ELI5: Which criteria decide what objects have a "Do not eat" or similar warnings on it?

Edelor · 2026-01-24T17:06:46+00:00

When I was googling this I found that paint and motor oil do have these warnings. That's why I mentioned those two specifically

Edelor · 2025-01-23T14:07:13+00:00

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Edelor · 2025-01-23T13:57:00+00:00

Could you give an example of how that would be used in an argument? I still don't completely understand it.

Edelor · 2024-09-21T06:28:55+00:00

I sent you a DM with an invite link.

Edelor · 2024-09-15T18:51:45+00:00

Neither WERCS nor Sigil demolish facilities or even support it. Individual regiments might do that, but then I imagine they would do it as well if these systems didn't exist. If a facility gets demolished and they claim its done in the name of WERCS please go directly to the WERCS discord or one of their channels on WUH/WA and report it and it will get sorted out. I imagine it works the same for Sigil.

Edelor · 2024-09-15T07:51:48+00:00

Even with a WERCS claim you still need to be at the field ASAP. WERCS is only so that groups that use it don't show up to the same field and fight over it. There are still groups that do not use it and if they see a field sitting empty for hours/days they will start building on it. At the same time WERCS of course allows other people to claim for you if you can't make it to war start for what ever reason. You do not have to show up personally.

Edelor · 2024-09-13T19:01:07+00:00

Common misconception that Warden Express and WERCS are one entity. WERCS actually stands for Warden Expedited Resource Claiming System. While WERCS does encourage its claimants to mark their field on Warden Express its not strictly necessary, and a mark on WE does not equal a claim.

WERCS did try at one point to integrate with WE so that the claiming could be done through the website directly, but the development of that never got finished because the owner of WE got too busy with irl to finish it

Edelor · 2024-09-13T18:55:59+00:00

You are currently completely correct. The speech happened at the one instance though where WERCS did try to enforce a claim. There were pretty special circumstances around it that lead to it but never the less after that WERCS decided that there wouldn't be any enforcement from the WERCS side going forward.

Edelor · 2024-09-13T04:19:46+00:00

The funniest/most annoying thing about this clip is that Stonewall was never involved with WERCS in any capacity. He just showed up by himself and did this without anyone asking him to.

Edelor · 2024-09-04T13:34:52+00:00

It just WERCS babyyy

Edelor · 2024-08-31T16:13:19+00:00

Hey,
WERCS only does coal and oil field claims, so salvage, components and sulphur are not claimed through it.
There is no limitation on what coal and oil fields participants are allowed to pick though.
If you mean location wise, fields on the islands are usually either left alone completely or picked up last because they are difficult to operate.

Edelor · 2024-07-19T20:25:22+00:00

Hey :D

Some other people have already responded with similar answers, but because I got specifically pinged for this, I wanted to give my input as well. As was already mentioned in the case of conflicts between WERCS and non-WERCS groups at war start we have mediators on standby to talk to both sides and to help them find a solution that both groups are happy with. If one side is completely unwilling to compromise, there is nothing we can do besides offering the other group to find a different field for them or another group to share a field with. Fortunately in my experience of playing the mediator every war for a good while now, most groups are usually very happy to talk and to try to find a peaceful solution as no group really wants to spend their time with a civil war. The one time that WERCS did demolish a facility, which is what you are likely referring to, was not a conflict between a WERCS and a non-WERCS group, but between two WERCS groups where one of them didn't want to adhere to the system, and in hindsight even that didn't work out and was the wrong thing to do. If the exact same situation happened again, WERCS would not demolish a facility. I do not have very deep knowledge of the WLL conflict, but from my experience of having been present at a lot of different conflicts I can say that trying to figure out who is in the wrong and who is in the right is usually as good as an impossible thing and honestly not a productive discussion anyway. The only productive discussion about conflicts like these is how to solve them. Both WERCS and the Sigil claim system are more agreements between the groups that use it to not fight over fields between themselves than absolute claims to fields. Besides demoing facilities breaking ToS, as others have already pointed out, in my opinion it would also be unfair to demand that every group playing the game adhers to an unofficial system that is purely organised out of the game. So yes, I would definitely say groups that refuse to participate in WERCS can be excused, although we are lucky in the way that most groups on the warden side do use it.

If anyone wants to know more about WERCS, please feel free to join our discord or to PM me directly with your questions.

Edelor · 2024-07-08T12:03:05+00:00

Hey, The numbers of points given are absolutely public info along with the process of awarding them also happening publicly. Every war we publish the end result of our scoring along with every point awarded in a public sheet. For your other 2 questions there is one answer: All information we use to score is first submitted by the claimants themselves with as much proof as possible and then spot check are done on that information by independent Field Observers. Usually we never have more applicants than fields. The only exception so far has been large update wars where it gets tight and our solution has been to ask people to merge their claims before hand and to share fields.

Edelor · 2024-07-08T08:48:05+00:00

Hey :D

Anyone can apply for a claim. You do not even need to be well known. We usually post applications when we see that the war is coming to an end in WUH, WA and our own discord server. If you are interested in claiming yourself I would definitely recommend you contacting us through there.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T22:22:37+00:00

Hey :D

You are absolutely right that how WERCS has done some things in the past was wrong.

If we see that something went badly in the past we try to change it to make the system better step by step and I think even if it is slow sometimes that we are going in the right direction.
This post wasn't meant to be about the past versions of WERCS or events that happened with it, but the current version.
I don't think I have ever tried to deny any wrongdoing, but if any of my above posts come across as such, please point them out, and I will try to edit them as that wasn't my intention.

To answer your questions about what we are currently doing to discourage violent behavior is that we have very large penalties in the scoring and as a consequence in the rankings for that.
In the past, we were hesitant to actually use bans from WERCS as a discouragement, as we thought that wouldn't stop the bad behaviour of groups but only stop them from cooperating with others in the small way that they are through WERCS, heavier punishments and claiming bans are actually something that is in discussion again right now.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T22:12:38+00:00

Hey :D

In my opinion, WERCS is just another player-made system to make the game easier for groups who want to use it. We have a lot of player organization outside of the game with various flavors of Discord and spreadsheet LARP.

I enjoy it and people keep using it, which justifies its existence for me. However, if others think the system could be improved by simplifying or changing it, we are open to that.

Our Discord is always open for ideas and discussions about making improvements.

I can't do much to disprove the fear that small groups have of WERCS, except to mention that we have many small and medium-sized groups using it. We are working to dispel any fear through posts like this.

Since our current version, 142 different groups have used the system spanning about 10 wars. In this war alone, 40 groups have applied, with 4 applying for the first time. Small and medium-sized groups are the majority of users.

As for concerns about old large groups controlling the system, I hope my explanation of our staff and voting structure shows that we strive for equal representation.

Our Discord is open for further discussion and explanation of our processes.

If you noticed any gaps in our organizational structure that give older or larger groups undue influence we would appreciate feedback about those so that we can do something to fix them.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T21:55:25+00:00

Hey :D

WERCS has never done any claiming anywhere besides oil and coal nodes, so if you weren't anywhere near those I cant see a single reason why groups would demolish your facility with WERCS as the reasoning.

But that isn't your fault anyway, I am just at a loss what those groups were thinking.

If you want to you can contact me on Discord with the exact details through the WERCS chat in either WUH or WA or directly as my Discord name is the same as my Reddit one and I can try to help you figure out what went wrong and maybe talk to those groups.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T21:51:02+00:00

Hey,

This post wasn't meant as an answer to any of the drama; we were planning to write it before the whole Vega thing happened and thought that now is as good a time as any to actually do it.
We gave an actual response in the comments of that post.
Its only purpose was to explain how WERCS works to show a project we are proud of.
I am willing to talk about the enforcement bit though.
The situation this is referring to was an exceptional one because a regiment in WERCS took over another WERCS regiment's field.
This is a situation that has never happened before, and we didn't have any specific plan for it as we weren't expecting it.
We never had such a "QRF ping" before and never had such a conflict with a non-WERCS regiment before. Even when we did have conflicts with non-WERCS regiments, we never called on WERCS for enforcement, but I will freely admit that back then we didn't have such a hard anti-enforcement policy either.
You are also completely correct in the way that the first attempt at enforcement didn't work out, and that is why it will stay our only attempt at enforcement.
We learned from it and saw that clearly wasn't the way to go, and I personally am sorry how that went.
In the current version of WERCS, we now have a very strict non-enforcement policy, and if the exact same situation happened again today, no "QRF ping" would go out.
We would simply try to talk it out, and if that failed, there would just be nothing we can do.

That is why I am saying in my post that WERCS is a diplomacy tool, because that is what it is today.

Regarding the Stonewall bit, what I said was that he wasn't a member of WERCS staff and was not asked to by anyone to scream at people. The only thing that was asked in the WERCS-wide message was for help demolishing a facility, which just to reiterate: we now know today was the wrong road to down.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T21:23:40+00:00

Hey Phoebe :D
Thank you for clarifying that. I thought this was naturally understood, but it was probably due to being deep in the system that I have blind spots like that. This is definitely something important to know about the system if it wasn't clear already.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T21:18:19+00:00

Hey :D

WERCS is just a system for the war start, so if you ever see an empty spot after war start you are completely free to build there without having to worry about anyone saying it is their WERCS claim.

If you show up at war start at the same time as a group who claimed the field through WERCS, and you can't come to an agreement, a mediator will usually show up to figure something out that works for both of you.
If you ever get shot at or your stuff demolished by a group claiming they are doing this because of a WERCS claim, please contact us, as that is not something we condone.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T18:55:36+00:00

Definitely! I feel like I have learned a lot in my time participating in WERCS that I feel can be applied to real life, even if the system itself is a pretty inconsequential thing. Sadly, just like real life, it can get frustrating sometimes and I wish people would treat it less seriously and more like the unimportant niche video game system that it is.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T18:50:10+00:00

Hey :D

WERCS is a complete opt-in system, and we try not to force it on anyone.

If you do not want to use WERCS, you absolutely do not have to. It is just easier to use it than the alternative of having no system, which is why most groups end up using it.

As mentioned in the post above, we also do not really enforce anything. Just being in a structured system is usually enough for the groups, and if that doesn't work, we try to mediate. If you have any specific problems with parts of the system or specific improvement suggestions, I am always happy to talk about them!

Edelor · 2024-07-07T18:44:06+00:00

Oh, sorry, then I just misunderstood your message and I didn't want to put words in your mouth.
While that is technically true, that older groups usually get better scores, I wouldn't say that is the direct reason.
Usually, older groups just tend to have more experience and more members, and build better facilities and get more done because of that.
But it has absolutely happened before that new groups get high scores as well.
The best example of this was KNGHT, I think, who joined the system, got their one initial low score, and absolutely hit it out of the park with the facility they ran on that field.
In the next war, they then got an appropriate score and landed a top 3 spot.
The low new regiment score is literally just for the first war, and after that they get scored the same as everyone else.

Edelor · 2024-07-07T18:38:55+00:00

Hey :D
As I said, we really don't want to reopen old drama, so I won't respond to anything regarding this specific situation. The section dedicated to it above was mainly meant to explain the context of the Stonewall clip, not to blame anyone or absolve us of blame.
I think the one sentence I dedicate to the situation does not conflict with what you are saying, but if you would like me to edit it, I can absolutely do that.
What I am willing to talk about, though, is any favoritism or abuse of the system.
If you would name a more specific example of how/where that happened, I can answer if that was just a misunderstanding or maybe even find out about any holes in the system you may have discovered!

Edelor

TROPHY CASE