Talk:Coalition for Fair Tactics

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

can you change from a ~~~~ signature to a ~~~ signature on the individual player list? That would make the page far less cluttered, and more professional looking, in my opinion anyway. --Gage 02:29, 26 July 2006 (BST)

I'd prefer it if people signed with a timestamp. It would be useful to track how long people have been on the list for. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 02:33, 26 July 2006 (BST)
why would that be useful?--Gage 02:38, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Because it would allow you to see when groups or players join? It's more information to go by. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 02:41, 26 July 2006 (BST)
fair enough--Gage 02:43, 26 July 2006 (BST)


I saw the page about the assembly but I frankly don't want to read the 10 pages of text (sorry ... ^^) Can someone make it quick for me please ? So, for the CTF, the Demon of DEM, is...

  • cool
  • not cool

? Thx you ! --GoLookAndKill CFT THC 22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


I was just reading the Fair and Unfair tactics section of the Coalition for Fair Tactics, and this came up.

Unfair Tactics

Using dishonest strategies to gain private group information.

Infiltrating a group with the intent to harm it.

As you know my group uses undercover investigations to gather information on dangerous groups, pking groups and otherwise. I am a little concerned that our actions could be taken harshly. I would like to avoid the task of reworking my unit’s tactics, because it has been working well so far. Any suggestions?-Snakeeyes0072 05:52, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure what to say. Don't do those things? It's a dirty way to play. Different groups will react differently to finding out they've been infiltrated, but all the reactions will be harsh. We discovered that someone had attempted to infiltrate ASS, but he was caught during our pre-membership process, and he not only earned himself a place on our enemy list, but he was kicked out of his other group as well. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 05:58, 26 July 2006 (BST)
You're outright lying to a group, and abusing their trust, yet you consider that a fair tactic? No. The minimal reaction you'll get is getting booted, the worst reaction is a vendetta, and with good reason: no one likes getting lied to. No one. –Xoid STFU! 06:00, 26 July 2006 (BST)
It's cheating. You are cheating on another person. That's bad and you should know it. Suggestion? Stop doing it.--Thari 06:03, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Those are all valid points, but how can crime prevention be accomplished if people don't have an early warning system. I believe having an agent embedded in a dangerous group, warning a suburb that a major assault is coming is fair, it happens all the time in military operations and real crime prevention, why not here? Plus as I stated, we don’t infiltrate groups willy nilly, we use other means to investigate first. Undercover investigation is only used when we believe a group needs constant monitoring.-Snakeeyes0072 06:20, 26 July 2006 (BST)
This is a game. This isn't real life. Player killer groups aren't actually killing anyone. Zombies don't actually exist. No crime is actually being committed. When you lie to a group and infiltrate their ranks — let's call it what it really is, instead of calling it "undercover investigating" — you have violated their trust, and used unfair means to get a leg up on them, just because you don't approve of their playing style. Let me ask you this: who made you the person who can decide what the "right way to play" is? And how would you like it if someone infiltrated your group with the intent to destroy it from the inside? And you found out that they had obtained, and passed on, your private group information? That's exactly how the people who run the groups you're infiltrating feel. Don't do it. It's unethical. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 06:26, 26 July 2006 (BST)
As a member of the DHPD, I have to agree. We've had problems in the past of being on the wrong side of the line here, and it sucked. Don't want to go back. We currently have problems with spies on our forums - that sucks too. It just makes the game a little lot less fun. ... And on a side note, I'm checking with the DHPD command staff, and by tomorrow, I think that we'll have agreed to oficially join. --Darth Sensitive talkW! 06:31, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Great! I'll be glad to have you join us. The more, the merrier. Strength in numbers. All that jazz. :) –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 06:35, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Done and Done... Conndrakamod T 08:27, 26 July 2006 (BST) btw good idea...
Hey, thank you, and I'm glad that you joined. (And did I ever say "thank you" for your vouch on my mod bid?) :) I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner, but it just struck me all of a sudden today: "what if I started a group of groups to try to combat the problem of zergers, cheaters, and all those guys?" We'll see how it goes, but I hope it'll have a positive effect on the game. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 08:31, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Your Welcome (and no you didnt butits all cool...)Conndrakamod T 08:40, 26 July 2006 (BST)
I would apply to that group of groups, thats what my group is all about.-Snakeeyes0072 14:29, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Yeah, except you seem to be under the false impression that player-killing etc. is tantamount to zerging. It's not. And that group of groups is the one you're looking at right now. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 17:29, 26 July 2006 (BST)
As I have stated before I am new to the whole mmorpg scene, I was originally just the figure head for my group the our moderator was the one who made the wiki and who typed our group goals, if you look at the O.C.D wiki we are under a complete overhaul and are attempting to set things right. I understand you have been playing longer then myself or anyone else in my group, it would be greatly appreciated of you would take us under your wing. Our last leader wanted to stop all pking, and convinced me it cheating, I guess I was mislead. What I would like this group to do is put a stop to cheating. I hope when the dust settles we could be allies. And just to set things straight I have stopped all "undercover investigations" aka cheating. P.S. I took down my other post because it was long winded and could be summed up in one sentence.-Snakeeyes0072 19:30, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Well, I've restored your previous message, because it's considered very bad form to just remove comments that you've made for no real reason. But I know that you're new here, so you probably didn't know that. As to what PKing is, it's something of a complicated issue. Most players of the game frown on it. However, there are others — such as myself — that point out that zombies are players as well, and who is to decide what the "right" way of playing is? I think the best explanation is to explain what Kevan, the game's creator, has done with player-killing. PKers (and ZKers) do full damage, but earn half experience, for every kill and attack that they make against a fellow survivor/zombie. Zergers, on the other hand, are subject to massive penalties in game, ranging from 0% success in attacking to outright having their characters deleted. So while it's a discouraged practice, it isn't actually against the rules of the game. Some of us just choose to play in an unpopular style. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 19:48, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Ok, well I would like to start off on the right foot by signing the Coalition for Fair Tactics Group pledge, if I am allowed to do so.-Snakeeyes0072 19:57, 26 July 2006 (BST)
If you are the leader of your group, and you can abide by the entire pledge, then you are free to sign it. We have no problem welcoming reformed groups. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:07, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Thank you. Now do you have any suggestions for getting on the right track?-Snakeeyes0072 20:16, 26 July 2006 (BST)
What do you mean? What are you concerned about? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:29, 26 July 2006 (BST)
I thought I was looked upon as a bad seed when it comes to groups, I guess not. Well thank you for your help, and if you notice me doing anything wrong, or have a suggestion, please let me know.-Snakeeyes0072 20:36, 26 July 2006 (BST)
First of all, I am not delusional, I know this isn’t real life. Second, if someone had infiltrated my group, stole useful information, and got away with it, I would take it in stride and make my internal security that much stronger. Anyway, I’m not doing it to be mean, I'm doing it to make it harder for groups to get away with unfair playing styles. But I understand what your saying, and ill concentrate more on other means of "investigation". Again don’t be angry with me, I only did it to stop unfair attacks. But, because I am outnumbered in my opinion, I will order a cease on all "undercover investigations". I do want to point out there are groups who constantly attack players, just because they don't approve of their playing style. But thanks for all your constructive criticism. -Snakeeyes0072 07:01, 26 July 2006 (BST)
If it makes any difference after this long, I actually agree with you. But I think this more like an agreement that my char did. He could still spy and break the agreement, but if he'd be catched... Well it wouldn't be pretty. Also I never call it a "game", because I hate breaking the fourth wall. --Niilomaan 10:26, 5 August 2006 (BST)
So are you saying that you're breaking the pledge? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 19:34, 5 August 2006 (BST)
Nope. My char agrees that spying is wrong and so he's promised not to do it. BUT if he would, then he'd make sure he's not catched. --Niilomaan 20:49, 5 August 2006 (BST) EDIT: Crap.. It's for users/players.. Oh well... I guess I'll just go with it then. It's much more fun to do promises ingame. How about punishments then? You punish the acts of players to their character? Which one of the chars? --Niilomaan 21:02, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I have a question, related to unfair tactics but not exactly to the other discussion here. If someone or a group who has signed this pledge knowingly associates themselves with someone who is an infiltrator, are they in violation of this pledge? If say, someone they wholeheartedly supported and possibly even said many of their actions were based on reports from said infiltrator, yet there was evidence the person they are working with is an infiltrator (for example, images being posted from private areas of member bulletin boards), shouldn't a group or player who signed this pledge denounce the infiltrator and cease any activities started because of the infiltrator's information? It appears to be a good pledge, and even I or my group would be interested in signing on! --Francis Snottly III 14:08, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Gee, not like DarkStar at all. You need to brush up on your subterfuge, retard. Cyberbob  Talk  14:11, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Bingo! Ding, ding -- correct answer! That's exactly what I'm asking. Of course, I was trying to be nice and not point out names or groups who might be in violation of this accord. If youwant to call attention to your group or post names, that's your doing. So, does signing this agreement mean you cannot support or otherwise use information from Darkstar and his group since he had unfairly (according to the rules in this agreement) infiltrated another group? (That word, subterfuge, I do not think it means what you think it means.) --Francis Snottly III14:34, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Bleh. You know what I mean. No-one really uses Darkie's screenshots for anything other than entertainment purposes, anyway. Cyberbob  Talk  14:36, 29 July 2006 (BST)
PS: You're a tool. I'm not part of ASS. I signed the treaty thing as an independent player. Cyberbob  Talk  14:41, 29 July 2006 (BST)
PS: Hey, there's no need to be getting asinine with the name calling. Of course, I know you aren't a part of ASS. (See, you brought up a group name again, and I was trying to keep names out of it.) I am trying to determine if associating with an infiltrator means violation of this agreement. If so, then I would simply ask that any persons or groups in question stop associating with and supporting infiltrators, apologize and stop attacking groups if they started doing so out of support of or even use of information from the infiltrator, or otherwise remove the Coalition for Fair Tactics badge from their page. If I had supported someone who later turned out to be an infiltrator, I would publically denounce the infiltrator and apologize for any actions based on their information or my support of them. Other grievances can be worked out as necessary. There is no need to make this ugly with name calling. I won't go there. Francis Snottly III 15:00, 29 July 2006 (BST)
First of all, just be quiet, your enbarrassing yourself. Second of all, look at the list of unfair tactics. It says nothing about gossip, entertainment, or knowing someone who is a spy. It does however say, that spying is a unfair tactic. Therefor, I am unfair. Big deal, get over it. Life isnt fair, why should a fake life be? There are bad people where ever you go, and you cant stop it. On a side note, Thanks for the drink, cheers. --DarkStar2374383 Talk | LDY | LOE 16:41, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Pffft. I answered your claims on the ASS talk page. You can "simply ask" all you want. DarkStar knows we don't approve of his methods, even if we think his goal is admirable. As to your request for an apology? You can shove that right up your arse, snothead, as I said before we'd still be griefing you and yours on principle even without stumbling upon what DarkStar posted at Rezzens. –Xoid STFU! 16:51, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Hi again snotty. Yes, ASS has received information from DarkStar in the past. None of it was intelligence-related, however, and we stopped receiving it before I even formed the CFT. I put an end to our accepting it, because I did not feel that it was right. I felt no need to denounce DarkStar, however. And just so that you know: we were planning on attacking you even before DarkStar sent us some hilarious screenshots. Thanks again for your subtle attacks. Go play in traffic. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 19:03, 29 July 2006 (BST)

You claim that we broke the CFT pledge. Even if we did, we would have done so before it existed - that is like telling a country that it violated a peace treaty before it existed. You are a moron Francis--Gage 20:56, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Well, it seems I've proved that you are, indeed, the morons. All I asked here was a question, and in response you posted decent enough defenses regarding timelines and other information, but in the process called out names of groups and individuals that I had tried to keep out of the argument. You also stooped to the use of name calling and other filth, thereby proving what low class people you really are. It really is terrible you feel you must resort to such banal tactics, because, as you can see, for every "retard" and every "moron" and every other word you spout at me, you really only reflect on yourselves. Congratulations. You've proved yourselves your own worst enemies. Cheers! Francis Snottly III 21:57, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Freud would have a field day with you. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 03:36, 30 July 2006 (BST)
Hey, don't bring me into your sexual fantasies. Sometimes a banana really is just a banana. And keep your fruit away from me, too, pervert. Francis Snottly III 01:50, 31 July 2006 (BST)
I dunno... as much as I don't like the whole idea, I am very loathe to consider spying and infiltration an unfair tactic. Referring very specfically to in-game spying, not forum infiltration. In a game with organised and antagonistic groups etc. like UD, it just seems perfectly natural to me that there would be spies... Spying would be unethical, but not unfair.
But I don't think it's a simple question. And I don't think that it is accurate or helpful or very convincing in itself, just saying "spying is cheating because it violates trust". OF COURSE it violates trust, that's the whole POINT of spying: deceit... But, what I personally think it comes down to is that there really is no system of checks and balances available. The internet, and especially the game, is too anonymous... and there aren't any balanced responses to the kind of in-game damage and fun-wrecking that spying can cause. And that's why it becomes an issue of trust, and why it's unfair. It's not hard to get into a group, and there is a huge aspect of good faith by all involved. That good faith is a cornerstone of the game, a kind of "social game mechanic" that's integral. Thus, by spying, you're violating that good faith. And basically breaking the game...
Those are my thoughts on it. They don't coincide with the CFT's policies, because I am actually not unequivocally against spying, far from it. In fact, I don't think it's inherently unfair at all, in itself, just very unethical. But it is unfair in the context of how the game is played, because it is a kind of social engineering of a "bug" in the human element of the game. And that's the only argument I could come up with to convince myself that spying was, in fact unfair.... =)
Thoughts? Comments? Death threats? Send 'em to... --WanYao 15:50, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Holy necromantic posting, Batman! Do you realize all the other comments above are from July of LAST YEAR? All the new(er) topics are at the BOTTOM of this page. ΔΔΔ  Swiers BigEYEwitnessLOGO.png 17:34, 1 August 2007 (BST)
erm.. well move it then.... most talk pages put new stuff at the top... :( --WanYao 15:26, 3 August 2007 (BST)


You think it would be worthwhile to have something along the lines of "CFT" to go in our sigs as a way to promote the page and ideal to the wiki. Something like this? CFT --Darth Sensitive talkW! 09:06, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Good idea! I'll add something to the page. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 09:19, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Nice sig. And thanks.--Thari CFT 22:26, 26 July 2006 (BST)


Not like it matters, but why was the RRF bumped to the bottom? Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 14:19, 26 July 2006 (BST)

So far, the RRF is lexicographically greatest. In non-nerd speak: so far, you're last in alphabetical order. And we're conspiring against you. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 17:22, 26 July 2006 (BST)
I thought it was first come, first serve. But the conspiring thing is a known fact. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 17:23, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Nope nope, read the pledge instructions again. Alphabetical FTW. That's also the reason I'm doing it as a bulleted list instead of as a numbered list. I want it to be clear that there is no leader of this group, and no pecking order. All its members are equally important. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 17:28, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Oh...I thought it meant alphabetical order for the group leaders in a group. Or something like that. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 17:31, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Well, there's that part too. Actually, I just cleaned up the wording of that section a little so that it'll be easier to read. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 17:57, 26 July 2006 (BST)


[[CFT]] now redirects to [[Coalition for Fair Tactics]]-- you can now update the signature section to reflect that--GageCFT 03:17, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Nevermind, I got it--GageCFT 03:25, 27 July 2006 (BST)
Good idea. Thanks. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 05:13, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Big Questions

Are you not willing to activly go out and stop the problem? I was always weary of that not being the solution bull crap, but not cheating yourself, and not letting your friends cheat is too small. When will you be active? When will the abuse end? -- 343 U! 02:41, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Are you asking if the CFT plans to do something active, or are you trying to accuse me of cheating, or are you just trying to bitch at me because I pwned you on the suggestions page? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 02:43, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Side note: pwnd? He withdrew his suggestion because of the beration, not because he realized that there was no actual suggestion. So you didn't "win" on the suggestions page. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. --Karlsbad 02:50, 29 July 2006 (BST)
And don't break yours opening the door on your way out. Cyberbob  Talk  02:51, 29 July 2006 (BST)
I'd say a little of each. Cyberbob  Talk  02:44, 29 July 2006 (BST)
I think you're right. I'll answer like this:
  1. The CFT has no current plans to do something active, but if necessary I will create a governing council and use it to organize action against cheaters.
  2. I don't cheat, and I suspect most of the people who voted against your shitty idea don't either.
  3. If you can't take criticism, don't suggest things. And next time you suggest something, I'd leave the propaganda out, unless you want to look like an idiot. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 02:47, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Could there possibly be a spot on that council for me? Cyberbob  Talk  02:50, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Of course. If the time comes for it to be formed, I'll consider you along with everyone else. I've got no plans to discriminate against anyone when making it, since it should be representative of the whole group. :) –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 02:58, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Okey dokey. Cyberbob  Talk  03:00, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Just to let 343 know, my group, Malton Organized Crime Division, does take an active stand against cheaters-Snakeeyes0072 19:39, 30 July 2006 (BST)

A lot of the things you've defined as "fair" and "unfair" are pretty loosely defined. Is there a strict definition of what you guys are against somewhere, or is this group just based on good faith? --Ron Burgundy 21:55, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Loosley defined? Why not list a bunch of things that you consider unfair, and a bunch that you do consider fair? If you list anything that people complain about, we can talk through it. If no-one finds anything objectionable, we can add those to the lists on the page. –Xoid STFU! 14:59, 30 July 2006 (BST)
I deliberately only listed a few unfair things and a few fair things. The idea was just to give a general gist, not an exhaustive list (for example, although I haven't listed it, using bots would be unfair, and I assume that people would know this after reading my other examples). We do operate on good faith, but there are consequences if we find out that someone has lied. I think Xoid's suggestion about making a list of fair and unfair things is a good one too. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 18:23, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Counting Issue

Bob, it looks like you're tallying players who are part of signed groups and have also signed individually twice in your overall count. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 00:21, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Basically I'm lazy in that regard. It's an estimate anyway. If you want to fix it, feel free. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 00:47, 31 July 2006 (BST)
I think I am counted three times. ASS, RRF, and myself. --Gage 04:33, 31 July 2006 (BST)
It's quite possible. The numbers are really only a very loose estimate. Bad group numbers are probably a bigger contributer of bad data anyway. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 04:43, 31 July 2006 (BST)
I doubt the RRF's estimate of 900 active members, as they have less than 300 on the stats page. --Gage 15:27, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Oh I wouldnt... Considering the DHPD has a large portion of the 900 profiles... one discrepency is that once an RRF member always an RRF member regardless of activity, and another is the RRF subgroups that are listed seperatly in the Stats page... Conndrakamod TCFT 10:56, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Aren't the RRF just adding those stats up to get a total? –Xoid STFU! 11:00, 1 August 2006 (BST)
That and every person who signed up for the RRF e-mail/list thing who is not already counted on the Stats page. We clocked/ ID'd almost 200 with Brainrot back in November. And that was just from public information and posts. Conndrakamod TCFT 11:59, 1 August 2006 (BST)


Moved to Talk:Coalition for Fair Tactics/Assembly/DEM. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 21:30, 2 August 2006 (BST)

A query?

Would unfair tactics include using information such as were players are hiding from a group that was supposed to be in a ceasefire with them? Say I was supposed to have a ceasefire with some hypothetical party and I used the fact that I could now stay in the same location as them without fear of retribution to give a group they were at odds with their location so they could kill them. Is this unfair? If the group uses this info knowing how I got it, would that be unethical?Jjames 00:56, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Unethical, but not unfair. –Xoid STFU! 08:25, 9 August 2006 (BST)

A query from Tethran

On your front page it says that an example of an unfair tactic is:

"* Using information obtained through one character to benefit another"

Now is this refering to one person having 2 characters and using what they see with one to benifit the other? Or is it refering to where one person shares what they've seen with their character with a second person and that second person then puts it to use? --Tethran 14:09, 6 August 2006 (BST)

The first case, for example you see a damaged target and then you go with an alt and attack it. That would be unfair.--Thari T/C/TJ! 14:12, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Then, uhm, under which of the 'unfair tactics' does the DEMON tool fall? From what I've read it just seems to be a slightly more advanced way of scouting an area and recording what you see? --Tethran 14:23, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Alt. abuse. The characters are supposed to have completely separate and independent lives. That includes using OoC knowledge from one to aid the other. This is already answered elsewhere, so no more bloody questions about it here. –Xoid STFU! 08:23, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Violation of something

I just ran on this. I'm not actually sure if anyone can do anything about it, or if it's even forbitten, but if there IS anything someone can do, then you should know. Shame that you can't use that Red Rum tool to track him... It would be so sweet. --Niilomaan GRR! 01:15, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Yeah. He's in the vicinity of Caiger Mall. He has been harrassing Lt. Potter ever since he left the 501st and joined the DHPD. I wonder if he can get banned for admitting account theft? Mods? --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 02:43, 12 August 2006 (BST)
Oh, as tempting as that is on its own, it's not enough evidence to nail him completely. How do we know it's not a game account? How do we know he's telling the truth? How do we know what wiki account he used, if he used one? If you can find edits from some other account that looks like it's the one he's talking about, and provide links to those edits along with the diff link above on M/VB, I think we can do something. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 10:09, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Got a zerger this time

I was wondering about some profiles lately, and now I finally got the proof I need. So... Anyone up for a nice zerg hunt? I'll bring the beer. --Niilomaan GRR! 00:22, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Don't forget Gloves, they can be visious when cornered.--Canuhearmenow 00:31, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Possible violation.

"Using dishonest strategies to gain private group information "

Gage revealed information about that he obtained from the ASS forum. If gage's accusations are true, they were obtained from a forum that ASS invited Scinfaxi to. This assumes confidentiality on everyone's part. Would gage have liked it if we told everyone about some of the things he planned on that forum before they happened?Jjames 01:12, 19 August 2006 (BST)

he is referring to the Christian Decency Foundation, probably created to defame the CDF. Is everyone supposed to look away when you make some comment on the forum? I am sick and tired of your drama. I was dishonest in no way, I never made nor will I ever make any promise or agreement with the Faggots involving confidentiality. I will expose their wiki drama for what it is every time: simple shit stirring. You were on our forum. If you don't like it, leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.--GageASS 01:20, 19 August 2006 (BST)
Actually, I wasn't on your forum, scinfaxi was. And scinfaxi was invited to your forum. Had you told him up front that information would be leaked he never would have posted there. The whole CDF claim is flimsy anyway as it has no mentions of abortion on its page and that is the comment you claim proves scinfaxi is connected to it. You are behaving dihonestly because of your personal dislike for our group. In my opinion, that makes you a hypocrite.Jjames 01:24, 19 August 2006 (BST)
Whenever you put something down in print or an electronic media, especially if you give it to someone who doesn't like you, you run the risk of it being not-so-secret anymore. I was in no way dishonest, as I did not access the forum in any illigitimate way nor did you have my word that your shitty little 'plan' would be secret. Go get a life. --GageASS 01:29, 19 August 2006 (BST)
So your forum is not confidential and no one should trust you with any information that you may come across unless they have your express promise not to violate their trust? Wow, that doesn't make you very trustworthy or ethical in my opinion. I'm curious to see the Bob's opinion on their forum not being confidential to those invited to it and the possibility of you betraying officially recognozed allies at anytime.Jjames 01:33, 19 August 2006 (BST)
Please check the forum, Jjames. --GageASS 02:05, 19 August 2006 (BST)
I don't have the link. Scinfaxi isn't around right now.Jjames 18:46, 19 August 2006 (BST)
I appreciate the apology and would like to see it on the wiki as well. Just so people can have the full picture.Jjames 19:16, 20 August 2006 (BST)

My opinion is that no matter how much Gage was in bad taste, and I think that he was, he didn't actually violate any rule. The information he obtained was on the ASS forum, which he has access to as a member of ASS. It is up to the group what their policies are, and what consequences should be in place for Gage, if any. You will need to talk to Xoid about that. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:30, 20 August 2006 (BST)

Not Quite So Invisibles

Here "Btw as our intel on your group members has dried up, looks like you found the turncoat. Took you long enough, how else did you think we knew about every new member of red rum that was turning up to kill innocents?"

Posted shortly after I removed a potential spy from our access roster. Proof positive that the group uses spies. The group is based in Grigg Heights and neighbooring suburbs. Now the question is: What are you going to do about it? --SirensT RR 16:13, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Not sure. I'm contemplating bringing ASS in. That kind of shit is completely and utterly un-fucking-called for. Dirty cheaters, of the worst variety. –Xoid STFU! 16:41, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Hooray for the DEM. Mia, who's your profile avatar on that forum? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 18:51, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Sirens :P --SirensT RR 19:16, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Uh huh, but seriously? It doesn't look computer generated. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:54, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Oh, sorry, having a stupid day...I thought you meant who my forum account was. The Model's a secret ;) --SirensT RR 21:19, 24 August 2006 (BST)
My God, you are insufferable. :P –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 21:24, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Ah-aight, Since the DMZ is just north of the Grigg if any make their way north they'll find the DMZ inhospitable. Conndrakamod T CFT 18:56, 24 August 2006 (BST)

DMZ? I didn't know Malton had a DMZ --SirensT RR 19:16, 24 August 2006 (BST)
Dunell Military Zone. Dunell Hills, plus the 5 bordering suburbs . --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 22:12, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Mole in DHPD midst

We in the Hills have an issue. A Small group has recently started giving us an issue which we and our allies have been able to handle effectively so far, despite the very real likelihood of Zerging being involved. However, an individual has joined our private board that may have been responsible for the creation of the groups page in February. I'm not making any out and out accusations at this point (I'm giving the individual time to explain), but should the need arise I will be asking for the assistance of the Pledge members in persecuting this individual and his group accordingly. Conndrakamod T CFT 23:06, 9 September 2006 (BST)

I Am making a formal complaint against Predators and its various members. Player using G4361 as a charachter joined the DHPD at Cottam way PD (which is also the Zombie Squad HQ.) The Following sig came to light:

Tribe Elder
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Location: Malton
Group Elder
zombie character:
human alt:

Czarnicolas III is also a Zed currently assaulting the ZS HQ. In adition from the profiles and posts elsewhere it is obvious this individual is also responsible for Posting as "Mayor" Fitting on the Wiki, additionaly Thanks to a member of STARS we also have evedence that G4361 posted on that board as "Witchblade" yet another Zed currently attacking Cottam Way PD. Profiles In Question include G4361 Czar Nicolas III Witchblade Fellow predator Ken Irons, claiming to be a Harvard Buisness school student, has similar spelling and gramatical issues when editing the wiki similar to the edits by "Mayor" Fitting and MAY the same individual as well.

Wiki User Profiles that may be of note: User:Witchblade(wich mentions personal connection to G4361)

User:Mayor Fitting who has claimed to be leader of the Predators on an open forum post, but not on the Wiki.

User:G4361 the person in question.

User:Ken_irons who claims leadership of the Predators on the Wiki.

Conndrakamod T CFT 13:31, 12 September 2006 (BST)

A Well meaning individual provided information to me that was garnered in a way that violates the Fair Tactics Pledge, although this person is not a signatore, I still have a bad taste in my mouth as the following information was made available to me.

I think the preds are going to come knocking at Flowar tonight at around 7 est. they've got a bunch of lv. 1 firemen at the Urben Alley FD which they use as "doorknockers" (limit the use of that term, since it's from inside their message board terms).

this is like 4-6 guys all using alts to do their thing. they get around the IP limit by disconnecting their dialup to reset the counter.

they're hitting Piegsa after this, then going on 'vacation' to reaganbank for a week... they've also made a deal with the PK Alliance and Malton Death Dealers to come bother you in the 'Hills.... probably heading straight for Cotty.

what more does one say after this? Conndrakamod T CFT 02:29, 14 September 2006 (BST)

you made all of that shit up. yes, we infiltrated oyur group, but your hippocrites, you did the same to us. i hope you feel like an idiot for all of this right now. i dont care if you ban me either, go ahead, see if i care. i jsut want you coalition people to know they are mad we spied on their forums, and they did the same to us, and we didnt bitch about it. we just baned the user. so yea, keep that in mind before you ban me.
oh and about the "A Well meaning individual provided information to me that was garnered in a way that violates the Fair Tactics Pledge, although this person is not a signatore, I still have a bad taste in my mouth as the following information was made available to me.
I think the preds are going to come knocking at Flowar tonight at around 7 est. they've got a bunch of lv. 1 firemen at the Urben Alley FD which they use as "doorknockers" (limit the use of that term, since it's from inside their message board terms).
this is like 4-6 guys all using alts to do their thing. they get around the IP limit by disconnecting their dialup to reset the counter.
they're hitting Piegsa after this, then going on 'vacation' to reaganbank for a week... they've also made a deal with the PK Alliance and Malton Death Dealers to come bother you in the 'Hills.... probably heading straight for Cotty." thats all fabircated. we didnt use door knockers, and there is no proof of it on our forums. the around the IP limit is also false, we wait until 7PM EST when it resets stupid fuck. and yes, we were going on vacation, but were not gonna hit cotty. yes, we did ally with the confederacy of malton, and the death dealers, see, im admitting whats true, hell ill let people in our forum to prove it. how about that? so stop making shit up and trying to get us banned you fucker. --Mayor Fitting 02:59, 14 September 2006 (BST)
1st, Noone from the DHPD "infiltrated" your board. IF you banned the individual that related the information to me, then great. I honestly have no taste for that kind of spying. I looked at your boards myself but I didn't create a profile to do it and thus couldn't see much. Someone else did, and if Kevan wants to ask me who, I'll provide the name, but beyond that... You got caught. And Kens little tirade and atempts to "slash and burn" the DHPD pages... well that proved more than any denial of action could. Conndrakamod T CFT 03:07, 14 September 2006 (BST)

messing with your wiki wasnt my idea. thats all ken. but im just saying someone else spied on us, and is obviousley at falt here too. besides, we didnt use door knockers. the most it came down to was a little alt abuse which almost every group has at one point or another. the level one firefighters and the fancy way around the ip hits? thats blasphamy. i dont care what you think, i know its the truth.--Mayor Fitting 04:19, 14 September 2006 (BST)

MCDU encouraging zerging

[1] -- The MCDU and a couple of the DEM bigwigs are trying to make it a crime for any of their group's members' alts to attack MCDU members. They want to punish anyone who does this by banishing them from the group. Thus, they are trying to get their members to use all their alts to further the one group's goals (ie. not getting killed). This goes against the basic rule against zerging: "Am I allowed to play multiple characters? You are, provided that they lead completely separate existences within the game"

Fair? I think not. Do you? --c138 RR 22:18, 13 September 2006 (BST)

The Creedy Defense Force is also guilty of this, requiring that you vacate an area if it is within CDF or if you might PK fellow members. Since the Malakim squads roam, by merely being present where other members have alts they can thin out the numbers. This sort of thing is a serious problem, as it can be easily abused. The Creedy Defense Force is also guilty of forum spying and PM snooping; all in all? Abhorrent. The CDF is restructuring itself. Here's hoping it can start moving towards fighting fair. It'd be a first, that's for sure.
As to the DEM? Hidebound. Change, or hell, commonsense seem to be things lacking from large portions of their group. I know at least two people who quit in disgust. I think it's a symptom of a greater problem that people are accepting these dirty tactics as part and parcel of playing a survivor. Not sure if there is any way to fix it, but pressuring these groups hasn't worked in the past. Reasoning with them is an oxymoron. –Xoid STFU! 21:40, 19 October 2006 (BST)

Would these be fair?

I'm willing to follow this ( noticing PKing as 'fair) as long as it is noticed to be fair that I have the right to find that PKer, shoot him, and 'releave' myself on his/her's dead body--Ralain 02:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can kill 'im, sure. You can even be a jackass about it (though that won't win you favours). Also, FYI; Kevan himself has said that PKing is a legitimate part of the game. –Xoid MTFU! 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing groups

Should we remove ASS from the list? It's no longer active, so it doesn't serve anybody here. (Also for what group does Xoid speak nowadays? No one?) --Niilomaan GRR!M! 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point,Xoid speaks for no one but himself. Personally, I think this makes his point of view more valid than anyone's, because he has nothing to gain or lose from any UD Politics now :P --SirensT RR 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


If this coalition is still active, I'd like to ask what its opinion on the project I propose at I/Witness is. If possible, I'd like to work with the coalition to come up with a set of guidelines to the fair implementation and use of the idea, before I sink to much work into it, so that as it is developed I can make sure to put those methods / limits in place. I/Witness is intended to be an open use, fair tool, and I want to make sure I don't accidentally stray from that course. --Seb_Wiers VeM 23:50, 15 May 2007 (BST)

Given the length of time without a response, I can only conclude that the original proposal (moved here and thus any conforming implementation is "fair and balanced" according to this groups guidelines. ΔΔΔ  Swiers BigEYEwitnessLOGO.png 17:31, 1 August 2007 (BST)

Profile Tracking

Actually, most of this group may have moved on or vanished, but I think there are a few things that may bear discussion, specifically the similarities and differences between your tool and DEMON, a lot of decent issues were brought upand ignored in the DEMON discussion found above and I think this may provide the perfect basis for discussion on some of those issues and how they effect or apply to your tool. One thing would be profile tracking, which can easily be used for the purposes of following a groups movements without anyone reporting you the information or ruining another players fun. Mabey users shouldn't be able to search up where other users are by their profile but rather just search up the profile itself.--Karekmaps?! 12:03, 3 August 2007 (BST)

Iwitness does not keep track of profile locations- indeed, the profile DB there is pretty much what you suggest above, just a way to match an ID# to a name. However, "tracking" is (for good or bad) an innate feature of being able to search records. To "track" with Iwitness, all you need do is type in a character's name (or ID#, which works better if they have a name like "building") and you pull up every record that character appears in, starting with the most recent one. I'm not sure how I could remove this feature without killing the search function completely.
I suppose I could block matches when they occur within a pattern that is a match for a character... is such crippling required? If it is, it can easily be implemented at a later date as a filter on search results, so I'm not going to worry now, or get upset if it is called for later.
Thanks for bringing that up, that's exactly the sort of thing I wanted when I posted this here; I need to see problems coming BEFORE I step into them, an at least decide if they can be dealt with later, or need to be designed around. I think the basic design decisions I made early on head off a lot of the concerns DEMON caused (I read everything I could find on that "case", before doing any coding) but potentially not all of them. ΔΔΔ  Swiers BigEYEwitnessLOGOgrey.png 13:24, 3 August 2007 (BST)
Don't know about anyone else but if you could do that so that I/Witness couldn't be used as a tracking tool I would feel better about it.--Karekmaps?! 13:44, 3 August 2007 (BST)
Seems a good idea. If people WANT to be found (such as making a revive request, or having a "leader / scout" character) they can put the character name in the comment field. I'm gon a be offering ways to "hard code" your submissions so they always include a certain comment value anyhow, which would be perfect for such folks. Or maybe I could set up an "opt in" list for people who DO want to be found. My ZU / ZNN zombies, for example, DO want to be tracked.
I'm sure it would also make DEM happy to know I'm not building a direct competitor to the RG. Or sad to know I'm not extending its reach. Whichever. ΔΔΔ  Swiers BigEYEwitnessLOGOgrey.png 15:29, 3 August 2007 (BST)


If your group is a Trenchcoater organization I will hunt down every single one of you. Have a good day =) --Sachaztan 18:08, 18 August 2007 (BST)


What is the CFT's opinion of this tactic? --Private Doughnut 5:30 pm, 6 April 2008

Well, I can't speak for the CFT, but it definitely seems fair to me. It can be done by a single player with the minor assistance of a single random and otherwise uninvolved player. Even if a group on the scale of The Dead started doing intentionally reviving and infecting its members in a massive parachuting campaign (perish the thought), it'd be fair as long as they didn't zerg. Also, "Private Doughnut"? I think it's time for somebody to get a new nickname. -Ornithopter 03:51, 7 April 2008 (BST)
Personal tools