User talk:Karek/20080410042453

Vandal banning page

Can you please fix the mess created in the vandal banning page before I get an aneurysm? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 16:29, 30 March 2008 (BST)

I ruled, you're not gonna like it.--Karek^maps?! 16:38, 30 March 2008 (BST)

You're a mind reader because I didn't. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 16:41, 30 March 2008 (BST)

To Karek: I just wanted to congratulate you on that ruling. Genuinely - thankyou. (I was going to place a separate heading, but this one's already here, so...) --Funt Solo ^QT 17:47, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Your turn?

Hey, i think its your turn at the wan yao arby case, i may be wrong but it seems they've both posted what they want to. So get over there, i'm hanging out to hear the result.--x o x o 10:58, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Heh.

Thanks dude, I was just messing around. I was just continuing because I actually enjoyed our argument. Thanks for taking the time to reply to it and all. I didnt mean to add to the wiki drama or anything. Catch ya later Karek ;) Cisisero 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Chairborne88

I have ran into a minor issue, "someone" (who will remain unidentified) has left a post then copy/pasted my template signature to it, essentially making it appear that I was the author of the post as well as drawing fire for the issue under debate. I am not interested in official intervention at this time as the issue seems to have blown over and the act was not repeated (per my request). What I am interested in is if it is possible to "protect my Sig" to prevent a repeat incident thus official complaints blah-blah. I am pretty sure "protecting my sig" would only prevent someone from editing the template? Is there any other preventative action I can take or am I just stuck?--A irborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what it is you can report them to A/VB for impersonation, if they selected a name very similar to yours and copied your sig it would be a pretty straightforward case. As for protecting the sig, yes, that can be done, but that won't stop users from copying the code, only from editing it. When a page is protected a View Source button replaces the Edit one.--Karek^maps?! 01:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was pretty much what I thought. I know I could make a case against them, but as long as it is not repeated I am willing to drop it. I am just going to assume it was a very bad joke and drop it. Thanks for your help--A irborne88

^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Man

Hi karek, I'm not here to fight with you, I'm just here to tell you that there was no real edit dispute over the ridelybank wiki. the one who was editing the wiki towards the end was a vandal if you noticed this "seargent headings" guy. I don't know how to handle this situasion but I would like to point out that this was a case of vandalism not an edit war. The man 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He may have forced himself into it but, there was an obvious edit war:

(cur) (last) 06:49, 26 March 2008 Sergeant Hastings (Talk | contribs | block)
(cur) (last) 06:41, 26 March 2008 Sergeant Hastings (Talk | contribs | block)
(cur) (last) 06:37, 26 March 2008 Sergeant Hastings (Talk | contribs | block)
(cur) (last) 06:35, 26 March 2008 WanYao (Talk | contribs | block) (reverting vandalism and changing based on my VERIFIED scout)
(cur) (last) 06:23, 26 March 2008 Sergeant Hastings (Talk | contribs | block) m
(cur) (last) 06:00, 26 March 2008 Saromu (Talk | contribs | block) (I'm there right now and I'm telling you it's fucking very dangerous. You'd be safer running naked through Detroit than living here.)
(cur) (last) 05:50, 26 March 2008 WanYao (Talk | contribs | block) (status was not changed on basis of my report, but on basis of the man's scout. i'm reverting grey -- see Talk page.)
(cur) (last) 22:26, 25 March 2008 Thekooks (Talk | contribs | block) (Check second Iwitness, 9 zombies + him = 10, also the bodies count, it is a sort of general thing.)
(cur) (last) 20:53, 25 March 2008 The man (Talk | contribs | block) (Hi karek. Yes its true. After reading Wan yao's resport I decided to take a look around the suburb and Wan Yao was right. Unless you can present 10 zombies on one block this place stays gray.)

So much so that I was personally contacted via IRC by two users to intervene, something which I avoided doing until the point of Sergeant Hastings' vandalism. Don't worry though, I plan to unprotect it very soon, this is in no way me weighing in on this_{(not having anyone in Ridleybank kinda makes that pointless)} and I think WanYao has done a very good job of trying to settle this dispute on his own.--Karek^maps?! 12:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mall Status Map

Thanks very much for adding your code, I wouldn't have been able to do that myself and manually updating it would have worn thin after a while. Much appreciated, Garum 01:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's always better when the wiki does the work :D--Karek^maps?! 01:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was good work there. --Toejam 14:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Woo

Woo hoo! Your page renders perfectly now :D It was not an issue of it's size, but an issue of the slow connection we had here not being able to rapidly load your content to render :D Now we have switched to a 10 meg connection and your page loads instantly :D Too bad i am under a firewall now and still unable to connect to irc >_> --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn on the IRC, but sweet on my page loading.--Karek^maps?! 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki

Don't bother - this sort of thing has been fought over literally for years. Nobody ever changes their ways - the only way one side ever triumphs over the other is when those in power decide to leave (as happened with Xoid and BobHammero). Unfortunately I cannot see any end to this current cycle - with Boxy in charge (lol Vantar) only those with absolute popularity will ever be promoted. Which is why I stopped bothering to be polite months ago. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to just watch it happen, if I can do something I'll do it, I know they're gonna back Conn because Conn is backing Hagnat(rule by popular clique), which is kinda ironic cause Hagnat has no problem with my views on the case or with me expressing them. If the system is broken either fix it or avoid it, I'm to stubborn to avoid it so I only really have the one option left and with Grim being less active I seem to be the only Sysop left who will actually speak out against the popular clique.--Karek^maps?! 14:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, for sure - don't let those toerags get away with it without sweating blood. I'm just saying that you shouldn't get too emotionally invested (could've done with a better word than "bother") in these sorts of things - because while they have the majority you're going to lose every time. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek... Important Message

Oh my goodness how do I be like you <3 -- Rogue Sergeant 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is

This [1] edit is vandalism, Impersonation right?--'BP^Tmz 20:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Id say no, there's no ambiguity about who's saying what it's obviously him in the brackets and he claims as much by saying "DCC does xxxx" in all of them, it's ill advised, probably revertible to prevent what little possible confusion there is, but there is no intent to impersonate that I can see.--Karek^maps?! 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Two Things

You need to archive.
About the Mall Status Map:I've linked it through a the player information template, so that people know where it is. You should probably work on a way of linking it through the MIC so that it's up to date. --User:Axe27/Sig 21:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I only Archive when it's over 200k. However if you are having problems loading the page let me know.
Huh?--Karek^maps?! 01:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean, when a dangerreport template is updated, the mall status map's dangerreport is also updated. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I already did that, that's what the whole {{MallSwitcher}} {{MallSwitcherSwitcher}} thing does, it's now possibly to output style code from any Mall Danger Report template call by simply assigning the default variable |2(just add |2 before the }})--Karek^maps?! 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. The forefront of wiki formatting? --User:Axe27/Sig 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sugg Talk Archive

Hey, i went to discuss a sugg on talk:suggs and was told i couldn't coz the page was over 300kb, i cut the bottom few suggs off the page so it would fit and went to archive them but it seems no one bothers will the archiving anymore. Anyway due to the strange way that whole thing is done there is no talk page for discussing systems with archiving so i posted here. Basically to let people know i removed the bottom few so if they plan on archiving they should get 3 suggs off that page history change. If you get what i mean. And Karek, its here coz i didn't know where else to put it :P --x o x o 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to do it but I stopped due to various reasons, It's actually a rather simple system. Any suggestions that haven't had active discussion(back and forth, not just adding a comment) in a weeks time can be deleted, anything that hasn't had conversation for two days can be marked with the deletion notice(which was/is done to let people know it's a dead discussion). There is no place to archive them to and it's not needed so they can just be deleted, the archive was scrapped a long time ago because it would have been too much of a hassle to maintain.--Karek^maps?! 05:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

k thanks, i basically wanted someone to actually say that there was no point archiving, and you did, so thanks.--x o x o 05:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of Interest

Do you know which template suggestion adds the vote sections onto a new suggestion? As in the Keep, Kill and Spam/Dupe headings? I have an idea for it. -- C h e e s e 23:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. :D I found it. -- C h e e s e 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Yeah, just curious, but why did you take Monkey to A/VB when you had already talked to him on his talk page? Also, any thoughts on a policy that would allow small changes to existing ones, essentially something that would reduce the need for creating policies to change small things. I don't know the workings of it, or if something already exists, though. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I took him to A/VB first, check the timestamps. I talked to him about it to give him notice that he shouldn't be doing it. It's still subject to A/VB and should not be changed, it's both censorship and impersonation, even if done in good faith it's still vandalism for those two reasons, there's no for the betterment of the wiki reason that can justify something like that.--Karek^maps?! 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no betterment for the wiki, nothing siginificant, right. But it's clearly not bad faith, so I'll assume the opposite. Its what it says at the top of the page. I'm rather disappointed that you didn't talk to him first, Monkey doesn't appear to me as an idiot who will ignore a simple comment (like the one you made). Such a thing could have been much more easily resolved by telling him no. The only result of that case would have been pointless "punishment" (a warning), which would have been not at all different from the comment that you made, in the end, except with more bloody drama and more reason on how my fucking opinions are so utterly wrong that it so clearly shows me as being inept. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The point wasn't to resolve the content of the page. It was that it was intentional impersonation and censorship and thus the A/VB case. If he hadn't done it to for the reasons he did it I wouldn't have made the A/VB case. If you're offended by my having made the case get over it, it's precedent and in line with past precedent for the rules and thus the case, if you are offended because I'm somewhere saying you're wrong read what I said here and get over it, we're SysOps it comes with the territory at some point someone won't agree with us because we're the ones responsible for interpreting the policies, sometimes someone else has a different interpretation, and sometimes they are right.--Karek^maps?! 23:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I come across offended, or annoyed because someone didn't agree with me, or because of what you said. I am annoyed be the absolute uselessness of those types of cases. Although it is pefectly valid, the rules do sate about impersonation, it's just so stupid to have cases like this. The point of Vandal Banning is to is to stop vandals from vandalizing, not for punshing any user for such trivial things. I'm not going to continue anything here, I was not attempting to convince you of anything and unless you have a time-machine, what's done is done. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sigs

Oh. Ok. I thought it was taking things a bit far personally but I'll leave it from now on. -- C h e e s e 10:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

This colour scheme is supremely eye-destroying. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Just be glad it's not neon.--Karek^maps?! 08:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna be switching monitors tomorrow cause people keep saying this page is hard to read(with the fonts and stuff) and I keep not being able to see the problem. I'm thinking it might be the settings on my current monitor.--Karek^maps?! 08:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it... what's the problem? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The colours themselves are fine - it's the links that have become impossible to read. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I don't like that much myself but there's no way to change the Alink and Vlink colors that I know of.--Karek^maps?! 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re A/VB Comment

point of order... Unless there has been an official policy change that I am aware of Users can remove their own contributions to talk pages when it's not a significant discussion. If I were to post on some talk page and decide I didn't want to make the comment it's perfectly fine for me to remove it. is an incorrect statement. We had problems back in the past with people altering their comments after the fact and to simplify the issue of what statements could and could not be altered we took the position of once you posted...tough luck. Personally I understand what you mean but with the tendency to wiki-lawyer things into a state of adnausium it is better to require clarification rather than allow deletion or alteration by a non-page owner. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 04:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda the point, we don't let policies run based off of how much people will wiki lawyer things, our job is to deal with the wiki lawyering and tough luck if we don't want to then we shouldn't stay Sysops. Every case should be ruled based on it's merits not based on how much of a shit-fit someone will start over how someone did or didn't get punished for something slightly similar some time in the distant or not so distant past.--Karek^maps?! 06:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about deleting info

I posted in the suburbs section about how BB2 is attacking Crowbank and a person that is "a member of The Second Big Bash" deleted it because "Its all crap". I was wondering if this constitutes any vandalist behavior and should be brought attention. I'm asking you because I know your a mod and all. --Memoman 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think he deleted it beacuse of the argument. Although I don't know, I seriously doubt it was in Bad Faith so it's not vandalism and would be more of a case for Arbitration if you feel you need to take it further. I also have it on very good authority that the Big Bash is in Crowbank at the moment. Although I'm not sure what the danger level is, just because they are there doesn't make it Very Dangerous. So, uhm, to answer your question no, I don't believe that's vandalism, Edit Conflict possibly, but not vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG he did it again, he's removing all notices of BB2 being in Crowbank, which is stupid because it says so at there wiki page, and one there forum which I linked to on the suburb page and I provided evidence of the threat level there. --Memoman 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the diff linked right there there are some POV issues, specifically the whole run part. Advising specific groups of users in a news post is generally viewed as a POV addition.--Karek^maps?! 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Hey, regarding my vandal warnings/banning getting struck do you reckon the 1 month or 2 month rule applies? The infractions were committed when the 2 month rule was in place however considering the count resets after each striking i was wondering if that would only apply to the first one. This is fairly low importance but i was curious...--x o x o 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else but the way I do, and intend to, interpret the rule is that its stacked based on when the warnings were struck, not when they were received, unless, you have exceeded the limit for all warnings and are in risk of an improper escalation. So whatever the current strike time set out in the recently updated Vandal Guidelines from when I struck the last warning. --Karek^maps?! 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Banning

Ok. :) It does seem pretty obvious to be honest but I shall do that. -- C h e e s e 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're technically an involved party, there are two other active SysOps that can do the banning right now.--Karek^maps?! 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :) Gotcha. I'll need to go soon anyway. Can't spend all night reverting :P Either way, I'm going to end up with a huge inbox full of junk telling me that various users will have changed my talk page when I get log in tomorrow. -- C h e e s e 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It only gives you diff to penultimate. To see more you have to check History.--Karek^maps?! 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it? :S I've been getting emails everytime something is changed on it. Even the minor edit you made came through. -- C h e e s e 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's something different entirely. Go to My Preferences and unmark E-mail me when my user talk page is changed.--Karek^maps?! 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :) There's two 3PWV alts awaiting permabanning. I've given them 24 hours each, but he seems to have an unlimited supply of Proxies. -- C h e e s e 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DUH. How do you think i've lasted so long? You said you just got mod a week ago? Hmm, I thought you were someone different. Look, just go check out blacklisted user names. You will find almost every variation of 3pwv in there. I'll even tell you which website I'm getting these from. Lol. http://proxy.org/ just look what it says on the front page "Choose one of 7,855 working proxies" . Just go ask one of the oldies, like hagnat, and I'm sure they will agree that a perm-ban is in order, for all names relating to 3pwv. Loler skates Noob mod in town 23:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that much was obvious. There's a reason I do things certain ways. Don't worry, you'll get what's coming your way, whatever that ends up being.--Karek^maps?! 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. :S Accidentally hit Infinite instead of a day. I'll just leave it. it's want he's going to get anyway. -- C h e e s e 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Giddings Mall Tunes

The Giddings Mall Tunes have been a part of Giddings mall for almost half a year. The mods have no problem with it, its not advertising, its people having good fun. If the mods didn't have a problem with it (which they didn't) then you shouldn't either! Quit being a buzz kill and leave the mall tunes alone!--Happykook 13:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How long it's gone unnoticed doesn't matter. It's linking possible copyright violations from the wiki, don't link Youtube videos, don't advertise for people on popular wiki pages. It's why I removed it.--Karek^maps?! 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the

I just wanted to thank you for the --Airborne88 ^{T Zom MIS} 05:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cause I Need a Real Header" is this an insult? Or do I mistake you? I was trying to be polite and post a thank you out of the way at the bottom of your page...Hope everything is all cool.

--Airborne88

^{T Zom MIS} 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cause I Need a Real Header is my talk header for everything involving talking with me at all. It's mentioned in the Note to Guests directly above it. I just moved it to the top of the list.--Karek^maps?! 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goes to show I should fully "read all directions". Thanks for the nudge in the right direction. You've got a sweet page too!--Airborne88

^{T Zom MIS} 14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DurkaDurka

I'm not going to get in to an edit war over this, so tell me who's right here: [2] [3]

Also it is impossible to read this page with the black background and navy text. --Gregarious Instigator ^{SHUT UP | RIGHTS | PETITION} 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you are, he's removing the post from it's context, which is something that should be preserved. As for the second, Funt takes things a little too seriously, the guy wishes me dead on a semi-regular basis because I'm not part of the Funt fan club and won't conform to some of the stupid shit he manages to spew onto the internet. I'm used to him playing this little game.--Karek^maps?! 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah can you change back to one of the other colour schemes youve been playing around with? This is the worst yet...--x o x o 07:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking lightening the font for the talk page, but the overall scheme isn't gonna change for a while.--Karek^maps?! 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Amusing Location in Malton: The Bissex Monument

So apparently instead of including the actual description for The Bissex Monument, they went with one about two girls kissing. The actual description is: You are at the Bissex Monument, a metal statue of a soldier engraved with memorial dates. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's in-part what my whole problem with the amusing descriptions is. If you change it I'll back you up but, I don't really know why you came here, it's not something you need my approval for.--Karek^maps?! 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...maybe before you make stupid accusations you should do your homework. Considering you came to Karek i'm gonna assume that 'they' is me, nick and anyone else involved with ALiM. Firstly, that location description was last changed in, oh, thats right, last fucking november. Before the location came to the attention of ALiM. Secondly, if you care to see what ALiM's view on the location is, you can see the talk page where it is currently being discussed as to how to deal with the location. Note that no one suggests the in-game description on the monument is ignored. So delete away, just get your facts straight and blame those you actually made the edit rather then linking to ALiM.--x o x o 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this discussion, however, if there is an in-game description it's probably best to include it or stick somewhere close to it in the page's location description(cause the location already has a description, the in-game one). Other than that it's more or less unimportant, might be best to calm down a little though.--Karek^maps?! 04:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I think when he said they he meant ALiM, not any specific people in it.--Karek^maps?! 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah i'm just sick of this anti-alim sentiment. Its one thing to blame us for what we wrote, quite another to blame us for what some random wrote 4 months ago...and its not like its hard to check.--x o x o 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What I still don't really get is why Akule came here instead of just making the change.--Karek^maps?! 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is weird. It didn't even include a question. Maybe he thought we'd revert or something and wanted you in there to sort things out. Anyway, since he did you know have everything to do with this.--x o x o 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the Bissex page, hopefuly adding a bit of humour to it, while keeping the accuracy in terms of the description. Hope everyone likes it.--Seventythree^Talk 11:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I wanted your opinion, instead of just taking action? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I was just wondering as this type of thing seems to be happening more and more lately.--Karek^maps?! 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that included a question at least.--x o x o 00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Monroeville Many

Thanks for joining the forum. You have a spare zombie, or just lending your zombie knowledge. More than willing to add you to the secretish members area. Your thoughts on the group so far? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just adding any helpful knowledge. I have a zombie currently running with the MRF. Haven't really seen anything on the group yet but I do like the starting off by contacting other groups part.--Karek^maps?! 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we started on day one, but were almost all veteran human survivors. Its kind of tough being the only zombie group in monroeville without a feeder group in malton, but hey, Level 3 in a week isnt all that bad. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also having our whole wiki page wiped wasnt helpful today. Seems we have an enemy. But on the plus side, were now 253 on the most linked to pages. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Uploading Images of Wood?

hypocrite.--x o x o 07:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I should probably file a delete request for that too, it was meant to be background but there's apparently no way to do that on the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, way to rain on my parade, re: Buckoke building. What would be reasonable there? that same thing minus the word ejaculation and the urbandictionary link?--x o x o 07:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

. . . What part of Buckake seemed resonable? It's not like making a page description about Gorilla Masking, Angry Pirates, or Munging would be all that appropriate, what separates Buckake?

after hours all 55 men in the company would take turns ejaculating on the face of the young secretary, the only female in the company, in a practice known as bukake.

That's the problem part, I'd say if you want to have those descriptions it might make a great side project of something you could add onto ALiM, by say putting a humorous page description link on the ALiM page for each of those, or putting the humorous description under the ALiM building name. It's just not something that should really be on the main locations page.--Karek^maps?! 08:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Karek, you're trying to get an image as a background? Like this? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wanted it to repeat in tiles so it would auto fill, that way I wasn't stuck with a static size, I'll keep that link in mind for the future though.--Karek^maps?! 22:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

that dead of DH page

I agree that there are limits to group page ownership, but in this case, I think we should only be able to force a short NPOV section at the top of the page (saying large zombie group, and maybe a sentence explaining why they're mostly low level). If the group leader (I'm assuming Kathew), wants it blank, then so be it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:27 26 February 2008 (BST)

NPOV section is fine and good but, the page was created as is by other group members who have also contributed. As is, from their forum, there seems to be no group leader so much as there is a person who says go here do that. The reason for it being vandalism isn't so much that he was removing the group box but, rather, why he was doing it which was actively him trying to make the page as useless as possible.--Karek^maps?! 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not talking about Zombified here, but the page in general, and your intention of rolling it back and choosing which version of all those made by group members is acceptable. It's still not very informative even at that. It seems to me that the consensus of opinion amongst the group is that they want no page at all, which would be better served by a blank page under a NPOV statement -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:44 26 February 2008 (BST)

I have no intention of leaving it the way it is now. I'm just not going to make changes while it's currently protected, although feel free to do so if you want but, that's pretty much the idea, they can not have a page all they want but a page will still exist, or rather the NPOV section which is the only part that's really needed anyway.--Karek^maps?! 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've edited it to be blank, other than a short NPOV statement. I think it should probably be left protected until unless they decide they want a page that they can edit in the future. Be a pity to have to put the protection template on it though -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:35 26 February 2008 (BST)

Bah, Gnome says no templates. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it has become obvious that Conndraka has no intention of removing the mirror of the original dead of dunell hills page that he created from the DHPD space, is there any reason that page cannot serve as the information source on the group the wiki apparently needs? If I've misunderstood and there is a policy that requires all groups to be represented with a page containing an NPOV block please link it for me. Juan carlos 07:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Roughly because that would be interpreted as the group being a subgroup of the DHPD, and I really doubt you'd want that. The group subpage is a group resource, it's essentially equivalent to them having a forum topic on your group that is locked to people without a special member group, nothing more.--Karek^maps?! 07:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the whole point of this entire discussion is that we really don't give a hot shit what people think of the group, be it zergers, DHPD alts, whatever. If Conndraka wants to take credit for what we do, let him try; the sorry state of dunell hills speaks louder anyway. Juan carlos 15:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little unclear there, the problem is that it makes you seem to be a subgroup of the DHPD and we don't want that. Standards and such.--Karek^maps?! 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

my suggestion

You are linked

Just wondered if you would be kind enough to make any comment on this before i revise it for voting? Thanks...--Honestmistake 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that link... i think it was Hagnats idea of a joke :) The suggestion is "Feral Frenzy" and its on the suggestion Talk page. I really should learn how to do stuff properly!!!--Honestmistake 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Protections

Can you open up my protections request so that I can fix some errors and crap in it? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF MOB pr0n} 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Karek^maps?! 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're a saint. Love ya. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF MOB pr0n} 05:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

just curious, why did you bother to switch from "float" to "align"? I don't see difference on any pages --~~~~ [talk ] 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was something I was trying, didn't work out to great. I was trying to fix the overlap problem.--Karek^maps?! 16:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The best way to fix it is to have on all SO-pages an "Analysis" paragraph in the beginning. IMHO... --~~~~ [talk ] 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but that doesn't fix the problem so much as cover it up, it's forcing it down with a left align but, the problem is that the right align doesn't move page headers for some reason, and doesn't really get counted as existing it seems.--Karek^maps?! 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Newbie!

--Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Danger Reports

I'm trying the get a better understanding of your point of view. When you say the danger reports have better information are you referring to pages like the Building Information Center or are you talk about the individual template on pages like the Crossman Grove Police Department?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vantar (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

(25,20) (bic) (statuses) (update)

Crossman Grove Police Department
Barricaded, generator and fuel, last update 28th February 2024

JonnyOfTheInternet (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Those are what I'm referring too, the BuildingStatus Templates and including them on pages like Crossman Grove Police Department. Personally I don't like Building Information Center, the only one that's really useful is MIC, although if those were done for other "big" complexes like Forts and Mansions I could see those having a use, those types of pages should be reserved for the rarities in malton.--Karek^maps?! 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I of the complete opposite view. (I'm ok with the BIC, don't like the buildingstatus templates on each page) so we might have to agree to disagree here and wait for more input from others to figure out what type of system they want to use. - Vantar 00:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Looks like you might have some stuff to deal with at the moment, but if you get the time Nick and Jed have posted their argument, so if you want to psot a rebuttal or state you don't want to that'd be cool.--Seventythree^Talk 17:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

<looks at the welcome newbie template in puzzlement....> Ruling is ready on that arbitration case, just to let ya know.--Seventythree^Talk 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's something me and Sonny did to each other a while back.--Karek^maps?! 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Underline

Thanks. I thought there was a Wiki code for it, but apparently I was wrong. Oh well. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey man, your posts on both Finis and Cheesemans page didn't link to anything, just thought I would let you know. And I bet there is some reason for this and I will need to reply to you with nothing but an embarrassed face hahah.--MichaelRead 10:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, no reason, seems to be I didn't have the right thing in my clipboard. I fixed the link on Finis' page, Cheeseman got the message though.--Karek^maps?! 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Trashed

Thanks, glad you liked it. --Jon Pyre 18:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A Different View of the recent Siege

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind stopping by my independant report on the siege of Giddings Mall. I see that your a powerful user on this wiki and as such I'd like your opinion on it to see if I have any reporting skills. This is more of a test article than a real attempt but it could be used if so voted for. Also if you could help me fix the spelling of the article that would be great. I can't figure out how to change it. Thank you for your time. The article is The Second Seige of Giddings Mall (you can see why I need help with the spelling.)--Rico Montoya 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure to check it out and see what I can add.--Karek^maps?! 05:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you meant in your post(by the way thank you for heeding my request). Do you mean that i should see if i can get my article renamed or just add parts of it to another article? Also what did you mean by there should be a separate article away from POV? Was it that mine had to much or that others will make it POV? I'm sorry if I'm being a bother.--Rico Montoya 07:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was that It's pointless to try and develop on the article Nalikill started, it will just be undone the next day by the same people who caused the problem in the first place. I'll make the move request.--Karek^maps?! 07:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well thank you for all your help.--Rico Montoya 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat case

Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that the majority of sysops had ruled for a warning. Boxy ruled NOT, AHLG and Vantar ruled (somewhat reluctantly) that it was misconduct but with one of them saying he saw no need for any punishment and the other that the guideline needed changing to allow this sort of protection. You obviously voted for misconduct and Grim and Hagnats opinions must obviously be discounted. While I know our opinions don't count for much, not one of the normal users that commented felt that punishment was warranted. It seems that you mostly ruled just to shut Funt and Akule up (and did so in a way which was almost certainly misconductable in itself) That whole case was a farce and I think you let annoyance cloud your initial good judgement in refusing to be the one to close it. I am not sure that a finding of misconduct needs a punishment and i am sure that this one in particular certainly didn't. Still a ruling is made and hopefully this will blow over in a day or so! --Honestmistake 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel I commited misconduct, by all means feel free to start a case. A warning is a slap on the wrist, it's not a vandal escalation, it's not a punishment in any way, it's a talking too, it's letting him know why what he did was wrong, as can be seen through what I did. The case was done, the case has been done for 6 days, even Hagnat himself was asking for someone to warn him and archive the case, so I did it. But, if you feel a need to start a case over this I'll not stop you. I'd also point out that the opinions of a normal user do count but, I'll also point out that the reason I didn't close the case earlier was that I wasn't aware of what to do, Grim obviously couldn't, AHLG probably also didn't know what to do, Vantar was missing, and Boxy wasn't doing it for whatever reason although I'd have to think it was probably because he didn't agree with the majority decision. --Karek^maps?! 10:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an intelligence of 19, more than humans, which is about 18, but usually 17. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Majority decision? What? You and Grim (grim being the one that brought the case). I can't believe you'd count Hagnats "go ahead, warn me" as a vote for warning (it sounds like sarcasm doesn't it, despite him being the accused, who doesn't get a vote). I said no action (slap on wrist), AHGL said no action, Vantar said nothing other than misconduct. That's why I didn't rule, it was too close to call. In such cases a vote of sysops is taken, it's not ruled and rushed off to the archives. Hell, at least when I ruled prematurely, I didn't go hiding it away in the archives as soon as possible -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:26 1 February 2008 (BST)

As Hagnat himself has pointed out I did not warn hagnat with an A/VD escalation as has been done in the past, maybe if you actually took the time to find out what I did instead of just rushing here to complain about it you would have known that.--Karek^maps?! 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's not clear from the misconduct archive, which simply stated that he was being warned... and it's hardly rushing off to complain about it either, the ruling was yesterday -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:21 1 February 2008 (BST)

I was not threatening you, i just thought your threat was foolish and unfair. I understand that you didn't deal with it earlier for reasons of inexperience and do feel that was the right thing to do given that folk were still debating the matter. I do disagree that it was all over at the point of your initial ruling but think it had reached the point where someone had to make the decision when you finally did. As for a warning on misconduct cases being a slap on the wrist, I assumed it was taken as a step down the road to loss of status and was thus an escalation. If that is not the case then the warning is pretty much what I thought should be meted out originally, just wish Grim had pointed out that a warning was a slap on the wrist when I raised it with him earlier in the case! --Honestmistake 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestmistake said:

You obviously voted for misconduct and Grim and Hagnats opinions must obviously be discounted.

You're every bit as bad as the image you work to fit sysops who disagree with your view in. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob, how the hell does the above quote support that? Its a statement of fact that Karek voted misconduct, Hagnat and Grim were the accused and accuser so they couldn't judge it, hence they needed to be discounted. Read my opinions on the case itself, I agree that it was misconduct and if a warning from the misconduct pages is a slap on the wrist and doesn't count as a step down some escalation road then it is exactly what i said should happen to Hagnat! As for Kareks ruling being "misconductable" it reads like a threat using his sysop status as a badge of authority which is exactly what it is not and is specifically mentioned as misconduct in the rules. Do I think he meant it? No, I think he misread the argument between Funt & Akule vs Grim as being malicious and over reacted. Grim was just as guilty in escalating the disagreement and Funts point about "mods (sysops) being trusted to make judgement calls about rules getting in the way of common sense" was well made. If it gets dropped here and now I very much doubt if Funt will take it to misconduct but my point stands that Kareks threat read like a promise to use sysop powers to punish someone for personal reasons!--Honestmistake 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You're looking to stir up trouble out of nothing so you can feel good about yourself. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talking about yourself again Bob, feel free to do it on my page rather than cluttering Kareks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honestmistake (talk • contribs) .

Nice try, but you're going to have to do a little better than that - especially given that Karek agrees with me. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There was little personal about my "threat", you're reading too much into it. --Karek^maps?! 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You specifically named funt and akule (but not grim) and said you would find out whatever was in your power to do and do it to them if they ever shit up another admin page. How can that not read as a personal threat to use sysop powers against them?, especially when you start the post by throwing insults? --Honestmistake 12:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike them, i shied away from the personal attacks and instead focused on the issue at hand, specifically, rebutting their arguments, and calling them on it when they neglected to do so in return instead opting to attack me personally and ignore the rebuttals offered. Funt was especially guilty of this (And has been quite frequently, when it comes to discussions with me. His Vandal escalations policy talk is another great example of such actions when discussing with me). If you read the posts, understood them, and saw what was being said and what was not being said, you would have understood this without making your mistake. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must defend myself when I am slandered. I'm being accused of personal attacks when it was Grim who replied to my policy post, which was directly relevant to the case, by accusing me of "mindless rules lawyering". And yet he's here claiming that he "shied away from the personal attacks", and making me out the villain of the piece. Calling someone "mindless" for referring to a policy ruling with direct relevance to a Misconduct case is a fairly good definition of a personal attack. Reality check, please. --Funt Solo ^QT

14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can't see why I named Funt and Akule but not Grim then I can't help you. Reread through out the whole case file and you can see pretty clearly why I named Funt and Akule but not Grim if you actually look for it.--Karek^maps?! 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did follow the case and frankly the only reason i can see for your not including Grim is that you agreed with him..Not surpring given your earlier verdict but not entirely even-handed either! --Honestmistake 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally, It wasn't because Funt and Akule were baiting or were told multiple times to stop before it got as far as it did, it wasn't because Funt and Akule had in any way started the chain of shit. You're tainting reality to justify your view that I'm wrong.--Karek^maps?! 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I must comment when lies are told about me. I was not "told multiple times to stop". I recall being told once, by you, Karek, and you were biased in favour of Grim's case so you were just trying to shut me up because you didn't agree with my point of view. Trying to halt a pseudo-democratic process by shutting up the oposition and painting them as troublemakers is rather shallow and obvious, Karek. Remember, each time you lie, I will point it out. --Funt Solo ^QT

08:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange that one, I don't remember needing to tell Boxy or Honestmistake such a thing, obviously I was so biased I couldn't see that they were posting things about how they believed the case not to be misconduct. Seriously, where do you get this crap? Don't try and martyr yourself, it won't get you any points here.--Karek^maps?! 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC

Ignoring Akules role in this (because you are not far from the mark in accusing him of baiting Grim) you surely can't deny that Funt and Grim were having an argument which was pertinent to the case, ie: a discusion on how the rules and guidelines applied. It was Grim who made the first "baiting" comment and it was only after that that they started arguing more about each others view than the actual case. It was an argument that was going nowhere but it was still an argument in which they BOTH attacked the others position and made baiting comments. Just because you felt that Grim's argument was the stronger does not make him innocent of what you are accusing Funt of!--Honestmistake 11:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never said anything about who I though made better points or argued better. --Karek^maps?! 11:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your actions (in finding misconduct) show that you did agree with Grim's view. Whether you were swayed by his argument is not really the point. What is the point is that they were BOTH just as "guilty" of having a strongly held view which clashed with the others to such an extent that the view itself was capable of "baiting" the other without their recourse to accusations, insults and insinuations. Your weighing in on one side and ruling misconduct is one thing but your misguided and one sided warning was a bit unfair!--Honestmistake 12:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Misguided and one sided? Do you even know what you are talking about? Maybe you should read my little discussion with Boxy before making accusations, as I think you are under a misconception as to what exactly happened. Also, if you read through the case before Grim even had made a statement I spoke to both Akule and Funt about them attempting to drag the page off topic, and yet they still continued, the large debate about the Copyright rule in the center of the whole misconduct case is a fantastic example of why I said what I said.--Karek^maps?! 12:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Akule was dragging thing of topic, Funt was not. His first comment was more personal rant than anything else but it was a personal rant as to why he thought the case had been brought, Grims reaction was as surprising as it was sensible... he pretty much ignored it! The point where the two of them started arguing was after Funt provided evidence to support his assertion that Hagnat was right to do what he had. That evidence convinced me that a technical misconduct was in fact explicitly allowed as it was a common sense shortcut to achieve a common sense result.... no rules should stop such things and punishing folk for them is wrong! You had (rightly)told Funt to stop bringing his personal vendetta (poetic liscence here!) to the page and he did, he instead brought and defended evidence which Grim tried to rebut. Thats not off topic, they were both defending their own view and both made some valid points, nothing wrong with that! My only issue's were that I was under the impression that Hagnats warning was a punishment rather than just a warning that he was on thin ice, You cleared that up for me and I have no problem with that at all. My other issue regarded your threat to seek out and punish users for arguing their opinion (Akule's may have been misguided or outright wrong but it still seems to be a firmly held opinion and he did have some point to using the copyright thing as an comparison!) Excluding his initial outburst Funt was making a good argument that Hagnats actions were breaking the rules in a manner which the rules themselves allowed, Grim attacked the argument and Funts logic but could not prove it wrong and the two of them started snipping at each other. That means that if Funt was guilty of dragging the thing of topic so was Grim, he wasn't and neither was Grim but once again you don't agree with me and seem to be ascribing this to my stupidity and inability to comprehend what I have read, neither of which is true! --Honestmistake 14:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't for arguing their own opinion, it was for using administration pages to further their own personal conflicts, I wouldn't attempt to punish them for disagreeing, the problem was they were derailing the administrative page. And yes, it was mostly Akule, however things like this;

Funt Solo said:

I can see a direct line of evidence, where your falling out with hagnat over other policy decisions has led here. I see the evidence, and I believe it, because it's there in black and white, far more than I believe you.

Funt Solo said:

"this wiki does not have moderators". Well, that's clutching at straws. Are you suggesting that any policy that refers to "moderators" may now be ignored? I like how, instead of now agreeing that there's a rule that lets your colleague hagnat off your hook, you're almost foaming at the mouth to discredit it immediately. Such a shame.

Funt Solo said:

I proved that your Misconduct case was broken, not just in spirit, but in actual policy. I feel little need, beyond that, to refute what's simply your opinion. I mean, if we relied on opinion, instead of rules, why - that would be tyranny! Surely you don't want that?

Funt Solo said:

No, in your opinion you rebutted my claim. In my opinion, you failed to. The exact letter of the policy quote I gave is clear, and it clearly debunks two of the Misconduct rulings on this page. Only those sysops who gave those rulings can say whether or not they agree. It's not up to you. That's why I ignored your opinion. It's simply not relevant. This is not trolling, by the way, no matter how much you say so. It's new information of relevance to the case. (If I wanted to troll you, I'd hang around your talk page and wind you up for no good reason.)

Would roughly be why Funt was included in it.

Oh, and this was my favorite one.

Funt Solo said:

Yes, and Vantar says "There is no question in my mind that hagnat was taking action that he thought was best for the wiki." Therefore, his ruling of Misconduct is brought into question. Gnome said "It was a good faith attempt to improve the wiki", so his ruling of Misconduct is also brought into question. One can even argue that, although Karek ruled Misconduct, he was unwilling to then act upon that ruling, so it also is brought into question.

Where he goes so far as to assume none of us took that into consideration or that the purpose of misconduct is exactly that, to allow review of such judgement calls. It's Funt speaking before he thinks and doing so in a way that he basically insulted everyone that didn't agree with him.--Karek^maps?! 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to respond (without deleting my comment this time), as you are quoting me out of context. If you read exactly what I said in that last quote, you will see that I did not assume that either you, Vantar or Gnome had not taken that rule into consideration. Please, look at the words I used and try to forget for a moment that you dislike me. Just look at the words. "[B]rought into question". I use the phrase three times, to emphasise that I am not making any assumptions at all - I'm simply asking a question. I was asking if the rulings had taken the policy segment I pointed out into account. Gnome says that he hadn't. You have since said that you did. Vantar, I have no knowledge of, still. But, I did not make the assumption you say I did. I only asked a question about whether the judges in the case knew of a specific policy segment. Why is that insulting?

In regard to the quotes where I am in conversation with Grim: in each case I believe there is both a fair point being made, and a bit of venom thrown in. I admit it. I could have acted with more maturity. However, you have taken my quotes out of context and out of order (see the timestamps), and should be able to see that I was reacting (poorly, perhaps) to insulting terms and assumptions from Grim s. We were having a spat, frankly, in amongst our debate, and there's no reason why you should judge me as a troll and not him, in a case where both of us had lost our cool.

Prior to my first (in time) comment that you provide, Grim had called me "mindless" for pointing out a policy segment. (I was not insulting in that first post of the day.) Prior to the second comment, he accused me of "poisoning the well" (bringing into question my character) and told me to "put up or shut up" (egging me on). Prior to the third comment, he told me to "piss off" and "cease trolling". Prior to the fourth comment, he accused me of using the entire case as a "foundation for launching more attacks".

I don't mind you disagreeing with me, Karek, but to paint me as an out-and-out troll when I genuinely felt that the case was unfair, and that I had evidence (that may or may not have been considered) to back that up, well - that's just not trolling in my book. Trolling, in my opinion, is where you try to get a rise out of someone for the sheer hell of it, when you know it's wrong to do so. I would've thought you knew me well enough by now to know that when I'm arguing a point, it's because I believe I'm right, and not because I want to argue. --Funt Solo ^QT

09:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because you are arguing a point does not mean you are not trolling at the same time. Comments like the ones I quoted above had no place in the discussion beyond baiting Grim into replying. The second quote in particular makes no point and served no other purpose, even in context. You want I should hold the same threat over Grim, fine, Hagnat already mentioned that if you check the case but, you were still in no way in the right, even if you think you are, and even if Honestmistake thinks you were because he agrees with your opinion. The point still remains, don't spam Administration pages with your personal fueds, don't knowingly encourage one to start.--Karek^maps?! 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As for deleting things, next time read the #Note To Guests, I make it pretty clear what I will and won't delete, I've only ever deleted anything from here maybe 3-4 times. This was clearly well past the line of acceptable asshattery. And it's actually kinda incorrect, you haven't been warned because that's not what I said I would do, I didn't say I was going to do anything because of your actions in this case. But, if you want a stone cold reason as to why I even went as far as to warn you of possible action in the future and the above quotes, which are actually in chronological order except for the last one. Your constant claims of Grim being out to get Hagnat for another ruling are a great example of digging to get a response, you did that from your very first addition to the case all the way to your very last. Even when Grim was being relatively civil, for him at least.--Karek^maps?! 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your pathetic, unfounded threat

You said: "If me doing the dirty work is what it's going to take to shut you bitches up FINE I will do the god damn deed and I'll tell you right now Funt, and Akule, If I ever see you doing something like this again I will find out exactly what the full extent of what I can do to you is and will do it. Don't fuck with the Administration process just to further your vendetta's."

I KNOW that what I was doing was trying to end a fued, by pointing out the one piece of legislation on this wiki that allows sysops to do their jobs without being brought up on charges due to bits of red tape. So, don't go around slandering me or threatening me or insulting me, in an official manner like that, unless you have the evidence and the bollocks to back it up with something official, in your capacity as a sysop: a trusted user. Go ahead and try to warn me for trying to help, in a good faith way. Go on. You'll be in Misconduct before your shitty little shoes can touch the ground. In summary: go fuck yourself, you giant opinionated tit. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Funt, put simply, you're point didn't exist, maybe if you had paid attention to the case beyond that Grim started it you would have understood why your input was unwanted and unneeded. It was done, and yet you decided to start an argument with another user that was more than 4 times the actual cases size. The rule you mentioned was understood, and because of both Hagnat's history with those types of cases and the action Hagnat chose to do it was ignored. If you were trying to help in a good faith way you would have made your point and been done, not argue with Grim for as long as you felt you could without pissing someone off, not called my judgement into it because I said I didn't want to act due to my ignorance of the system. You went too far and I'm sure you know it, and yet you still feel you need to get the last word in. If that's all you have I'm not going to discuss the matter any further with you as I don't feel like talking at a brick wall. --Karek^maps?! 09:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with having the last word. In order to prove that, once I've made a couple of points I feel I need to make, now, I promise not to re-post on this topic, unless directly asked a question. You said "the rule you mentioned was understood", but I have clear evidence that Gnome did not understand that rule. (I will provide the evidence if you ask for it.) Also, I only replied to Grim's continued charge against me that I would not answer his questions. Surely you cannot blame me for replying when specifically asked to? My post here was in direct response to your accusations against me, and I don't follow a line of reasoning that allows you (or anyone else) to make accusations without allowing me to reply to them. --Funt Solo ^QT

11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle for Pitneybank/Current Siege

Please, I want this to (eventually.) become an article that reaches Historical Events. Give me suggestions, and I'll make the needed changes. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the name of the article is POV, I doubt it can be done.--Karek^maps?! 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to go to A/MR. I'm willing to copy the content to a different article title; just give me a name you think would be neutral and accurate. The Battle for Farmer, Giddings and Morrish (2008)? Bit lengthy, but I think it would work. I'll put in the A/MR request if you agree to the title. I'm here, and willing to make any change you see necessary to removing the POV. I'm interested in historical accuracy; so much history is lost in this game. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about you wait until people have something they are actually calling it, don't introduce new words, phrases, etc. into the vernacular. We're all about describing what happened, not making it happen.--Karek^maps?! 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is truly pathetic. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop

Read A/MR before you continue. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to continue simply because that argument is horrible. The accepted standard, from a simple glimpse at the category page itself, has been the American spelling, regardless of the servers location. --Karek^maps?! 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page is 210 kb long... isnt it time for it to be archived ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

NEVAR!--Karek^maps?! 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Just to let you know, the arbitration case you requested has begun. We are waiting for your opening statement or whatever it's technicaly called. Oh, and there's been a redesign of the arbitration page. I think hagnat sorted out some of it, it's a lot easier to find stuff now!--Seventythree^Talk 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on over, we're all waitin'.--Jed 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And you will wait until I have the time, don't worry, it won't be long.--Karek^maps?! 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

k k, 'twas nuttin' but a friendly nudge.--Jed 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My Arbitration Case

Hi - I just wanted to comment on the edit you made to my arbitration case. The second link that boxy posted was not a post made by a member of the BRRC. Eric Heresbo was never a member of the BRRC, and was never on their member roster. He made a post telling rotters to go elsewhere during a time when we were conducting rotter revives. His post was not deleted, either, but it was moved to an archives page. (I thought this would be the best thing to do, although in retrospect I should've moved everything to the talk page.) The link showing the edit of the forum link was done because the old forum is inactive and it is not possible to post on it. I created a new forum to allow rotters to post revive requests. I am a new member, but since nobody else was updating the page I thought I would get the ball rolling. (I realize the fact that we used to be enemies might complicate matters, but as far as I know there is no wiki rule about former enemies becoming teammates. As of yet no other BRRC member has stepped up to complain.) I am a new user and I was not aware of a policy against "blanking" a page. I moved many of the event updates because they were outdated and cluttering the page. I wanted to clear this up with you since you seem to think I was trying to vandalize the page. Also, I was wondering what happens if the case goes to A/VB? Thanks for your help! --Chimera 09:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You were never a member of BRRC either, it's extremely obvious from the history of the page alone that that isn't the case. Most all of your edits are foolish for what would be a Brain Rot Revive Clinic, from what I can tell the group have been dead for a while now, roughly before Jack's started editing the wiki page frequently and the last message by members of the group was one that specifically contradicts many of your edits, even mentions you as a source of problems for the group, this is as recent as mid 2007, not as early as February. If you want to try and make a group from what was the BRRC start a new one and encourage members to join, BRRC is obviously long gone and your, and Jack's, edits to the page are pretty obviously against what the group would want, no members have stepped up to complain because they aren't around to. Little other than the groups leader officially backing up your edits will get you out of that case. If the case goes to A/VB a SysOp will decide if it is or isn't vandalism and then, if it is decided to be vandalism, you are moved one step up the vandal escalation ladder, you should be able to find it on the A/VB page.--Karek^maps?! 09:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks your your response, I would like to address a few of your points: 1. It isn't possible to have one of their leaders back up my edits, unfortunately, since the BRRC is an egalitarian group, and as such has no leaders. What can I do in this situation? 2. I do agree that I was not a member of the BRRC in the past, but I have recently joined them. I apologize for not making that clear in my previous edit. 3. You mention edits made by BRRC members in mid 2007. To be clear, postings on the "Current Events" section have been made by both members and non-members. I presume you refer to a posting made by Valor Gigo. He was not a member of the BRRC, but a customer. At that point the BRRC had all but vanished due to the Big Bash. Even if the last legitimate BRRC edit had been made in mid-2007, that is still 6-9 months ago. A lot has changed in that period of time, and we have been on friendly terms for quite some time. 4. We have changed the way we are operating Pippard. We were keeping it at EHB which has proven to be a mistake. Live and learn. It is currently being maintained at VSB+0. This is proving to be a workable solution because it provides protection for people who accidentally (or intentionally) sleep in the clinic, and it protects the equipment from unfriendly zombies. At the same time VSB+0 cades are pretty easy to take down (especially if they post on the forum ahead of time and we take them down ourselves.) Our conflict started over the operation of the clinic. People who fell asleep in the clinic were being PKed (and ZKed) and rotters were being revived without being screened. We had also opposed the reviving of rotters in general because we thought it was dangerous for survivors, but we have changed our views on this matter and would like to further the cause of the BRRC, while improving those elements which were detrimental to the survivors of South Blythville. 5. I have considered making a new group, but the BRRC isn't quite dead. There are a handful of members active and I am hopeful that they will return to Pippard and begin reviving alongside their former adversaries. Thanks for hearing me out, Kerak. I completely understand your reservations, but I assure you that my intentions are honorable. I am in the process of trying to make contact with their older members, so hopefully they can update the page and avoid this entire mess.

Regards, --Chimera 10:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify leader then, in the case of an egalitarian group the de jure leader(page owner) is, generally, whoever made the wiki page or whoever the wiki page creator places that title on.--Karek^maps?! 10:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wray Heights

Been through recently? It seems strange its Marked as dangerous. I did an NT scan and found two tagged zeds. Do you think it hasn't been updated since BB2?--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 12:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible. Don't Trust NT scans though, those only show zombies that have been DNA Scanned since reset.--Karek^maps?! 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I never worked that out. When is/was reset?--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All I know is it's about 4:10 PST. --Karek^maps?! 10:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ive scouted the burb, all nts are up, as our hosptials and PD's. ive upgraded it to moderate.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

I could have sworn I did it correctly. Oh well, thanks for that bit of information, though. --Z. slay3r • Talk 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the information on Nalikill's talkpage. Anyway, the case is over noww, and no-one is lining up to complain, so I guess it's sorted out to a level of satisfaction with everyone.--Seventythree^Talk 08:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Karek, I just realised, youre promotion thing must be passed by now, so I had a check. Congratulations on your promotion!--Seventythree^Talk 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dangerlevel and Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah

Eastonwood is full of zombies you just don't look inside of the buildings and the place is very dangerous to humans, because of the bi-daily sweeps of the republikan guard and the UAG. Also Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah, dead? Who told you so, look it up in the stats 20+ Guards, 40+ EF, 15+ Death Embrace etc. please researches you stuff before changing something on the wiki! --CannibalX 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Group size does not matter if the group isn't in the area, if there aren't 60 zombies in the area it's a Ghost Town, if they aren't sleeping in the suburb it's a ghost town. Change it back if you wish but attempting to lie about danger reports does no one good next time have some evidence instead of expecting me to listen to your word when your only evidence is the sizes of groups, that's not evidence.--Karek^maps?! 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not lying. Trust me in Eastonwood are enough zombies to make it a dangerous place, please go back to the suburb and look around for yourselfe visit the buildings inside and you will see that most of them are inhabited by zombies. The EF is fighting against Intruders in Eastonwood since 2006 I have a very good Intel about the state of the Suburb. The Eastonwood Alliance (EF, UAG, /b/, Death Embrace, Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah Guards) alone have 60 Zombies in Eastonwood not counting Feral population.

I agree that the group numbers are not an indicator for the danger level, but I was revering to your change of the Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah page, the republic is not dead it has active members and that is what counts. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me because I was covering two incidents a) the danger level of Eastonwood and b) you change of the Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah page.

I hope this clears thinks up --CannibalX 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was your intel is useless unless you have evidence. I'll be back in the suburb when I have some time to check that out and actually gather evidence as to the state of the suburb but, quite frankly, your word isn't good enough(no ones is for that matter, otherwise it would just result in edit conflicts).--Karek^maps?! 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And your evidence? Your word is counting but not mine? --CannibalX 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, I haven't reverted it because you challenged the edit, if I were to be "counting my word" I would have simply reverted it and started an edit war, instead I haven't, instead I'm going to get evidence of what the status of the suburb is and should be. You challenged the edit, you brought in a conflicting claim, as such in the future you should provide evidence to why you're word is better than the other persons, most people won't do what I'm doing and will start an edit war, it happens in Ridleybank all the damn time, if you're going to say someone is wrong and expect people to trust your word you need more than your word alone.--Karek^maps?! 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No you don't understand. You change it first without evidence (we only have your word), you question the status of the suburb not me you must provide evidence, so I change it back till you come up with the evidence. --CannibalX 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're trying to be an ass or not but if you're only going to try and argue here leave. I made the edit, you challenged it, the first person to change the danger level has never needed evidence unless it was challenged and if you were trying to listen you probably would have seen that's what I said. What makes you more irresponsible than me is that you actively started an argument/edit war without anything to back up your claim that I'm wrong, if you don't agree with an edit someone else makes prove them wrong, show evidence, as a wiki editor that's your job. Think carefully before replying again or it will be removed along with any further discussion you try to have here.--Karek^maps?! 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Humourous and not funny?

Thank you for voting on my suggestion for a Bucket of Paint. However, it was a serious suggestion, and, as such, not meant to be humourous. Perhaps that is why you didn't find it funny. If it was supposed to be funny, I would have made it funny. Magnum Odus 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find it funny because it was retarded. It's clearly a humorous suggestion, just like your karaoke one was. Stop suggesting obvious jokes and expecting to be taken seriously, there's a reason your suggestions are getting spammed and that's probably it.--Karek^maps?! 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am being completely serious with this one. The Karaoke Machine, I admit, became a bit surreal, and that's why I didn't fight for it. It was a serious suggestion, but it was obviously a poor one. This one, however, is a legitimate idea that I thought would add to the game. If I wanted to be funny, I would have been funny. I made no effort to be funny and, while you probably agree that this shows, I am perplexed why others see things differently. Is it my writing style? One of the spam votes did say that I just need to improve presentation, and I am almost inclined to agree. Magnum Odus 15:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can already mark people ingame, contacts and colorizing contacts do everything in your suggestions so all that's left is throwing paint around, that's humorous and I'm not changing my vote.--Karek^maps?! 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But this is a way to mark suspicious characters so that others, who may not have them on their contact list, can check them out. Not all of use has Bounty Hunter Scout add-ons that the DEM has made. Not everyone is going to see all PKers automatically blacked out. This is a suggestion in which a real-life solution is given ingame as a means to remove the need for meta-gaming.Magnum Odus 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

PEOPLE DON'T GET FUCKING MARKED WITH PAINT. And if they did they would wash it off.--Karek^maps?! 16:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to swear. I am just trying to get away from meta-gaming, a thing that is making the game easier for the elite and more difficult for the new comers. I suppose that's what you dislike about my idea. Magnum Odus 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally, it wasn't the part where you paint scarlet letters on PKers. PKers are as much a part of the game as survivors and zombies, Kevan himself has said this. Not only did you try to pass a scarlet letter suggestion you tried it in the funniest and most mind numbingly idiotic way possible. My problem with your suggestion is you didn't turn on that 10 pound processor behind your eyes before submitting it.--Karek^maps?! 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Who told you about the Macintosh my uncle drunkenly inserted up my nose? I have no problems with PKing, and am even in the Rogues Gallery. I will try and think of a means that is less absurd. Magnum Odus 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oi! Sysop!

Been doing a bit of a page as a guide to NPOV. I'd appreciate your comments. User:Rosslessness/Random Rambling/NPOV Examples Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say your first example of NPOV is group advertising and shouldn't be on NPOV pages and the second one, well, Necronet isn't evidence of anything, Necronet only shows zombies that have been scanned since server refresh and as such it really has no point being on suburb pages unless it's being used to show there are more than x amount of zombies, the only thing it really can show is the absolute minimum.--Karek^maps?! 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll definately amend the second one, forgot about unscanned zeds. Any other basic NPOV examples I've missed out on?--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and in relation to your first point. Would this (on the current game events page) be POV?

Fort Perryn

15 December 2007 Fort Perryn is under the menace of The Second Big Bash --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends, I mean I doubt the zombies in the bash view it as a menace. As for whether it's POV to mention the bash coming to somewhere, no, it's an event and in the case of a very few groups, or rather I should say a very few zombie hordes, their coming to an area is actually news worthy. If MOB or RRF enters a suburb it's pretty reasonable that within a day it will be largely destroyed, then again these are 80+ member groups, most survivor groups don't have anywhere near that many people coordinated into a small area most of the time and danger levels are based off of zombie movement.--Karek^maps?! 22:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So its not that its advertising a group, its the sheer newsworthyness of it? Or is it just a lazy way of saying 200 zeds have entered the suburb?--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It gives more information than that, for example it gives their level of coordination.--Karek^maps?! 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I didnt consider coordination. But then im traditionally a survivor. so dont have any.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive updated a bit. Any better? NPOV --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Heres a question. If a burb with no organised zed groups then gets one, is that newsworthy? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Link me and I'll check. If it's doing enough to be a hassle yes, if it's not then no, if it's 50-60+ members yes, cause they'll be being followed by ferals or doing enough damage just by being in the area. Sometimes though small groups can have that effect too, some of those would, usually, be Sanitarium, Eastonwood Ferals, Minions of the Apocalypse, Lebende Tote(their actually partying with Sanitarium right now), and the Undeadites(haven't heard much from them in a while, I think they're with the bash right now) as those groups tend to bring ferals with them too and reap some considerable havoc.--Karek^maps?! 01:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Although in the case of smaller hordes I'd say leave it to the people that normally edit the area, cause they will generally mention the horde if it is causing enough havoc.--Karek^maps?! 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Its more a monroeville question actually. Suburbs have zombie group , first time ever. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 02:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your promotion bid

You are now a sysop. Congrats - Vantar 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. --Pdeq^Talk* 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

High Five. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 09:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, sucked in ;) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:10 21 January 2008 (BST)

I guess i should welcome you then... welcome to the cool guys club :) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Crap, now I gotta do stuff.--Karek^maps?! 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Now you show those other sysops that this position isnt just a wiki janitor.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a water leak in aile 4, go fix it.--Thekooks 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me slap you around with the mop.--Karek^maps?! 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good for nothing copycat... Er, I mean congratz! -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations mate. Look forward to bumming favors off you too in the future. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I'm late. Anyway, welcome to the club, and may your banhammer be swift. --Z. slay3r • Talk 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

suburb history

the screenshot was made and i'm counting what is on it. discussions on some of suburbs don't influence the screenshot that is already made. besides i've just visited page agian and it's still the same. let's count together: Earletown, Eastonwood, Dunell Hills, Pimbank, Pitneybank. 1-2-3-4-5, no? --~~~~ [talk ] 22:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, strange miscount I made, considering I'm currently in 4 of those suburbs. --Karek^maps?! 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Horde the size of the ocean.

Damn you're good, you add a reply, and even keep it above my "as karek" comment, so I dont even need to add it again. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(ಠ_ಠ)--Karek^maps?! 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? Its NAli's idea, not mine.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I comment after the person I'm responding to, the talk page switching thing is just foolish, at least that's how I see it, does nothing but cause problems with following the discussion.--Karek^maps?! 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 21:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

rotters, barricades and revive lines

"Oh and Karek, can I just ask you if you think rotters blocking revive lines to slow survivors regrouping is greifing or a valid tactic? It seems to me that both are doing pretty much the same thing, ie wasting the other sides AP in order to gain an advantage--Honestmistake

If you really want me to answer that go to my talk page, but be prepared to be insulted a lot for even asking the question.--Karek"

Ok I have bitten! Before you start tearing strips of me I will point out that I play 1 dedicated survivor, 1 part time death cultist/PKer and 1 rotter. I accept argument that revive points are a player construct and therefore fair game but don't see why barricades strafing is any less legitimate. Please illuminate me, feel free to insult me if you feel the need but a simple explanation will probably suffice ;) --Honestmistake 09:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Playing a rotter doesn't mean you know anything about being a zombie. Hell I know many level 42s that don't even know the mechanics of groan, let alone scent death or ?rise. You want to know why? Well there is one simple blatant fact that stands out above the rest, zombies can't do anything about barricades, survivors can do plenty about zombies in revive queues. Survivors don't need to use revive queues, zombies do need to get through barricades to find survivors. You can't hide in a revive queue, rotters don't force survivors to waste AP, rotters don't even really slow down revives thanks to the last three DNA scanner buffs which have made rotting in a revive line all but useless, not that it was common to get struck with a syringe as a rotter before, just survivors bitched loud enough. The mechanics for blocking a revive line and barricade strafing aren't even close to the same, even if zombies could see through barricades it still wouldn't be. Barricade strafing is actively killing the game for the zombies that have to deal with it, just like Combat Reviving, it's a way to guarantee that zombies lose at least a days worth of AP, all Roting in a queue does, at most, is make survivors lose 1 AP a day, and if they didn't have those idiotic revive lines that they've made themselves so dependent on they wouldn't even have to be worrying much about that.--Karek^maps?! 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rotters do slow lines, you would know that if you ever played a survivor! Everytime my dedicated survivor hits a rotter in a revive Q its a real pain in the ass that wastes a hell of a lot of AP. Sure adding the target to my list b4 revive and deleting after helps but it still slows things down and if I am looking for a particular person who wasn't on my list its even worse! Now think about strafing. Wouldn't you try to confuse brain hungry fiends with decoy cades? Of course you would its a very effective survival method. What you come across as saying is that not being in the building for you to eat is cheating, surely you can see how ridiculous that is! Cades are a survivors 1st line of defense (the second being running away!) Breaking into an empty building is a real pain in the ass and very frustrating when you just spent a days AP doing it but even suggesting it is griefing is stupid. targetting the same person over and over might be griefing but don't tell survivors to play smart and then throw accusations at them when they do... it just doesn't make you look good. Oh and I agree, there may be some rotters who don't know much about being a zed but I have been playing mine for 2 years now and think I have the hang of things! --Honestmistake 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was cheating. But you're wrong, the only time a rotter slows revives is when survivors are idiots and scan the whole stack. Rotters in revive lines have been nerfed to the point that you have to be an idiot or be working with idiots to get slowed down by it. Rotters are easily avoidable, hell go to another revive point if you're too lazy to bother or start looking for people who look like they want a revive in the other zombie stacks in the area. You come across as someone who wants to justify what barricade strafing does to the game without actually considering it at all, sure maybe if you and the other survivors in the area are fucking morons rotters in a queue might slow you down for all of a minute a day, but you have options, you can still see other zombies, you don't need to go through the rotter, just use your fucking DNA Extractor instead of bawing about how hard it is to get around rotters, if the stacks been scanned empty some over efficient shotguns into his ass. Now think about strafing, cause you obviously haven't, think about the numbers involved and what zombies can do about it, think about how much of a fucking moron you are for even claiming that that's "playing smart". Barricade Strafing is playing easy, nothing smart about purposely wasting that much of your AP every day when you could be playing smart and using it on revives, generators, FAKs, fuel, or maintaining entry points. Barricade Strafing is about as "smart" as PK lists.--Karek^maps?! 07:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excess isn't strategy, just and FYI.--Karek^maps?! 07:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't "baw"? about rotters in Q's I merely point out that they can and do block scanning if someone else has already scanned the stack (far from uncommon). I personally hate revive lines and would much rather be combat revived! Now for the bit where you call me a moron for disagreeing with you! Stopping the zeds getting to you is the only viable tactic survivors have, shooting them is pointless if they are outside and if they are inside in numbers its pretty useless too! Wasting the oppositions time by making them bash barricades for no reason is playing smart, being easy doesn't make it stupid. If survivors only barricaded buildings they were in it would be the same as putting a fucking sign on the door that read "all you can eat" That would be fucking moronic. As for "wasting" huge chunks of my AP each day. How do you figure that one? AP spent to keep me alive is never wasted and once I am fully stocked I have little else to spend my AP on anyway. Every time you break into an empty building I save a shit load of AP cos thats a day when you don't get to groan and summon a pile of hungry friends to kill me and my buddies. We don't die, we don't need to revive each other! You don't get in and we don't have to waste time shooting you and replacing ammo! Do I need to go on? False barricades are the single biggest saver of AP for survivors and the absolute best defence from zeds, that my friend makes them essential and if you can't see that then perhaps you should try playing a survivor for a while because you seem to know jack and shit about them! --Honestmistake 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't quite get it yet do you? There's a reason survivors keep dying in suburbs they strafe, it's because they strafe every damn suburb. When you strafe and sleep in the powered NT you negate the purpose of strafing and have just wasted your AP. This happens all the damn time, zombie groups used to be accused of running zombies spys because the survivors were too stupid to realize how easy they were to find. When you power every building you sleep in and you never sleep more then three or four AP away from a major resource building you will die when zombies come to town. It's how these things work. So no, Barricade Strafing is not a strategy, not how it's used now and not how you're talking about using it. That is why I called you a moron. You still die, you still need to revive each other, there are always people coming from the next suburb over, and if there aren't there are generators for you to find to lay false positives, or survivors that make stupid mistakes for you to revive, or buildings for you to unruin, or zombies for you to attack and then run from. Hows that for strategy, something smart. Barricade Strafing != smart, not when it's done in excess. River Tactics != smart, not when all it is is running. Excess is absence of strategy and nothing shows that more than when rotters block revive queues, that shows that the obsession over revive queues kills survivors revive rates and it shows that scanning in excess instead of reviving kills survivors revive rates. Zombies do nothing, rotters do nothing, survivors do it themselves, and they do it themselves by having forced themselves to depend so much on revive queues that they actively shoot themselves in the foot when a low level survivor need experience or a survivor gets over zealous with his extractor, and survivors be damned if they'll go to another revive point when this ones clogged, no, they'll shoot blind and hope for the best. The problem with strafing is that no matter what zombies will eventually have to deal with it, that doesn't mean it saves a survivors life.--Karek^maps?! 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I never sleep in a resource building unless its a safe area or I have no choice, its hard to find anywhere that isn't within 4 squares of a resource building in some burbs and in some area's its hard to find a building without a generator! Indeed in a few burbs I have visited recently chances are that if there is no light on then someone is at home. Ensuring that every building has cades isn't essential to survivors but its damn near to it. I agree that almost everything you say is true but it is impossible to stop others playing stupid so there is no choice but to take into account that morons will over barricade, that maxed out survivors will still go out turkey shooting zeds and never do a damn useful days work to help anyone else and that others will be overzealous in scanning revive lines. I do play stupid in that I like to stay in the more risky areas but frankly without that risk the game gets dull very fast as a survivor. Like it or not survivors need revive lines if they want to play as dedicated survivors, its a pain and i personally hate Mhr cows but we all play the game for fun and some folk just don't want to play zombies. Barricades are the only effective defence against zombies unless you happen to be online when they get in and. The AP to build vs the AP destroyed means that evry barricade that gets hit wastes AP that the zed might use to hit a survivor and that means that it does save lives!--Honestmistake 11:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and congrats on the Sysop thingie!--Honestmistake 11:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

La la la...

I'm looking forward to reading your trenchie rant. It better be good though. ;)--Lachryma^☭ 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I only strive for the best.--Karek^maps?! 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It must be amazing if it's taking this long!--Lachryma^☭ 06:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm busy doing other stuff. But when I do get to it it will be at least as long as my other rant.--Karek^maps?! 07:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll read your other one while I wait then.--Lachryma^☭ 17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't get to this for another day or two, I've got some more Help pages to cook up and some suburb danger reports to update. Then again, if someone says something stupid enough on one of the Suggestions pages . . .--Karek^maps?! 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TZH

TZH being whiny little bitches do view themselves as a PK organization. Look at their wiki, all they do is PK and brag about PK'ing. That's the very definition of hostile survivor group. They will of course be changed back to hostile. Your commentary was welcome and helpful though, have a nice day. :) --Jack's Cold Sweat 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Do what you will, but don't be surprised if he tries to take you to arbitration or vandal banning--Karek^maps?! 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

TZH is NOT a PKing group. Again it takes but one look at our wiki to see that. We discuss in fact how many zombies we have taken out, as well as how many PKers we have taken out. I wanted to thank you again Karek and correct a statement I made earlier. You were not "backing us up" but rather you were reaffirming a statement made about Jack's rights on the Wiki. I appreciate the hard work of the Mods and UD-Wiki personel in this regard. Thank you as well for remaining objective and fair. --Dhavid Grohl 22:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Our Drama 2

Bitch? What's with all the name calling?--Kristi of the Dead 07:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What's with the being a bitch, I called you a bitch because you were trying to start an argument, or rather were trying to slander me without any actual premise to an argument or useful contribution to the discussion beyond that. If you don't be a bitch I won't call you a bitch.--Karek^maps?! 07:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

listen to yourself...grow up. I was agreeing with what the first two posters were saying you know the stuff about the zombies been done wrong gang? I used your own words you said "barricades are pretty much a game killer" you said barricade straffing was griefing. The premise of the first two posts discussion was that the zombie done wrong gang wouldn't vote for anything pro survivor. So I quoted you as a resonse. I wasn't trying to start an agruement you came in and started an arguement...it's not I made up what I said about you. In fact the shit you say needs to be brought up more often especially when you're trying to get promoted.--Kristi of the Dead 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirsti, posting something about me and my views on barricades based on a previous discussion in which you basically tried arguing with me because I stated why some people view/could view a tool as cheating is attempting to start an argument, your comment and mention of my name could have been to no other purpose than trying to insult me and the fact that you tried to play like your shit doesn't stink is something I would call being a bitch. I have my views, you have yours, I respect your right to have your views and don't try to insult you or argue with you every time you express them, you seem not to deem that is a right anyone else should have if it conflicts with your views. If you were trying to quote me as a reason maybe try and respond to why my points make that quote right or close to right, like Funt did, instead of simply using it as a jibe at me to try and claim I was in that box_{(which most everyone already thinks btw)}. You want to talk about how I'm wrong let's talk about it, you want to accuse me of being something without backing it up or try to respond to me with an attitude because I even mentioned something vaguely related to the DEM then I will give you attitude back, except unlike you I will defend my position. Oh and the thing that you were referencing, the comment on the User's talk page, I wasn't accusing DEMON of being cheating, I was expressing why some people view DEMON as cheating, there's a pretty significant difference and yet this is the second time you have refused to see that difference and attempted to comment on how hateful and Anti-DEM I am_{(btw I couldn't care less what the DEM allows or doesn't, I don't agree with Extinctions rules but I get along with their members fabulously, unlike with you, because they don't use every excuse to argue. My problem with the DEM is what they claim, see RG discussion, and when they hassle users for having views that don't fall into line with theirs regardless of validity or reason)}. Read it, don't respond, read it again, pause, come back a day later, read it again yet again, then filter out any precieved insults to you or the DEM and try reading it again, then respond, otherwise you'll get insulted.--Karek^maps?! 07:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I quoted you from a discussion we had recently on the wiki. A discussion that I didn't expect to have in fact. I was directed to that user's talk page, by him, when he came to brainstock to ask us what we thought of his efforts. When I got there I saw you had been there already and I'm sorry but if you had stated your views on DEMON like you just did above "I was expressing why some people view DEMON as cheating" instead of just saying "DEMON is called cheating" you might have gotten a different reply from me. Now that I read it again I can see what you are saying more clearly but I'm sure you can understand how I might have thought otherwise on the surface. And in truth I wasn't trying to insult you, I'm usually pretty careful about throughing around insults, I quoted from you what I thought (and still do to some extent) to be your beliefs on the subject of barricading. I was agreeing with others who seemed to already have lumped you into the "neozombie" category. And as proof I illustrated your views on barricades which I thought most would find strange, as well. I would ask you why you felt the need to respond only to me since I was agreeing with Funt and he seemed to have a relevent oppinnion. I'll stand behind my first comment but honest to god the "barricade abuse is in your head" thing was a joke. In fact I feel I've been trying to keep my dealings with you as light as I possibly could. Now I don't usually post on suggestions at all or on the wiki all that much (as I think the wiki socially is bad for the game) but I came here this time because someone on brainstock asked me to take a look at the suggestion. Similarly to Scotaro007's talk page I was invited over to take a look and ran into you. My point is I don't go looking for every opportunity to argue with you or anyone. It's sorta like the time you came over the Coalition_for_Fair_Tactics/Assembly/DEM page and saw raja being rude. You let off with a littany similar to what you're accusing me of doing here. Now I'm sure you didn't get up and say man I'm going to screw with that page today and argue with people. In the same way I hope you understand that I don't wake up looking for things you said on the wiki. In fact I spend very little time here at all to be honest. Which is why this response of your suprises me so much. It's not like we have a long drawn out history of hatred here. I've had less than 5 conversations with you on the wiki total I think. Once in a while I see something you've said and I comment on it like any other wiki user. I can respect that you have your own views and now I know you can respect that I have mine. However, every comment I make to you isn't intended to hurt you. You have the right to comment which you do from time to time it seems, as do I. I would prefer it if things didn't have to be tense between us as I really did mean it when I said I wanted to bury the hatchet. I will also admit that I do have a hard time thinking of you as being non biased when it comes things like DEMON and the DEM. Sometimes this is all I see when dealing with you. Maybe it's because I haven't had all that many positive interactions with you. This is hard for me to say and even as I type it I feel I'll be mocked for it. But perhaps from time to time I am over zealous in my fan fair for the DEM. And maybe I do from time to time get overly hurt by things some folks say about us. I would say here and now if there's anything at all that you'd want to discuss about the way the DEM does business I'd be more than willing to chat with you about it. If, that is, it is possible for us to talk without getting into an arguement. I promise I would listen to what was said and I would try my best to understand where you're coming from. especially so if I thought it wasn't being done in the form of an insult. I really and sincerely mean this Karek. Oh and when you mention RG discussion are you talking about the thread on Brainstock? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kristi of the Dead (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

.

I'm sure there is a thread, and as was recently pointed out on IRC there is now a ban punishment for even mentioning it, which just helps weaken that point of RG/DEM separation. As for the talk page, I was also directed there by others at a request to say what I had said, most zombie players actively avoid this place because someone like me or Grim get labeled "neozombie" for things most zombie players in groups and most zombie groups accept as fact, matter of fact a pretty well known zombie group is currently folding because the exact things I constantly comment on, how there is an imbalance, generally with cades, and how it is actively making the game less fun than zombie players in almost every way possible, that all flavor updates are Survivor only and the few ones that are meant to be for zombies are actually useless_{(like footsteps for example)} It's not that there isn't an imbalance it's that it is frequently misrepresented on the Survivor oriented wiki and on most every large forum, all except barhah.com cater to, largely, survivors because 60-80% of the game is survivors and zombies can't ever really do anything to change that, it's hard to get people to play zombie when they can, with ease, go 3 years and never become one hell, my survivor dies less than once every 4 months and the last two times where because of LUE when they were going strong at 400 members. That's imbalance, the 4:1 ratio, that's imbalance, the 6.5 efficiency guns_{(more than 4 times the efficiency of claws)}, that's imbalance, the leveling rates to both max levels, max damage, and 1.0 efficiency being half what zombies have to deal with for survivors, that's imbalance, and barricades, which if they didn't exist at all still would mean that zombies can only kill 1 survivor a day maxed, can't speak, can't heal, can't do pretty much anything other than attack, can't move much at all, and are limited to where the biggest group of zombies are, that's imbalanced. Zombies can barely do anything even when the barricades are down, barricades being up means that they pretty much can't do anything at all. As I have pointed out I've frequently frequently seen 1 or 2 survivors log on in the middle of a zombie strike of 10-20+ zombies and stop that group, I've seen them do this by forcing that group to AP out completely and then go outside and kill two zombies(120XP), I myself have killed 7+ survivors in one night and gained two levels from that, if I had used one AP and gone outside that would have been 5 levels in about 5 minutes, a survivor can do this at level 5 easy, that's imbalanced. As for why I responded to you and not Funt, Funt did not bring me into it directly, and Funt also gave me the courtesy of also replying to my already ongoing discussion on just that, I replied there. Also, the coalition of fair tactics thing I didn't go there to argue with people, I went there to tell him not to revive dead things when a live discussion about the same thing is going on, in the process, since he had the section, I provided a summary of my view on what happened as a third party who had not been involved in the debate and as a user who had actually taken the time to read everything about 4 times before even starting on the reply, their problems in that debate, as they said frequently, were the responses to their comments vs. the responses to some other users comments, and the way it kept getting swept under the rug or even dismissed as jealousy without even an attempt to try to see where they were coming from. I then directed him and other users as to where they could get involved with the current debate on that topic in a way to provide helpful and useful input rather than argue there. I only even mentioned the RG there because it was, essentially, the only way I had to extrapolate any knowledge on what DEMON did without pestering one of the various DEM and exDEM members I knew at the time over IRC. Generally there are only a few places on the wiki as a whole where I do speak my mind or comment without reference to why other users are doing or saying something, those would be My/other User_talk pages in which I am involved in a discussion, Administration/Policy Discussions discussions, Talk:Suggestions, and anything in the Suggestions Namespace, if it's not there it's probably not views that come uniquely from me or that I am claiming credit for, hell I don't even do summary style comments much any more because it usually ends up like the coalition of fair tactics thing did and isn't worth the trouble because most users won't read it anyway, and if they do they won't attempt to see what is there beyond that it references some attack against their view somehow. --Karek^maps?! 11:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the thread you're talking about HERE, oddly enough you started the thread. Let me tell you right now that nobody will get banned for mentioning the thread or the RG/DEM relationship. Nobody will get banned for starting a new thread, especially if they do it in a friendly and non hateful way, almost certainly if there is some new evidence or perspective on the situation that the community should discuss. I'm the lead admin over there and I'm telling you banning would and have only happened in the most extreme of trollers on brainstock. And to just clear up anything I really don't know what I have to say on the subject that will get folks to know that the DEM has no control over the RG's policy or decisions in anyway. I have 0 say in anything they do or decide asside from changing the forums around. To be honest yes the RG was a DEM project in the beginning and it was alex's and my hope that it would eventually become more popular that the Desense list led by Kathew at the time. I hated that forum and I disliked the way Kathew ran her list. We set out to make a fair list that you could research your bounties on to see what they had done before hand to make sure they were pkers. I do agree with you that the game is biased toward survivors in many ways and that the single zombie has a nearly impossible job. At the same time I'm in battles with zombie hordes all the time and to tell the truth much of the time it's impossible to stop a zombie horde that doesn't want to move on. Not always but alot of the time...I think this perception is what you're actually fighting when you argue with neosurvivors on the wiki and the forums. They see they're groups and buildings cracked open by hordes all the time then they see someone talking about how zombies are weak and they go off the deep end. I like zombies...it's the reason I play UD without them I'd be gone too. I play a dedicated zombie too...one which I'll share with you now founded a horde that on the leader list and whom I have a great deal of fun playing. I wish there was more flavor stuff for zombies I wish zombies could be more powerful or there was some sort of incentive to play a zombie. In all honesty when ever Kristi is killed by zombies I keep as a zombie until she gets combat revived. I attack buildings with her an follow feeding groans the whole 10 yards so to speak(now when she's pkd she sits in the mrh line). I do tend to die more than what you seem to die though. But I tend to get pkd a whole lot no matter where I go in the city. What I don't think you understand about that whole coalition of fair tactics thing was that the DEM was never asked to participate. Bob started the group as a means to attack the DEM he admitted as much and you can see from all the other cases they've handled that it was pretty much the case. We only showed up to the discussion well after the fact and well after they had decided we were already cheating. They had never asked for any specifics on DEMON and when we showed up you can understand we were a bit upset at having been accused without actually being talked to about the situation. I would say again the whole point of that wasn't to clear up DEMON as a cheating tool but to smear the DEM as their minds were already made up and they were combative in their own right as well. I would say Kiki did tend to go overboard from time to time IMHO.--Kristi of the Dead 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking more about a recent rules change that was pointed out to me. And as for that thread, I didn't make it it was split from another thread, and in a way that changes the context of the post and the discussion.--Karek^maps?! 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and as for the promotion thing, Unlike some people and places I tend not to use my power as an outlet for my views, matter of fact I keep them quite seperate on purpose, I don't like one imposing on the other and have, in the past when I have had such powers, gone to great lengths to avoid even the semblance of that possibility. The fact that I may not be nice doesn't mean as a SysOp I wouldn't be nice_{(I'd actually go out of my way to do that in anything regarding use of SysOp powers)}, If I were a mod on a forum, which I have been in the past, I would actually change how I act completely based on the requirement of fairness, believe it or not it's happened in the past. But here, here that isn't an issue, if it ever becomes one I would make the needed change but until then you can enjoy mean old me being mean whenever you decide commenting is more important than thinking about what you are commenting/have commented--Karek^maps?! 07:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I really do believe it will be an issue in the future we don't really need mean ol anybody representing the game to be honest. And again just because you don't agreee with me about something doesn't in fact mean that I haven't thought about my comments on it or that I believe that commenting is more important than thinking about what I'm commenting on. It's like Sonny. Whenever anyone disagree's with him or comments on his ideas he just jumps right to "you're stupid". That's not really the case here to be honest. Your views on barricades have alot to do with the discussion as you've said many times now the suggestion was a buff to barricades.--Kristi of the Dead 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, If you chose to check where I've been in most of those arguments and/or how I got into them or where they started there really is little effect or even relevance they have to me being a SysOp or not, SysOps have no real power on Suggestions, or Talk:Suggestions, and if they are claiming to that is something that they can be brought to Misconduct for, if a SysOp is commenting on a Policy discussion they actually have less power than a regular user because they are the ones that will have to enforce the policy or who the policy is regarding_{(makes it extremely easy to invalidate their comments)}, and on A/M and A/VB they really shouldn't be debating with users unless they are accused of making a bad call or think another SysOp has made a bad call, the as a User on the suggestions section the user represents two things, themselves and the side they are arguing for_{(Zombies or Survivors)}, part of that is because the average user won't know they are a SysOp, what a SysOp is, or even, if they do, care because they know that a SysOp isn't a user more informed about the game and doesn't claim to be. The wiki is represented by the users that chose to get involved, usually by users who are willing to work on, maintain, or attempt to settle disputes on the various Suburbs pages because those are the ones that get over 100,000 hits a day, those are the ones where the wiki is being represented, and there SysOps, and me for that matter, generally aren't.--Karek^maps?! 11:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand and generally agree with what you are saying still a bad attitude can reflect poorly on the organization as a whole eventually. I mean some folks stick around and learn what a sysop is and it is those folks that you want to stay and help with the running of it you don't want to scare those folks off because of a poor wording decision in the heat of the moment some months ago right?--Kristi of the Dead 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrative roles are not the time to be making decisions in the heat of the moment, that would be doing an extremely poor job and is how such powers get abused in the first place. If someone is making administrative/SysOp rulings in the heat of the moment they shouldn't be a SysOp in the first place. Although that's more of an issue in arbitration due to both the, currently, limitless power it provides over the involved users and the lack of any semblance of a filtering system at all for who can use those powers.--Karek^maps?! 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bargain crunching

Why useless In your opinion? I just thought that 8ap for a zed to trash the mall and further damage the gun shop,hardware store and drugstore, would be a fairer reflection as it would take 4ap for the survivor to repair, rather than 5 against 1. If in your answer you could use "meatstacking" i would appreciate it.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's useless because there's no need to ransack the mall stores, it just means a lot of AP expenditure in malls, not a lot in taking them back(they only need 2-3 stores).--Karek^maps?! 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then surely you would only wreck those stores?--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely zombies wouldn't use ruin. . .--Karek^maps?! 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All depends if they needed xp. :-) --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly much AP gained from ruin, you get more from Dumping bodies.(or so I hear)--Karek^maps?! 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What if you gain 1xp from every shop you specifically target. 1xp for 1ap that seems fair. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1 XP per AP used doesn't help make anything useful, in no world is 1XP for 1AP fair except, supposedly, in the world of the zombie game, doesn't happen in the survivor game, and anyway it's still not 1 XP for 1 AP, as is now ruin is 1 XP for 5 AP, and still useless because it's, as even Kevan has said, rewarding zombies for using something to help survivors. Yes ruining mall stores doesn't help survivors as much, but it still does, and if the only incentive is 1 XP it's a horrible incentive.--Karek^maps?! 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I may follow grims suggestion (Haha) and make it less ap to ruin than repair, or up the Xp bonus.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

southall mansion.

I'm glad im not the only one who thought this was strange. As our the rest of his contributions today.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That page you just created

Mm. Do you mean links like this: Wikipedia:Cats? Or something eles entirely?-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean, if if you wouldn't mind helping convert some of the Help files that would be nice. You can find some of them here Category:Under Construction. I'm gonna make ProjDev into a wiki group that does stuff like that but right now I want to get this page Help:Templates fixed up.--Karek^maps?! 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Danger levels.

Whats the policy on changing a burb danger level. Can anyone do it? Or is there discussion first?--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can do it, it's best to also update the suburb's news with why you are doing it, preferably with some evidence, but it isn't required. You can find the differences between the danger levels on Suburb.--Karek^maps?! 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How effective are guns?

I was looking at your talk on boxy's page, and I have to disagree; guns are overall not nearly as good as you say. If it cost 10 AP total to kill somebody with a gun, the average PKer could score 3 PKs per day, day after day, as long as they avoided being killed, and could potentially score 5 (or even 9) in 24 hours on a good day if they disregarded personal safety. That is simply not the case- ask any PKer group. A skilled PK player can average about 2 kills a day on a sustained basis- and that's if they do rather well, finding wounded targets and so on. Assuming a (rather generous) "overhead" of 16 AP per day for non-gun tasks (FAK search & use, movement, barricading) that means each kill takes about 16 AP minimum (probably more, seeing as most PKers spend so little on overhead). I see no reason killing zombies is any easier than PKing. If anything, killing zombies is harder, because you can't so easily pick on wounded targets. Swiers 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's easier because you don't have to worry about body building or Flak Jackets, both of which shave a lot off of the efficiency, not enough to make them horrible but it is quite a bit. As for being able to get 7+ kills a day, I know multiple people who have done that, it's about luck and knowing what you want to use. Shotguns are more efficient than Pistols_{(remember those numbers we discussed before over IRC for how you reload and use your guns)}, Shotguns have a 20% ammo drop rate and an a decent chance to drop fully or partially loaded which saves even more AP. I'm thinking it might actually be more efficient to empty your inventory after every full use instead of relying on reloading and then just search up new guns but, I haven't bothered checking that out. As for guns, it's Guns Vs Claws I was talking about, Average damage is pretty much unimportant in combat as the RNG makes average damage spread out over too many attacks so a high level of damage is actually more efficient than the lower level of damage with less accuracy anyway, if you consider Barricades being the equivalent to searching then you get closer to real efficiency because they are both pre-combat actions, the unfortionate difference being that barricades are wasted AP while searching up ammo places it as stored AP into your inventory for future use so that, if both are counted, you essentially double your current AP on use of a Firearm.--Karek^maps?! 19:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should be more anecdotal; I personally can't generally mange to kill more than 2 survivors (or zombies) a day on any sort of sustained basis using guns (or any other method). Maybe I just suck?

Swiers 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually when I used guns I stock a day kill a day, generally I could get over 200 XP in a day like that easy which is about 3-4 kills. The only thing that changes how many you can really kill is how you chose to stock up, which is what that discussion was about, they are counting how you stock in the weapons efficiency rating but a similar thing, barricades, for zombies is purposely being ignored, with zombies how much you spend on barricades effects your kill rate even more directly thanks to the fact that you can't kill until you are past barricades, if more zombies attack barricades maybe one or two of them can get a kill but without that zombies can't average even a kill a day, much less two kills every two days, which shows what I mean by an imbalanced DMG:AP ratio the charts are just plain false.--Karek^maps?! 00:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to tell me how hard up zombies are; comparing zombie claws even a to a human axe is just silly, because zombies don't have the same freedom of movement. The math shows the axe does less damage per AP, and neither needs ammo, but its clear you could probably do more damage to survivors with an axe (as a PKer) than with claws (as a zombie). My question was just, why do you think guns are so good as to score a kill in 10 AP, even with re-stocking? I must be doing my stocking VERY wrong...

Swiers 02:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Promotion part 2

Thanks for the response, and the alert on my talkpage. And don't worry about the 'hassle', none of it is your doing. Moyes^T^RPM 10:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

template help

Thanks for the help, much appreciated. Tried to copy/paste that doesn't work though and I suspect that i need to access the "edit" page to get the actual code. Sadly I am at work and some asshat has had us all banned from wikipedia edits for a long history of vandalism... will try again later from a different PC. --Honestmistake 10:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to be able to copy and paste the code so you need access to "edit".--Karek^maps?! 10:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tried from home but don't have a clue what I am doing... have tried copy/paste but to no avail, if you have time (and don't mind) could you check this link and tell me which bits I need? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_DGAF2 --Honestmistake 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, {{User DGAF}}, put that on your page and the template will be added.--Karek^maps?! 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You sir are a star, thank you. --Honestmistake 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Promotion

I just have some hesitancy. I see your wiki record, and it's that of a good editor, and trustworthy enough for sysop status. Then I look at your suggestion voting record, and at every game related comment you've ever made, and I'm worried that your virulent hatred of survivors and of anything remotely favorable to survivors will spill over into administrative duties. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 04:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually do have numbers to back up most of my views, I just prefer not to mention them all the time. You can see some of that on Boxy's talk page as of current actually. I don't see how it can really spill over though, I don't dislike people based on what they suggest or think, I may argue with them sometimes as to the correctness of their statement when it's in a suggestion_{(and no I would never Sysop-Spaminate a suggestion I actually don't think sysops should have that power)} But essentially the only time I could see it having an effect is on Requested edits to protected pages regarding that content, which, as far as I know, none are currently protected.--Karek^maps?! 04:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You're a good editor, I'll set my personal biases aside and change my vote... when I'm a little less sleepy. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

lol --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice

User page. Ever gonna archive this talk page? Oh, I also posted a few questions in your promotion bid. Hope you can answer them for me and the community! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 08:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on ever archiving it, I've sadly outlasted Grim in that. Answered.--Karek^maps?! 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just you wait, In another 20-30 kilobytes you are going to notice an increase in load times. Besides, my page has ballooned to almost half yours since i archived it in November, and it nearly touched 200kb. Ah well, the truth probably is that ill overtake you again within a few months. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised I tend not to have lengthy discussions here.--Karek^maps?! 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Grim

Grim is not only allowed to arbitrate, he has accepted. Reread the guidelines- nothing there prohibits one of the parties from arbitrating- if they both accept the arbitrator, it's a legal arby. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

keywords being "both accept".--'BP^Tmz 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And Jon hasn't rejected grim yet. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you think there's a hope in hell of that happening makes you the stupidest person alive. No exceptions. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, even dumber than I? Holy crap!!!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nali' stop being an ass for the sake of being an ass, you're not wanted in the case so stay out of it. Grim can't be nominated for arbitration he's unaccepatble by the party and arbitration. Also, In the event of this happening, the Arbitration Team may be called upon to intervene,, He can't "intervene" since he's already an involved party, not to mention the whole basis of arbitration is it is calling on a third party to settle the dispute, So yeah, the page prohibits it pretty clearly.--Karek^maps?! 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Where? I never saw on the page that the parties were ineligible, so, nope, it don't. Since Grim is raping the spirit of the page, I figure I can do the same. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for deletion.

Still active? If not in one month I will add you to historical groups in vinetown.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical groups needs nominations and acceptance in Category:Historical Groups.--Karek^maps?! 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dammit! I meant former groups, or would it just involve deleting the group from the burb listing?--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If the group is old or inactive just remove it.--Karek^maps?! 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Um... i need help making a page? (me nooobzorz) I can't seem to get my user page to work in firefox. Whenever i use firefox, the texts dissapears and my nav bar freaks out. I was wondering if you could help me sort this out.--zinker 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Zinker^{T!Z!A!R! F !} zinker ^M! Brainzz

note: sorry to bother you but your the only person i sorta know/heard about that can help me.

You need a background color, default is white and white text on white backgrounds generally isn't visible.--Karek^maps?! 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Second thought I should probably clarify that. After a style= tag background: is the wrong code, it should be background-color:, also you had an errant space after the color code, never do that. The ; should be immediately after the code, no space. It should be fixed now.--Karek^maps?! 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, i am a very newbie newb. :(--zinker 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Zinker^{T!Z!A!R! F !}

zinker ^M!

Brainzz

Thanks for helping me out with my sig!!! Obi^{+ Talk!|TZH|MDK} 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem.--Karek^maps?! 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruin is still for nothing, eh?

Are you kidding? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:43 4 January 2008 (BST)

Against barricade strafing it is nothing. It's actually a buff to barricade strafing. Yeah it means free running costs them 1 more AP but the goal is to waste more Zombie AP on nothing, you're wasting 5 more AP. And as for ruin in everything else. It's crap. All ruin is good for is flagging entry points, other than that it adds a whopping 1 AP to the free run path, big fucking deal, especially when it costs 5. So rather I'm the one who should be asking if you are kidding or do you actually think it has some effect/importance?--Karek^maps?! 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please, tell me how the hell RANSACK lessons barricade strafing? That whole addition was just dumb and wrong.--Karek^maps?! 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an extra AP for every survivor that cant free run through a ruin though... that's gotta add up to more than your 5AP spent. How does it lessen barricade strafing? Well for one it means that ransack is easier to maintain (zombies can see which neighboring buildings have been repaired, and target them directly without searching), then it means that repairers/barricaders get tossed to the street every time they come across a ruin (that adds up to a number of AP wasted reentering) when scouting for empty buildings to repair, and it costs every survivor that enters a building an extra AP when they're trying to clean out zombies. All in all it adds up to a lot of AP wasted trying to re-barricade an area if there are zombies in any of the buildings requiring more than one player to re-enter to repair... and then there's the bloody toolbox encumbrance. Ruin increases zombies ability to hold territory, it was one of the better additions to the game. At least that's my perspective on it, trying to run a barricading survivor in disputed territory -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:02 6 January 2008 (BST)

No Boxy, it's saves AP for every survivor who used to get stuck outside because of free run trenches and overbarricaded entry points. Ransack is actually harder to maintain because survivors now get free notice when the building is ransacked and they already have the advantage of guns and needles which make it hard enough without them knowing when the buildings fall. As for the people fixing it, it costs them 1 AP more, it costs the zombie 5 AP more, only the first survivor to come across the building has to pay any AP additions because they can fix it, they usually do fix it which means that the supposed build up of multiple users wasting AP doesn't apply. As a person who ran one of the two zombie groups in the whole game that actively held/holds territory when both before and after ruin was implemented I can tell you with full confidence that ruin has made the job about 3 times harder, when survivors are smart we still have to check every building like before, when they are stupid we still have to deal with barricade strafing but now we have 5 more AP tacked onto the cost of getting things back to how they were(some feral always ruins).--Karek^maps?! 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See, what you seem to be talking about is ransack strafing... zombies trying to say they hold a building/territory because it's ransacked, but not having zombies present to maintain the sack. An almost exact copy of barricade strafing. Where the resident zombies actually inhabit the buildings they ruin, it's a true pain in the arse. One or two zombies to a building means that a lot of AP is wasted getting in... 5, 6... 10 zombies in a building, well I shudder to think how much AP that would waste (just in the extra entry costs) to clear out. There are advantages to ruin... yes, it can be overused in certain circumstances, but it's doesn't have to be used. So some zombies waste their AP on it... welcome to the world of trenchcoatism. Would you like me to list the number of ways survivors piss me off by wasting their AP? It just doesn't compare -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:13 6 January 2008 (BST)

Zombies holding the building isn't helped by ransack, it's 5 more AP for letting survivors know there are zombies. Either way as far as the article is concerned I'm right, considering it's about Barricade Strafing which ruin has no effect on beyond wasting zombie AP. As for survivors emptying buildings, big whoop it's 11 AP per zombie, 11.25 if you count in the effect ruin has by dropping them outside, if one survivor gets lucky with shotguns they make can make up for 122 survivors entering the building, and that's assuming all zombies have Body Building.--Karek^maps?! 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from Zod

Thanks for the support in the GANKBUS historical nomination. Those guys are idiots and treat everyone else as such. You are correct, CDF (Crossman Defense Force) is still very active in the game, but as you can tell, we are not on the wiki that much. Most of our communication with members and allies are on forums. CDF has had its share of malignment here and its refreshing to see a positive assessment of our group and efforts. CDF salutes you! --Zod Rhombus 04:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, back when CRF was still around I had a few run ins with you guys.--Karek^maps?! 06:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Karek/20080410042453

Vandal banning page

Your turn?

Heh.

Chairborne88

The Man

Mall Status Map

Woo

Wiki

Karek... Important Message

This is

Two Things

Sugg Talk Archive

Just out of Interest

Questions

Re: Sigs

Jesus Christ

Re A/VB Comment

Question about deleting info

Hmmm...

Vandal Banning

Giddings Mall Tunes

Thanks for the

DurkaDurka

Amusing Location in Malton: The Bissex Monument

Monroeville Many

Uploading Images of Wood?

that dead of DH page

my suggestion

Protections

{{Searchguidelines}}

Welcome Newbie!

Danger Reports

Arbitration

Underline

Hey

Trashed

A Different View of the recent Siege

Hagnat case

Your pathetic, unfounded threat

Battle for Pitneybank/Current Siege

Stop

Arbitration

My Arbitration Case

Wray Heights

Reverts

Thanks

Dangerlevel and Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah

Humourous and not funny?

Oi! Sysop!

Your promotion bid

suburb history

Horde the size of the ocean.

rotters, barricades and revive lines

La la la...

TZH

Our Drama 2

RE: Bargain crunching

southall mansion.

That page you just created

Danger levels.

How effective are guns?

Promotion part 2

template help

Promotion

Nice

Grim

A request for deletion.

Help?

Ruin is still for nothing, eh?

Thanks from Zod

Navigation menu

Search