Cannonball Crew/Fort Perryn Defense Force/Radio Proposal

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

FPDF Proposal – no radios in the fort (June 2008)

Summary

Remove radios from the following fort buildings:

  • Gatehouse
  • Armory
  • Infirmary


Explanation

As survivors, the radios are being used against us.

Though radios can be useful to survivors, the radio transmitters at Fort Perryn and elsewhere are now being used by anti-survivor groups such as TRF to spread false and misleading information about the fort’s barricade plan, PKers etc. This spreads uncertainty and doubt, irritates players who are falsely accused, and impacts suvivors' ability to co-ordiante effectively against the undead. The impact is made worse by the tendency of forts to attract some newer or less experienced players, and by the inherent difficulties of defending a fort in the first place (due to the design of the gatehouse). More examples here.


In general, radio transmitters are not entirely useful anyway, since

  • radio broadcasts are anonymous – and so inherently unreliable and open to abuse
  • any useful information is easily lost in the spam
  • transmitters elsewhere in the suburb often get retuned to a different frequency anyway, if it is receiving a lot of spam
  • portable radios already provide survivors with a more reliable* and less intrusive way to monitor any radio frequency (or frequencies) they chose.


This proposal to keep radio transmitters in the barracks, vehicle depot and storehouses ONLY, provides survivors with the benefits of being able to transmit when required (and with a greater likelihood that someone will now be listening), while effectively eliminating the problems above. The only real drawback for survivors is losing the option to talk to everyone in the room at the same time (rather than just the 50 most recently active players), but inside buildings with high survivor populations – the gatehouse, armory and infirmary – the propagation of misleading and false information causes more harm than good.


* No generator is required, and they also work outside.


Discussion

Please post feedback and discussion here. Remember to sign your posts by clicking on the Sign.png button in the editor toolbar! Cheers --Mad Dog Munro 05:41, 6 June 2008 (BST)

- A necessary solution untill you-know-who allows people in the game to see who broadcasts what. --DuMaurier 10:00, 6 June 2008 (BST)

- Even then, the knowledge wouldn't necessarily be much help to survivors inside the fort - since broadcasts can be made from anywhere in Malton. --Mad Dog Munro 22:30, 7 June 2008 (BST)

-gets rid of the damned radio spam, which slows down the page loading (grh). go for it.--Themonkeyman11 03:31, 8 June 2008 (BST)

- We are dead set against! Nay we Say! And squeak. We also say squeak alot. *squeak* - Tinyrat.gifTRF 15:07, 9 June 2008 (BST)

ahh, your only against it cause then you can't spam the radio with slander and drown out the useful info.--Themonkeyman11 01:54, 11 June 2008 (BST)


- I destroyed a radio in the gatehouse a couple of hours ago, I thought at the time that it was a stupid place to put one.--Zebedee Zyzzyva 20:39, 9 June 2008 (BST)

- What limiting the transmission to only in/out of the fort? Meaning the transmission will only carry in the fort and no outside transmission into the fort. At least that way, a witness will always be present to any transmission. But if it goes as is, you got my support.gabdewulf 13:32, 10 June 2008 (BST)


  • Against - "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm writing here from a personal perspective, not from the point of view of any of my characters.
Have you put any thought into how this will be enforced? Are you prepared, if necessary, to kill someone for installing a transmitter? This is a serious measure which could possibly earn your group quite a negative reputation. Is the result worth the potential consequences? Will the radio ban ensure the Fort's security?
A while back, during the DK13 Martial Law incident, said group had considerable success countering a propaganda offensive by consistent public refutation of the allegations against them. It may take a lot of organisation and AP to start with, but it's probably going to be easier to enforce than a 'no radios' policy.
This plan is just counter-productive. It will make the FPDF out to be authoritarians with something to hide. If radio spam has forced such a drastic policy, people will reason, then what's being said on the radio must have some truth in it. Otherwise, why this repression? In the long run, the Fort will be much easier to defend if the general populace trust and support you. --Sir Bob Fortune RR 08:40, 11 June 2008 (BST)
Thanks Bob. No - this isn't something that would be implemented by PK'ing dissenters. As you note, that would be counter-productive and completely against our group's pro-survivor policies. As this wiki page demonstrates, we want to present our arguments, respond and listen to feedback from other survivors, and hopefully reach a consensus. If the consensus is, as we believe, that this idea will make the fort a more pleasant and fun place to be - and easier to hold - that's great. We'll all benefit - and especially those who are being regularly insulted and defamed. (And setting your own personal preferences to 'ignore' doesn't lessen the impact of that any).
On the other hand, if the consensus of the fort is against it, we are not going to force this on Perryn against her will. As you can see from this proposal, that is simply not how we do things. As a pro-survivor group, we are here to help other survivors and have fun - not stir up trouble. If the other survivors in the fort disagree with this suggestion, we will respect that.
Given that, do your objections still stand, or any other feedback on the pro's or con's of such a scheme (assuming it was reached through general consensus)? --Mad Dog Munro 22:09, 12 June 2008 (BST)
Thanks for the clarification, Mad Dog. I can appreciate why this has been suggested, and why the majority of the Fort's populace might prefer an end to the current radio chatter. My in-game dealings with the Cannonball Crew and the FPDF have normally been as an opponent, but I have a lot of respect for the way you conduct yourself, both in Malton and the metagame. With the exception of a couple of what seem to be your younger members, you're great fun to play against.
I have to say, I still don't think removing radios from the Fort (or parts of the Fort) will prove the most successful long-term tactic. Due to my involvement with Red Rum, I've had considerable experience with propaganda and misinformation. I have to confess, TRF are good at what they do. Very, very good. I wouldn't relish the prospect of being on the end of one of their campaigns. However, I believe that the single most effective counter to any false information is continual exposure to the truth.
Set up a wiki page providing evidence to refute the claims against you, and constantly give out the url in-game. Counter false broadcasts with accurate ones as soon as possible after they're made, again providing proof from the wiki or your forums. Take every opportunity to acquaint people with the facts about who you are and what you really do. In the long run, I believe that this is the best way of dealing with adverse propaganda over the radio. --Sir Bob Fortune RR 23:25, 13 June 2008 (BST)


  • Against – I was told about this and was completely aghast to find out it was true. Although I guess I should not be surprised based on your barricade plan (which, by the way, is way past time to let go of especially with the reduced search rates in the fort).
I completely disagree with this proposal. In full disclosure, I rarely use the radio myself and I realize that dishonorable groups/individuals often use them to spread lies. However, I have seen it work very effectively when a pk’er is on the loose and must be tracked down and when reinforcements are needed. It is also nice to have the option to use the radio when there are more than 50 people in a room, which happens quite frequently in the gatehouse. Some people enjoy using the radio and do broadcast useful information. You are proposing to remove that option from them.
Your basic reasoning is contradictory. On the one hand, you feel people are wiki-savvy enough to understand your confusing and counter-productive barricade plan. On the other hand, you think they are so dumb that they can’t figure out when a radio message is faked.
Have you forgotten that anyone can use the ‘settings’ option to ignore radio broadcasts? It is what I do most of the time, and it works quite effectively. What you are saying is that you know better than everyone else what they want. I find this type of gameplay quite disturbing. Let people make their own choices, you have no right to make it for them. How about making a proposal to educate people (without insulting them!) to use their settings to ignore broadcasts if they so choose, rather than forcefully taking radios away from them?
I agree with Sir Bob Fortune above, and will add that your authoritarian proposals are making people very upset with your group. Feel free to make your own rules within your own group, but your proposals hold absolutely no weight with the rest of the survivor community at large. If anything, they make the rest of us look bad and draw even more ire towards your group. I have been pk’ed for speaking out about the barricade rules and I expect no less from speaking out about this plan, but I feel it important to stand up for others who are silent because they don’t understand the wiki or are afraid of being killed for speaking out.
Let me be clear - the moment you start to smash radios in the fort, I will see to it that you are reported for doing so. If you insult or PK people who install radios, I will report that as well. It is time for you to understand that there are many different styles of gameplay and you can’t force yours on anyone else. Robert LORD 16:32, 11 June 2008 (BST)
no one in the CC has PKed you to the best of my knowledge (checking our forum everyday), and if they have they did it without permission and uncondonned. give us a reason WHY your dislike our barricade pollicy, or better yet come to our forum and talk to us there. i personally find you insulting us, and broadcasting bullshit info about us "ceding command to commander robert lord" in game to be cowardly, and petty. come to our forum, and have an intelligent discussion.--Themonkeyman11 01:55, 12 June 2008 (BST)
How pleasant of you. Do I even know you? All I said is that I have been pk’ed for speaking out, which is absolutely true. I’m not sure who is doing it, you are the one reading more into my words than truly exists. And this is a perfect example of what I’m talking about – someone brings up a dissenting opinion and they get slammed. You never really said anything to contradict the points made by myself and Sir Bob regarding the radio proposal, you know. Why even bother claiming you want opinions if this is how you will react? As to my feelings on the barricade plan, how about checking the Fort Perryn talk page where I laid out my reasons earlier for believing it to be insufficient? And forgive me for not wanting to go to your forum, it would be silly of me to walk into your lion’s den. I much prefer a neutral forum, thank you very much. I won’t bother to address your claims of me broadcasting “bullshit info about us ceding command to commander robert lord" because it isn’t true. I challenge you to prove I made any such broadcasts. No proof? That’s because it doesn’t exist. Kindly keep your wild claims to yourself - you are the folks complaining about propaganda on the radio, maybe you will someday figure out that someone was just playing you for a fool. Robert LORD 03:22, 12 June 2008 (BST)
No, you probably don't know me. if you did you probably would have show some shred of recognition. as for the PKing, it could have been read in your post above that you were accusing the FPDF of being the culprits. i was merely refuting this so no one gets the wrong idea about it. You refer to our forum as a "lions den". i see no reason why you shouldn't want to go to the forum, but if you feel that it would be threatening to you than don't bother. perhaps, in future, we can establish a place to discuss all this. as for you broadcasting slanderous claims, if it wasn't you than who was it? i remember quite clearly SOMEONE broadcasting it, and if it wasnt you than it was someone attempting to drag your name through the mud. yes, i didn't respond to any of the points you made. that was because i was slightly offended at the way you frased them. this suggestion isn't eliminating radios from the fort entirely, just the gatehouse armoury and infirmiry. perhaps we can lower that to just the gatehouse, i don't know it's not my suggestion. the reasoning for this is that TRF (or someone impersonating them) has broadcasted false information about when the gatehouse should be at VSB. this has potential to confuse new players, or people that aren't entirely sure on the barricade plan (yes, i know you disagree with it. that's off topic, so lets stick to the radio idea). this ends up being dangerous to survivors, because the cades could be up when they should be lowered and we dont get reinforcements. theres more arguements i want to make, but it's late here and im tired. i'll make them some time later.--Themonkeyman11 05:49, 12 June 2008 (BST)
"your barricade plan (which, by the way, is way past time to let go of especially with the reduced search rates in the fort)."

that barricade plan helped us hold the fort for a record (to the best of my knowledge) ammount of time. i don't see why you object to it so much, but hey, thats your opinion.

"I won’t bother to address your claims of me broadcasting “bullshit info about us ceding command to commander robert lord" because it isn’t true. I challenge you to prove I made any such broadcasts. No proof? That’s because it doesn’t exist. Kindly keep your wild claims to yourself" as i said above, i distinctly remember someone broadcasting this. and since it mention command going to you, i assumed it was you. if i am incorrect in assuming it was you, than i apoligise. but it was broadcast, and thats the point. for your comment on the use in catching a known PKer, have you thought of the fact that the PKer can use the radios to send people on a wild goose chase? the barricades go down to VSB on Wed ans Sun. TRF broadcasts things that contradict this, and could confuse players new to the game or the fort. we don't assume that people are wiki savy enough to figure out the cade plan, as we know that many people dont even use the wiki. so we tell people when the cades should go to VSB. granted, we let whitenside know when the forts open for reinforcements with the radio. thats why non-key resource buildings in there still will have radios.--Themonkeyman11 03:08, 13 June 2008 (BST)

Yes, I do vehemently disagree with your barricade rules but agree with you that this particular discussion is about radios. However, some of it ties in together. You say that you let people know when the gates are supposed to be VSB, but that’s going to be even harder to do without a radio. If they aren’t in the top 50 of the stack, you can’t even communicate with them inside the gatehouse if you don’t use the radio. And this isn’t exactly the most well-oiled machine you know, I’ve seen cades at EHB when they are supposed to be VSB plenty of times. The mass confusion will be even worse without radios.
Listen, I understand you don’t like being the subject of griefing by the Heathers and others. Trust me when I say I’ve been there. But if you enact this, it will completely blow up in your face. I agree with Sir Bob, above. If you want people to believe in you, the best way to do so is through example and educating the masses. By reacting the way you are now, you just empower and encourage the enemy. And there are other groups besides you in the Fort, you know. The fact that you are being targeted does not mean you can simply create new rules that affect everyone else.
Finally, Monkeyman, your assumption was plain wrong, I never broadcast such things. Thus, I will accept your apology and I hope this eliminates further spurious accusations by the CC against me. Robert LORD 15:19, 16 June 2008 (BST)
Lets hope so. I can see your point about not being able to communicate the correct barricade levels. Spray cans are our friends there. i can also understand your point about this blowing up in our faces, but i'll leave that to Deletion and Mad Dog Munro to decide whether it's worth it.--Themonkeyman11 00:45, 17 June 2008 (BST)

It is my personal opinion that this radio policy is a good idea, it limits spam into the fort, but still allows people to broadcast useful info to personal radios that people should carry if they want info. Besides, many people chose not to change their preferences just in case there is some important info. --Sturkie 05:35, 14 June 2008 (BST)

My opinion is its a good idea but we can also just kill the guys cought spamming,but then people can just use it as a pking excuse as well.FPDF guys this also a suggestion but to you can also keep a list of spammers and take screenshots of them spamming and kill them to prevent the aforementioned pking excuse,but if you do make a list,make sure it's readable.--Gamestriker4 21:15, 25 July 2008 (BST)

Thanks for posting everyone. The fort has now been largely ruined for some time however so this discussion is currently somewhat academic, so I've removed the link from the main Fort Perryn wiki page. Cheers, --Mad Dog Munro 06:30, 1 August 2008 (BST)


  • For – This is an excellent solution to a great problem. You have my full support. - CITIZEN VI 01:23, 13 August 2008 (BST)
  • For - Hmm....tough choice.On one hand,no radios can be counter-productive and stuff,but on the other hand,during the last siege I saw a HUGE amount of spam,lies and crap. Hell we might have won the last siege if it wasn't for two factors:the idiocy of most the survivors and the propaganda campaign aimed at directing their idiocy to help the zombie cause.Hell, I even saw that someone spraypainted inside the infirmary instructions to keep the radio at a propaganda frequency and to keep the infirmary cades at EHB,and guess what?Those idiots acually followed those instructions until I changed the frequency,spraypainted over the crap,lowered the cades,and told them that it was a lie designed to hurt the survivors. But,during the last siege,not ONCE did I see the armory overcaded.I've decided that if we are to achieve victory in a fort,we must at least reduce the amount of idiocy and spam in the said fort.We could just kill everyone who doesn't have any skills useful (i.e. basic firearms training,construction,etc.) to the fort's defence that isn't part of a pro-survivor group.It may be heartless but we may have to sacrifice our humanity in order to protect the fort.--Gamestriker4 19:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
advertisements