder as the "showering of gifts" definitely has merit. Crayoneater 07:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

From "The New Hacker's Dictionary", 2nd ed. 1993. John Bolton 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

/twink/ [UCSC] n. Equivalent to read-only user. Also reported on the USENET group soc.motss; may derive from gay slang for a cute young thing with nothing upstairs (compare mainstream `chick').

I ne'er heard the "gay slang" meaning of it before today, but my understanding from back when I was playing EverQuest was that "twink" derived from "tweak" as in to tweak something to get the maximum possible efficiency out of it? 206.255.127.192 10:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this term was in common use to describe RPG players when I was a freshman at MIT in 1992. As I first heard it, it referred to a particular group of old guys (pudgy, bearded, sys-admin types) who played D&D in a classroom in bldg 66. It came from the common opinion that all they did was sit around and eat twinkies, hence the pudginess and junk food wrappers left after a gaming session. It was also more broadly used to refer to anyone in the Assassin's Guild, an MIT LARP group. I don't know that the term originated at MIT, but it's possible. Jmi11s 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Who suggested the merge from godmodding into twinking? As I understand it, Godmodding is an exploit of some kind. Twinking (at least in MMORPGs) is not an exploit, but a mechanism enabled by the game itself. I fail to see the need to merge, from an MMORPG sense. Maybe tabletops are different. --DDG 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On something like a MUSH, Twink is a catch-all term for any kind of a cheater or undesireable player. Someone who powerposes or 'godmods' often would be commonly called a twink. Ehheh 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Godmodding applies only to message-board RPGs. In mbRPGs (for lack of better term), there is no method of controlling how powerful any individual character can be. For example, a brand-new player can literally start out as an emperor. In mbRPGs, capabilities are only partially the result of claiming them, and also partly given by the majority's consent. mbRPGing is like writing a fan-fic with multiple other people. It has to fit together, or it results in bickering. For example, no one would want to read a book in which the United States is fighting World War II, and suddenly they have a Death Star at their disposal. Likewise, no one would want to participate in an mbRPG in which anyone can just say that they have super mega powers and have it be so.--NME 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading Godmodding, I don't think that term is interchangable with Twink. A Twink is someone who obtains gifts of money or items from a higher level character or player that is within structured game mechanics. Whereas Godmodding means to bestow unrealistic or out of context power, abilities or events upon yourself or others within subjective game mechanics. While similar in function, they have two completely separate realms of context. --SwitchLink 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the merge template. The two terms are not related, and there has been no real support for the merge (or even a reason posted in the first place). --163.1.165.116 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rewrite the last paragraph regarding twink guilds in WoW. Twink guilds exist as currently, there is no matching system in the game. This allows a twink guild to create an entirely premade side vs a normal geared side. Many twink guilds will actually not play against other twink guilds because they wuld not be able to destroy the other side in such games.

I might make a whole etymology section. AFAIK, the term twink came from the term "tweaking", which was an online variation of "min-maxer", which itself was a PnP term for a character that exploited the rules to the fullest to make the most powerful(overpowered) character.66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Non Electronic Gaming

I've always seen Twink as Synonymous with Munchkin. Mathiastck 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

POV line

I removed the line reading "Contrary to popular belief, twinking is a form of cheating." This is pure POV. The line itself says that some people do not think it's cheating. Zurqoxn 06:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I removed the paragraph about PvP and twinking. Methinks someone was bitter when adding that. Djseifer 10:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look over the section again, someone is STILL bitter about twinking apparently. I don't even play MMO's and I can tell when someone is being rash. There is a line that I noticed. It goes along the lines of "Twinking is used by players in stay at the top of a level bracket in PvP, which is often due to a lack of PvP skill." That's POV.71.238.205.137 (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like 24.176.28.106 really doesn't like twinks in PvP. I've reverted the page. (S)He appears to have been given a final warning over a month ago, but has still been editing the post with similar - almost identical - POV info. Leaving a warning on their user page is probably redundant. Should we see about just getting the IP blocked? CaptF (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the change where someone keeps putting in "balancing flaw" to "design flaw" because the being balanced is a matter of opinion (POV) where the game developers stated themselves that its a design flaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk • contribs)

POV edits

It appears that this page is the victim of constant editing by twinks, posting their bias opinions which constitute POV. Can we try to get their IPs banned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattelot (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the other users involved removing bias, not adding it. - Ehheh (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added and changed the page with proven facts and information. I've noticed you've removed things yourself, Ehheh, please review the terms of service in regards to POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

IPs have been blocked from editing since March 14. There's a big sign at the top of the article saying IP users can't edit. Here's what keeps being changed:

A Twink is somebody who finds and takes advantage of a design flaw (whether it be in statistic, social features, skills etc.) to make a character that will be more powerful than a character made by one unaware, unwilling, or unable to exploit such flaws. A character made in this fashion is considered "twinked", or sometimes referred to as "twinked out".

to -->

A Twink is somebody who, within the confines and restrictions that a game provides, finds and takes advantage of a balancing flaw (whether it be in statistic, social features, skills etc.) to make a character that will be more powerful than a character made by one unaware, unwilling, or unable to exploit such flaws. A character made in this fashion is considered "twinked", or sometimes referred to as "twinked out".

I agree that "balancing flaw" is a better way to put it than "design flaw".

An example of positive twinking is when a player equips themself with higher-end gear in order to avoid the "newbie" hump.
An example of negative twinking is when a player equips themself with all the best possible gear for that level range and fills them up with end-game enchantments in order to easily kill newer players. This is typically done by the majority of twinks as a compensation for a lack of real PVP skill.
Twinking in World of Warcraft was subject to a long and brutal "cold war" between twinks and anti-twinks. The was an online debate as to the morality of twinking in WoW.
The cold war began towards the beginning of 2004 when theories as to why twinking is done were presented. With intense rage, twinks attempted to defend their position but ultimately failed when the war ended towards the end of 2007 with the triumph of anti-twinks. There are still heated debates on a common basis, however, they're merely grievances.
to -->
One example of twinking is when a player equips themself with higher-end gear in order to avoid the "newbie" hump. Another, more controversial example of twinking is when a player equips themself with all the best possible gear for his level range and fills them up with end-game enchantments in order to easily kill newer players.

All that's been done here is remove unsourced material (WoW twinking cold war), which, in my opinion, does not add to the article as WoW is already mentioned elsewhere in the article; and merge the paragraphs on positive and negative twinking, and avoid calling them as such. I think these edits are very good, though I think this might help: removing "more controversial" to avoid POV.

Some editors have already violated 3RR today. Stop this stupid edit war! --Eruhildo (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Eruhildo, for starters, it was even stated by Blizzard that it was a design flaw that they cannot fix. Changing things to your personal view constitutes POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattelot (talk • contribs) 08:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like you're saying I'm changing facts, not not putting in POV. And who said anything about Blizzard? This article is about twinking in any game, not just WoW. Sometimes players can twink because of a design flaw, and sometimes the game just allows it. Either way, it can occur because the game is not balanced. If you want to put in the article that twinking can occur in WoW because of a design flaw, then go ahead. Put it in the paragraph on WoW and include a reference. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the fact that you're reverting proven facts about WoW twinking in the article itself. The things you changed them to constitute POV, please be aware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's proven, then give me citations. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed "balancing flaw" to "design flaw" because something being balanced is a matter of personal view (POV) while design flaw was stated by the game designers themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Which developers? Where's the citation? Is all twinking in all games the result of design flaws? Can one set of developers be used as a source for all games? - Ehheh (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stated by Blizzard's lead developer, Tom Chilton himself at Blizzcon. All notable twinking was the result of a design flaw. You cannot divide the two or else proven facts collide with POV and creates a basis for an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Twinking is practiced in more games than just those made by Blizzard. Please bear that in mind while editing this article. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone is still changing the page back to "balancing flaw" which violates POV. Whether or not something is balanced is a matter of personal view. Some may find it balanced while some many not. Being a design flaw was stated by a game lead designer where twinking is the most common. His perspective is far more credible than an end-user's personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel calling it a "balancing flaw" is POV, then change it to something else (other than "design flaw"). --Eruhildo (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that "balancing flaw" is better than "design flaw" then talk to Blizzard's lead game developer and tell him how hes wrong and you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I will say this one more time: This article is on twinking in all games, not just Blizzard games. If it was a design flaw in WoW, that's fine - I'm not arguing against that. What I am saying is you can't make a blanket statement about all games based off something true to one game. Please stop bringing this up since you're the only one posting here of this opinion. --Eruhildo (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This still doesn't dismiss the fact that you keep it as "balancing flaw" which if something is balanced or not is a matter of opinion. Blanket statement or not, one credible source is better than none, i'd say. Not to mention the fact that the multiple types of twinking were elaborated and separated to avoid being catagorized as one type, which you removed. That in turn, makes the whole topic one-sided and easy grounds for an edit war. To discuss both sides allows each to contribute so noone is either wrong or right, but neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The part on multiple types of twinking was about positive and negative twinking. It has not been removed - the two paragraphs were merged into one and it was changed so that they aren't called "positive" and "negative" for POV's sake. Also, I didn't make that edit - another editor did. Please check your facts before posting. Also, please start indenting and signing your posts as it makes the discussion easier to read. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The two types of twinking were necessary. They divide the two types in a category where "positive" being the type that nobody complains about and "negative" being the controversial type. It doesn't matter at this point if it was you or not, you still reverted proven facts and support the idea which contributes to POV and creates a basis for an edit war. You seem to favor one side of topic as I favor none. I prefer having all the facts in place to avoid confusion so that any readers are aware and do not mistakenly get wrong impressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In whose opinion is so called "negative" twinking controversial? If it's a proven fact, then give me references from reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia works. You're taking a side just as much as I am; however, I have supported everything I've said thus far with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You, however, have mainly accused me of POV and reverting "proven facts" for which you have yet to cite sources. If you truely wish to have all the facts in place, you should provide proper sources for them per Wikipedia's sources and original research policies so that any readers do not mistakenly get wrong impressions. This is definitely a time to cite. --Eruhildo (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever read the official WoW forums? You can't go 5 hours without someone making controversy about twinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and it's not going to help here because someone (i.e., us) has to interpret a message board thread as indicating that a controversy exists. That's what Wikipedia calls original research, and is disallowed by policy. What you need is an independently published secondary source (say, a newspaper or a games magazine) saying something along the lines of 'negative twinking is controversial' and defining negative twinking in a way similar to how you're defining it. - Ehheh (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading this section, I have to say that 66.227.231.91 is correct in the fact that the term "balancing flaw" violates POV. Bloodlust —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.235.71 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After taking a step back from this discussion, I've come to feel the same way. Mattelot/66.227.231.91 I've been rude to you and have been pushing my POV at you. For that I apologize. Let's work together to find a way to phrase this that avoids POV. Maybe something like this could work?: "A Twink is someone who, within the confines and restrictions that a game provides, uses the game's balancing system to his or her own advantage..." I don't feel like I worded it very well, but it's a step in the correct direction, right? --Eruhildo (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this? "A Twink is somebody who, within the confines and restrictions that a game provides, attempts to maximize the effectiveness of his character in one or more categories." Calling it cheating or a design flaw or a balancing flaw are all POV, since in many games (such as Diablo II) being able to twink is an intended design feature and not considered a flaw or problem. --Pellucid (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that definition better than mine. --Eruhildo (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You could always look for sources to provide the definition, which would have saved a lot of this conflict in the first place. Bridies (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that the definition is actually "someone who makes the most of the system that is in place," but you could find eleven different sources that gave eleven different definitions, all with varying levels of "it's acceptable" or "it's cheating" inherent to them. --Pellucid (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So why, then, is the definition 'actually' that particular one? If there's eleven different definitions they need to be reflected in the article. Bridies (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this term is mainly used online. I tried a quick search on Amazon.com and Google for books on twinking and found nothing. Finding a valid source is going to be difficult, especially since no one knows who actually coined the word. I think for now the best we can do is come up a definition that doesn't lean towards POV and encompasses the broader use of the word. Does that make any sense? I'm up too late so I may be writing nonsense again. Does anyone agree with me or am I going off the deep end? Oh yeah, I think it's good to mention the different uses of twink in the article, like Bridies said, but I think we should have a one sentence concise definition at the beginning of the article (like there is now). --Eruhildo (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Finding valid sources isn't difficult. I typed 'twink' into IGN article search earlier and got several pages of results.

For example: http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/092/092489p1.html contains One of the problems in EverQuest these days is a group of extremely high-level players (like levels 45 to 60) in zones meant for levels 4 through 20 farming the items to sell or to twink a character. Using hard level limits just means that items will trickle down to a fixed point and become obsolete earlier, which not only doesn't solve the problem people are trying to solve (twinking), but it also screws up the player driven economy.

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/363/363940p1.html contains I think there are much better ways to address item deflation, twinking, etc., but as much as I hate to be a 'secret sauce' guy, I'm not going to elaborate. That said, these are not new issues... MUDs have been dealing with them for over a decade, so I'm sure you'll see better and better handling of these issues as we enter the second and then third generation of commercial massively multiplayer games.

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/365/365069p1.html contains To take a word from Diablo II, this game basically is making "twinking", or "powering", a desired thing. In order for the more advanced characters to advance even further, they must help learning players, to unlock some of the higher skills.

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/591/591911p1.html One reason is that becoming familiar with various locations means much less time looking around to find places, NPCs et al after the first time you've done so. Another is that the in-game mail system makes it much easier to twink within the same faction by sending items and gold.

This is just a few articles from one publication, there are no doubt more available. Ultimately, if a definition of neologism can't be gained from reliable sources, then there is a notability issue, neverminding POV. Bridies (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of those just talk about twinking - they don't actually define it. While they're great for the rest of the article, they don't help much with the first sentence. I guess you're right - we've got a notability issue if we can't find a reliable definition. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was simply that given the abundance of sources there's likely to be a definition somewhere. I didn't even look through all the IGN stuff. Bridies (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of avoiding using a specific word, rather than a broader phrase to describe it. I too wasn't trying to give you a hard time, Eruhildo, from my experience, this particular topic is a magnet for POV. Being broad about statements will prevent either side from saying something is wrong. I do like your new wording better and its got my vote. --Mattelot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.231.91 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There really is no way that you could consider this not a part of world knowledge. I know/care nothing of Wikipedia's guidelines, of how you might search Google or reference something to determine whether something is valid as a body of knowledge, etc, etc. The point is, even though I don't play MMORPGs or know a whole heckovalot about Role Playing Games in general, the fact that I even KNOW about the term "twink"/"twinking" is proof enough that it deserves some amount of recognition. QED. ~ 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Re: [1]. If it is "important information", provide a reliable independent source proving it is so. Twinkinfo is not a reliable source. The forum links don't support the claims and in any case do not demonstrate why this information needs to be here (i.e. because they are WOW primary sources). Read WP:V and WP:RS, please. bridies (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your edit warring. You stating that Twinkinfo is not a reliable source does not disqualify it from being so. It is the most reliable and respected source of twink information. The WoW forums with posts from Blizzard (blue posts) are fact. You seem like one of the few people who are angry about the recent demise of twinking in WoW. Please remember that we do not care about your personal views and this is not your sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.28.60 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2009

It's not a reliable source because it's a self-published blog site. The burden of proof is on you make a case for it being reliable. It's not on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources page so I suggest you start with the talk page there. Your forum links do not back up the claim you made (and are those guys even "designers", or just forum mods?) and in any case, you need a reliable secondary source to demonstrate that the point is even warranted in this article. Even if we were to entertain the notion that it was somehow warranted, it would make no sense without the rest of the "information", which is not sourced and should therefore be removed. You also removed reliable secondary references from the article (the lead) with a spurious explanation of "reverted POV" and readded an entirely unsourced version. Finally you persistently add incoherent internet pidgin to the article and removed citation-needed repeatedly, again without explanation. bridies (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously just an angry edit warring individual. Discrediting reliable and acceptable sources because you do not agree with them is not tolerated here. Please go somewhere else for your sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.28.60 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2009

I'll verify that anyone posting in blue is a legitimate source of verification via WP:SelfPub. That said, it's always better to seek secondary sourcing. --Izno (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note, this thread has been brought to attention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Content dispute.

96.36.28.60, could you calm the flames for a second? bridies was just trying to help the article by pointing out that unreliable information is posted on that website (amongst reliable parts) and that it is preferable to provide an independent source. They are just trying to point out Wikipedia's policy on the matter. If you believe to state the source's reliability, please try to do so in a civil, informative way rather than attacking editors. Agravating the situation won't make people succumb to you. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that i'm not flaming anyone and i'm the one being civil, I would actually take you seriously. This isn't a personal soapbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.28.60 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2009

With all due respect, bluntly stating that editors are soapboxing rather than trying to politely explain why they're incorrect isn't generally considered civil, but rather confrontational. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a personal soapbox. Telling somebody that who seems to think it is does not qualify as "flaming" rather than informing them. Please refer to Wikipedia's terms of service to avoid further confusion on your part.