Guild Wars 2

Poletariate is the wage earner section of society in a nation. This mainly means working class people, and is mainly base on industrialised or developing countries where the people lived and worked in urbanised habitats. Poletariate does not mean government of a nation. In Tyria, the Poletariate is well represented in human nations.

The theory goes there are no animal moles on Tyria and therefore there can be no mole people. Well, there are no animal monkeys swinging through the trees of Tyria and yet human exist. The human Poletariate in Tyria certainly proved that and Moletariate proved the same. Mole people exist and they are called Dredge.

Moletariate is a compound word from mole and Poletariate. This is the mole people equivalent of the human Poletariate. It is the wage earner section of mole people society involving mainly working class mole people living and working in industrialised and mechanised mount warren complex setting. Moletariate does not mean a mole government of a mole nation when Moletariate is the equivalent of Poletariate.

Following is a list of mole people mug shots and names:

!http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/thumb/0/01/Dredge_Brute.jpg/150px-Dredge_Brute.jpg! Moleneaux
! http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/thumb/f/f3/Dredge_caster.jpg/196px-Dredge_caster.jpg ! Molenin
! http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/thumb/f/f3/Dredge_caster.jpg/196px-Dredge_caster.jpg ! Molachev
! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d0/Guy_Burgess.jpg/220px-Guy_Burgess.jpg ! Guy Francis de Moncy Burgess
! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Kim_Philby.jpg/220px-Kim_Philby.jpg ! Harold Adrian Russell “Kim” Philby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt Anthony Frederick Blunt

Their current where about unknown and if spotted please report to the proper authority.

Disclaimer: National newspapers have reported real life spooks play MMO but not necessarily and not specifically GW2. The last three reported is just a spoof – all for light entertainment.

I don’t really understand what it is you’re shooting for with this thread, but
1. Humans have been brought to Tyria -from another world- by the 6 Gods.
2. The absence of moles/apes does not mean there never were any from which dredge or humans could have evolved from.
3. Although Tyria appears very earth-like, keep in mind that it is a fantasy world in which biology might be fundamentally different from our world.
4. For all video games, and MMO’s specifically, you need a certain suspension of disbelief. AN can not feasibly create a model for every living organism we have on earth.

The last point is also often forgotten by players critiquing how Tyria is supposed to be living and breathing, yet zones stay the same for the most part (Orr not being cleansed, for example). Having everything change all the time would require an exponentially sized dev team with very little extra revenue to pay those developers.

I assume this thread is in reference to your (silly) argument from the other thread and I will therefore answer it as such.

“Mole” as in the animal does not exist in Guild Wars lore as far as we know, therefore to Tyrians, dredge are simply “dredge”, not “mole people”. Moletariate is a play on words by the developers as they stylise dredge as a communist (a nod to communist Russia) mole-like race. IN GAME “Moletariate” is a word dredge use to name their government and the “mole” part of it has NO connection to the fact they look like moles, because dredge have never heard of moles before and could not therefore name their government after “moles”.

Therefore IN GAME dredge should never be referred to as mole people and their ancestors were not “mole people” as they can’t be referenced by other in game races as an animal that doesn’t exist in the universe.

Basically, you were wrong, Konig was right. You said that in game dredge ancestors were known as “mole people” when in fact they weren’t, as moles don’t exist in the game world so Tyrians would have no source of reference for “moles”. The dredge have always been known as dredge in Guild Wars lore.

Well there actually are NPCs in the game that DO refer to them as Mole-people IIRC. But I am assuming that is more to do with comical addition than actual serious lore.

Cataclysm.7491:

I assume this thread is in reference to your (silly) argument from the other thread and I will therefore answer it as such.

“Mole” as in the animal does not exist in Guild Wars lore as far as we know, therefore to Tyrians, dredge are simply “dredge”, not “mole people”. Moletariate is a play on words by the developers as they stylise dredge as a communist (a nod to communist Russia) mole-like race. IN GAME “Moletariate” is a word dredge use to name their government and the “mole” part of it has NO connection to the fact they look like moles, because dredge have never heard of moles before and could not therefore name their government after “moles”.

Therefore IN GAME dredge should never be referred to as mole people and their ancestors were not “mole people” as they can’t be referenced by other in game races as an animal that doesn’t exist in the universe.

Basically, you were wrong, Konig was right. You said that in game dredge ancestors were known as “mole people” when in fact they weren’t, as moles don’t exist in the game world so Tyrians would have no source of reference for “moles”. The dredge have always been known as dredge in Guild Wars lore.

That ‘silly’ argument’ is not mine. It is all Konig’s and his people. As for you if you had follow the argument. I myself used and will continue to use words like Dredge, mole people, and Skritts. That is when I were conveying my point of view to fellow players. So I was correct in doing that from a real life impartial perspective. The only one time I used dredge and skritt was in that argument when I was being polite to Konig and his people. I am still polite to you all.

So, yes everything are your mistakes when you think dredge when I wrote Dredge and mole people.

All of the above is about that thread and does not cover Cataclysm.7491 ’s line of argument. Do I need to? I have my real life perspective referencing and used it and it did not contradict any in universe lore.

Avariz.8241:

Cataclysm.7491:

I assume this thread is in reference to your (silly) argument from the other thread and I will therefore answer it as such.

“Mole” as in the animal does not exist in Guild Wars lore as far as we know, therefore to Tyrians, dredge are simply “dredge”, not “mole people”. Moletariate is a play on words by the developers as they stylise dredge as a communist (a nod to communist Russia) mole-like race. IN GAME “Moletariate” is a word dredge use to name their government and the “mole” part of it has NO connection to the fact they look like moles, because dredge have never heard of moles before and could not therefore name their government after “moles”.

Therefore IN GAME dredge should never be referred to as mole people and their ancestors were not “mole people” as they can’t be referenced by other in game races as an animal that doesn’t exist in the universe.

Basically, you were wrong, Konig was right. You said that in game dredge ancestors were known as “mole people” when in fact they weren’t, as moles don’t exist in the game world so Tyrians would have no source of reference for “moles”. The dredge have always been known as dredge in Guild Wars lore.

That ‘silly’ argument’ is not mine. It is all Konig’s and his people. As for you if you had follow the argument. I myself used and will continue to use words like Dredge, mole people, and Skritts. That is when I were conveying my point of view to fellow players. So I was correct in doing that from a real life impartial perspective. The only one time I used dredge and skritt was in that argument when I was being polite to Konig and his people. I am still polite to you all.

So, yes everything are your mistakes when you think dredge when I wrote Dredge and mole people.

All of the above is about that thread and does not cover Cataclysm.7491 ’s line of argument. Do I need to? I have my real life perspective referencing and used it and it did not contradict any in universe lore.

No, you used “mole people” as an IN GAME reference. You said dredge ancesters were known as “mole people” in game. Konig merely tried to point out that was false.

I think its a language barrier problem thats creating the “misunderstanding” here as your recent posts seem to contradict what your original message appeared to be.

It’s quite clear English is not your mother tongue.

I think the OP needs a sense of humour. The dredge are a parody of a communist society. They look like mole-men. They live in places like Molensk. Their society is a moletocracy (if I remember right). Their government is a moleteriat. You can play whack-a-mole games by hitting dredge with a hammer as they come out of the ground.

Communist governments did declare themselves to be from the working class, even though they actually formed a new political elite over time. So even if you take it all seriously it is still reasonable for the government to take a name from the working class it claims to represent. Alternatively, the moleteriate could be the equivalent of the secretariate rather than the proleteriate.

Cataclysm.7491:

Avariz.8241:

Cataclysm.7491:

I assume this thread is in reference to your (silly) argument from the other thread and I will therefore answer it as such.

“Mole” as in the animal does not exist in Guild Wars lore as far as we know, therefore to Tyrians, dredge are simply “dredge”, not “mole people”. Moletariate is a play on words by the developers as they stylise dredge as a communist (a nod to communist Russia) mole-like race. IN GAME “Moletariate” is a word dredge use to name their government and the “mole” part of it has NO connection to the fact they look like moles, because dredge have never heard of moles before and could not therefore name their government after “moles”.

Therefore IN GAME dredge should never be referred to as mole people and their ancestors were not “mole people” as they can’t be referenced by other in game races as an animal that doesn’t exist in the universe.

Basically, you were wrong, Konig was right. You said that in game dredge ancestors were known as “mole people” when in fact they weren’t, as moles don’t exist in the game world so Tyrians would have no source of reference for “moles”. The dredge have always been known as dredge in Guild Wars lore.

That ‘silly’ argument’ is not mine. It is all Konig’s and his people. As for you if you had follow the argument. I myself used and will continue to use words like Dredge, mole people, and Skritts. That is when I were conveying my point of view to fellow players. So I was correct in doing that from a real life impartial perspective. The only one time I used dredge and skritt was in that argument when I was being polite to Konig and his people. I am still polite to you all.

So, yes everything are your mistakes when you think dredge when I wrote Dredge and mole people.

All of the above is about that thread and does not cover Cataclysm.7491 ’s line of argument. Do I need to? I have my real life perspective referencing and used it and it did not contradict any in universe lore.

No, you used “mole people” as an IN GAME reference. You said dredge ancesters were known as “mole people” in game. Konig merely tried to point out that was false.

I think its a language barrier problem thats creating the “misunderstanding” here as your recent posts seem to contradict what your original message appeared to be.

It’s quite clear English is not your mother tongue.

Avariz.8241:

Psynch.4087:

I was scouring the Thaumanova fractal screen shots in hopes of finding something interesting, and I think I did!

http://i.imgur.com/JzVmwtb.jpg

They look almost like Skritt with aetherblade armor on, but it’s honestly really hard to tell. I wonder what this could mean for the lore/mechanics of the fractal.

Original, larger image: https://d3b4yo2b5lbfy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/93decScreenshot-04.jpg

Having cleared up the mixed up from memory by mental reasoning, I can say with a high degree of correctness that the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge. That means in GW 2 the NPC conversation I over heard less than a week ago was correct first time round. That is the Asuras had enslaved the Skritts in the historic past. The picture information from the original poster would indicate that at the time of the Thaumanova Reactor incident the Skritts were either still slaves of the Asuras or the Skritts were in the long or short process of wrestling their freedom from the Asuras and were still engaging or cohabiting with the Asuras.

I have bold the relevant line but here is the whole sentence:
“The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge.”
See your mistake? You have terrible English reading skills.

Stooperdale.3560:

I think the OP needs a sense of humour. The dredge are a parody of a communist society. They look like mole-men. They live in places like Molensk. Their society is a moletocracy (if I remember right). Their government is a moleteriat. You can play whack-a-mole games by hitting dredge with a hammer as they come out of the ground.

Communist governments did declare themselves to be from the working class, even though they actually formed a new political elite over time. So even if you take it all seriously it is still reasonable for the government to take a name from the working class it claims to represent. Alternatively, the moleteriate could be the equivalent of the secretariate rather than the proleteriate.

I, myself, will stick to using Proletariate. That is a proper noun as opposed to a common noun. The same goes for Skritt, Dredge, and Moletariate. All of them are proper nouns as opposed to common nouns like cats and dogs which are common nouns. Alternatively I could use ‘skritt’,‘dredge’, and ‘moletariate’. This is still grammatical correct in common usage while still follow in universe naming convention.

However, using a proper noun like ‘skritt’ like a common noun like cat is used then that is incorrect in common grammar usage.

Avariz.8241:

That ‘silly’ argument’ is not mine. It is all Konig’s and his people.

As humorously false as “my people” is, the argument was yours. You made a false statement – which had already been mentioned by Cataclysm, the fact you claimed that the dredge’s ancestors were called “mole people” rather than being called dredge, which to your credit was a misunderstanding caused by confusing wording on GW2W – and you continuously argued it, constantly going more and more off-topic than the original clarification I made.

Avariz.8241:

I have bold the relevant line but here is the whole sentence:
“The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge.”
See your mistake? You have terrible English reading skills.

You realize that all you did in pointing out Cataclysm’s “mistake” is prove him (and by extension, myself) correct, right?

No offense intended, but perhaps it is you who need to freshen your English reading skills. The way you worded the sentence is just another syntax for writing out “the dredge were once called ‘mole people’ instead of dredge” or “the ancestors of the dredge were not called dredge, but instead called ‘mole people.’”

Avariz.8241:

I, myself, will stick to using Proletariate. That is a proper noun as opposed to a common noun. The same goes for Skritt, Dredge, and Moletariate. All of them are proper nouns as opposed to common nouns like cats and dogs which are common nouns. Alternatively I could use ‘skritt’,‘dredge’, and ‘moletariate’. This is still grammatical correct in common usage while still follow in universe naming convention.

However, using a proper noun like ‘skritt’ like a common noun like cat is used then that is incorrect in common grammar usage.

The names of species are lowercased. You are correct in capitalizing Moletariate, but incorrect in capitalizing skritt and dredge.

It would be like you always capitalize Human. As you should know, we do not. The names of species – cats, dogs, humans, monkeys, tigers, lions, bears (oh my), skritt, dredge, mursaat, charr, ogres, goblins, elves, dragons, so on and so forth are not capitalized. They are not proper nouns.

I think you need to re-evaluate your English skills and re-read what a proper noun is. A proper noun is a name for a very specific entity – specifically, things like an individual, a small group, or a specific location. Umbrella Corporation is a proper noun, for example. Humans are not a proper noun, because it is not a “very specific entity.”

Race names are not proper nouns.

I would go the extra mile and link a blog post by Bobby Stein in which he explains that while in GW1 they had incorrectly capitalized race names, they had no intention of doing so in GW2 (there are, however, slip ups). Sadly, the blog in which said post was on was deleted for some reason. It was at arena.net/blog

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Avariz.8241:

That ‘silly’ argument’ is not mine. It is all Konig’s and his people.

As humorously false as “my people” is, the argument was yours. You made a false statement – which had already been mentioned by Cataclysm, the fact you claimed that the dredge’s ancestors were called “mole people” rather than being called dredge, which to your credit was a misunderstanding caused by confusing wording on GW2W – and you continuously argued it, constantly going more and more off-topic than the original clarification I made.

Avariz.8241:

I have bold the relevant line but here is the whole sentence:
“The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge.”
See your mistake? You have terrible English reading skills.

You realize that all you did in pointing out Cataclysm’s “mistake” is prove him (and by extension, myself) correct, right?

No offense intended, but perhaps it is you who need to freshen your English reading skills. The way you worded the sentence is just another syntax for writing out “the dredge were once called ‘mole people’ instead of dredge” or “the ancestors of the dredge were not called dredge, but instead called ‘mole people.’”

Avariz.8241:

I, myself, will stick to using Proletariate. That is a proper noun as opposed to a common noun. The same goes for Skritt, Dredge, and Moletariate. All of them are proper nouns as opposed to common nouns like cats and dogs which are common nouns. Alternatively I could use ‘skritt’,‘dredge’, and ‘moletariate’. This is still grammatical correct in common usage while still follow in universe naming convention.

However, using a proper noun like ‘skritt’ like a common noun like cat is used then that is incorrect in common grammar usage.

The names of species are lowercased. You are correct in capitalizing Moletariate, but incorrect in capitalizing skritt and dredge.

It would be like you always capitalize Human. As you should know, we do not. The names of species – cats, dogs, humans, monkeys, tigers, lions, bears (oh my), skritt, dredge, mursaat, charr, ogres, goblins, elves, dragons, so on and so forth are not capitalized. They are not proper nouns.

I think you need to re-evaluate your English skills and re-read what a proper noun is. A proper noun is a name for a very specific entity – specifically, things like an individual, a small group, or a specific location. Umbrella Corporation is a proper noun, for example. Humans are not a proper noun, because it is not a “very specific entity.”

Race names are not proper nouns.

I would go the extra mile and link a blog post by Bobby Stein in which he explains that while in GW1 they had incorrectly capitalized race names, they had no intention of doing so in GW2 (there are, however, slip ups). Sadly, the blog in which said post was on was deleted for some reason. It was at arena.net/blog

I am saying you are incorrect keep referring to my statements in an in game perspective and say it is wrong when I keep saying I am making statement about the game in a out of game perspective that do not break any in game lore.

You are wrongfully keep attributing my statement in an in game perspective. So just stop interpreting my statement your way and let my statements stand on their own sense.

I used the descriptive term mole people. People here is the common noun and mole is the adjective modifier. This was in communicating with other players in a out of game context even though the game was the subject.

So, yes you are wrong trying to interfere an out of game discourse by imposing an in game convention. That in game convention is only correct through the literature convention of artistic licence. The language usage is adjusted to further the realism of a make believe and imagery world. Words like Skritt and Moletariate are not common nouns. They are made up. Made up nouns follow the proper noun usage.

Cataclysm.7491 and a number of your followers have been proved wrong as yourself admit. I did not do so before in previous instances but now I have to point out to you that in this instance I have never capitalise human after the start of a sentence. You keep attributing examples that show mistakes to me when such mistakes are made up by you. I, myself, do not do that.

Konig.. It’s lions and tigers and bears oh my. Not tigers and lions and bears oh my.
- this is pretty much the only thing of value to be found within this thread.

Avariz, given the way you feel and the fact that nobody seems to be able to understand how exactly you are interpreting things why did you make this thread? If you don’t want to have some ridiculous argument in which misunderstandings go back and forth then learn when not to continue trying to provoke people. This thread was unnecessary and adds nothing to the lore forum.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Konig.. It’s lions and tigers and bears oh my. Not tigers and lions and bears oh my.
- this is pretty much the only thing of value to be found within this thread.

Avariz, given the way you feel and the fact that nobody seems to be able to understand how exactly you are interpreting things why did you make this thread? If you don’t want to have some ridiculous argument in which misunderstandings go back and forth then learn when not to continue trying to provoke people. This thread was unnecessary and adds nothing to the lore forum.

The point is censorship and control on neutral artistic subject matter by negativity. In a creative sense people should have an interest in knowing what Poletariate actually means in real life and its derived Moletariate. Speculating on all the possibilities and potentialities is enjoyable rather than just accepting one given orthodoxy.

No one is trying to censor you, having read this entire thread. The only thing that I can read from your posts and everyone else’s is simple. The way in which you wrote your sentence, however you meant it, reads as from an in-game perspective. None of this really hurts what you wrote in your OP, it was merely someone noting that it could have possibly been better phrased in order to bring across the idea you were aiming for. Although I have to say, I’m not exactly sure what type of debate or speculation you were trying to create here. Your OP seemed more like a statement rather than a spark for conversation.

Narcemus.1348:

No one is trying to censor you, having read this entire thread. The only thing that I can read from your posts and everyone else’s is simple. The way in which you wrote your sentence, however you meant it, reads as from an in-game perspective. None of this really hurts what you wrote in your OP, it was merely someone noting that it could have possibly been better phrased in order to bring across the idea you were aiming for. Although I have to say, I’m not exactly sure what type of debate or speculation you were trying to create here. Your OP seemed more like a statement rather than a spark for conversation.

Well, as in the previous thread before this one I already stated mole people is a descriptive term. Does that mean my statement can now stand on their own common usage sense and not taken as an in universe usage sense. If, yes then people can stop bashing me with it, the in universe usage sense.

Avariz.8241:

I am saying you are incorrect keep referring to my statements in an in game perspective and say it is wrong when I keep saying I am making statement about the game in a out of game perspective that do not break any in game lore.

That’s not what I said, nor have I ever said that.

What was said was that the dredge’s ancestors were never called ‘mole people’ by its name, something your wording indicated – as I have said before, intentionally or not. I am not saying they do not look like mole people. Hell, I admitted that they do. I am saying that your wording said that you argued that in lore – from an in-game perspective – that the dredge were once called ‘mole people’ and stated that such is false.

You do not seem to understand that I was initially trying to clarify a miscommunication between yourself and another (who that other I have long forgotten by now). I never said you were intentionally saying they’re called mole people in lore. I am saying that your wording implied such.

So I am not “wrongfully keep attributing my statement in an in game perspective.” – You merely think I am, but I am not.

Avariz.8241:

So just stop interpreting my statement your way and let my statements stand on their own sense.

I am interpreting your statement as it is grammatically correct to interpret it. I am an English major so I spent many courses – otherwise boring if not for the enjoyable teacher’s methods of teaching – that explained in immense detail the value and means of understanding the forms of grammar, vocab, syntax, and so forth.

This is the entire reason why from the very beginning I stated that whether or not it was your intention, that is how your wording shows it to be to other people. It is a communication error, at the fault of no one in particular. You keep on arguing about it being otherwise, claiming you are correct and by all intents and purposes that we others are ‘picking on you’ or what-have-you. That is how your constant postings about a pointless topic is coming out to sound, at least.

TL;DR Exactly what Narcemus said.

Avariz.8241:

Cataclysm.7491 and a number of your followers have been proved wrong as yourself admit.

I never admitted being wrong, because I was never making a stance of “you are wrong, Avariz, and I am right.” I was never disagreeing with you. Not on that matter at least.

And saying I have followers is just bloody hilarious.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Konig.. It’s lions and tigers and bears oh my. Not tigers and lions and bears oh my.
- this is pretty much the only thing of value to be found within this thread.

I know. I was just trying to be funny because I realized as I typed ‘bears’ that I accidentally almost typed out that phrase.

I was too lazy/uncaring to fix the order.

Avariz.8241:

Well, as in the previous thread before this one I already stated mole people is a descriptive term. Does that mean my statement can now stand on their own common usage sense and not taken as an in universe usage sense. If, yes then people can stop bashing me with it, the in universe usage sense.

No one was ever bashing you with it or anything else.