Talk:Council of Leaders (new)

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Clock.png Historical Group Talk Page
This talk page belongs to a historical group that is no longer active. However, its wiki page is preserved to reflect the group's significance in Urban Dead history. Please do not edit this page or the corresponding group page without good reason.

A Major Question.

Enough with the banter, I have a Question.

What is the New CoL's official stance on groups maintaining their own lists of PKs and hunting those who have openly attacked their members? --Alexei Yaruk 17:34, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)

If they are on the PKer list, no action will be taken and you get crazy points for it (if you care). If they are not on the list and you are reported, you will go on the list. Fair's fair, after all. --Katthew 21:54, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
That seems... rather autocratic. And what if a PK starts reporting the people he kills, using edited screenshots? You have said yourself it is possible. What if a PK attacks you, and you kill them in retaliation? Are you now a PK? While I see some relevance to your ideas I am not exactly comfortable with the... Flavor they seem to carry. --Alexei Yaruk 02:54, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
It takes great skill to edit a screenshot utterly convincingly. However, we have healthy skepticism and you can be sure that no fakes will get past us. If a PK attacks you seriously, you can kill them in retaliation - or another bounty hunter can. I am not and never have been a PKer.
Any "flavor" that these things seem to carry is probably just your imagination. Most people on the forum are happy with the system, as far as I've seen. --Katthew 22:25, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I for one, have never, and likely will never, gone into the "Forum". I am a hard core Wikizen, if they wont take the time to make a wiki entry for it, it isn't Important. I have talked to others who feel the same, "No chit chat, spam, or Boardatics in the way of my information please." If you are really going to continue with this, please make and update a Wiki entry for it. Alexei Yaruk 01:45, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)

PS: considering some of the stuff on your frontpage, it is no surprise that some people thought this was a joak.

Ahahaha, "Wikizen". Sorry but I can't take you seriously now. --Katthew 16:21, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Thats ok. The amount you swear, I did not take you seriously in the first place. Alexei Yaruk 18:10, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Oh no, I swear. Whatever to do. This is a conundrum. Perhaps, if I may be so bold, you get off your fucking high horse. For a start, anyway. --Katthew 23:12, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

On a somewhat related note - not the note of both of you engaging in rampant douchebaggery, but the note of PK lists - it might be a wise idea to create a similar PK list to the one on the forums on the wiki. There would, of course, be the problem of people adding or removing names from it that don't belong there, but with a healthy amount of moderation, preferably from one or two people so that any unauthorized changes could be easily identified and reverted, it would make the list easier for people to access, given the tendency of the forums as of late to be somewhat unreliable. - RosutoEnzeru 06:36, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

How so have they been unreliable? --Axe-man 10:55, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Have you tried to access them at all over the past three days? Try it, then ask again. -RosutoEnzeru 18:36, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I can't say I've "tried" to access them, what with posting yesterday and the day before. Currently they're down for a little maintenance, but what kind of decent forum doesn't have to update every now and again? Trick question, obviously, as only crappy forums never undergo maintenance. Just try developing a little patience and soon you'll be able to go back to doing whatever it is you like doing on the forum. --Katthew 18:43, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Didn't the administrator do this so he could move this to a dedicated server? So basically you want to start a wiki pk list because the forum will be more reliable?--Axe-man 22:05, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Let's not forget how utterly impossible it is to sabotage a wiki page! Oh wait. --Katthew 23:12, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I was going to suggest that you be the only person authorized to change it, Katthew, since you maintain the list anyway. So if you're the only one who can change it, then any sabotage would be obvious. And the forums, for the last three days, have been sporadic at best. This may well have been because of maintenance or moving or whatever, but the point is that they were down. If the list were available on both the wiki or the forum, then access to it at any given time would be almost assured. - RosutoEnzeru 00:57, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Since the server moved to a dedicated server... that means both the wiki and the forums have the same chance of going down. It seems redunant and there are already alot of fights over pk lists to begin with. you are only inviting drama and wiki wars to the wiki.--Axe-man 01:06, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
As a more-or-less disinterested party (I don't use the bounty list), I'd say it's probably better off staying where it is on the forum. It's going to be far less of a hassle for the person(s) responsible for updating that list, and I could see a lot of problems arising from having the list publicly editable. --Chester Katz 03:50, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Even if only one person could edit the list, the amount of people trying to "get back" at people will only increase and cause alot of cyclic discussion with leads nowhere. Another thing would be the fact that many people are "anti pking" and would see this as an endorsement by Kevan of the bounty list and that pking is "wrong." The sheer amount of drama and fighting between the two groups would simply make it not worth it. Also which system do we use to determine. Some PK lists have people who have been seen with pkers and nothing more. So which group is correct. There are many different standards and systems, frankly it seems like it would be better to just leave the issue to other people and try to mantain as much a factual repository as we can then, choosing sides in a conflict in which there is no "right" or "wrong" side.--Axe-man 04:12, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

CoL is Populat

Ever notice how so many of the CoL leaders were previously wearing Populat handles on UD boards? At least, for the love of truth, mention this. Inst 10:11, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)

"The Council of Leaders is an umbrella organization, under which many of Malton's groups are affiliated. Although formally composed of 13 councillors, the membership numbers of the various affiliated groups make the CoL one of the largest groups in Malton." -Should we remove this? This statement was true of the old Council of Leaders, but not necessarily of CoL/Populat. Inst 10:27, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)


Simple answer to this: Prove that your accusations are true. They made Daris sigs for alot of people. Ludwig had a Daris sig even. So that means nothing. It also appears that most of the poeple on the list were never in DARIS.--Axe-man 22:44, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Ludwig's DARIS sig apparently was a fake, as one can easily tell by its shitty quality. If you want me to prove anything, you HAVE to be willing to accept evidence. Reality is a postulate, you can refuse to believe in anything, from the blueness of the sky to the warmness of human bodies.Inst 11:45, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yuri now has a DARIS sig. It appears that more than 1 old CoL member is using it. present your belief that DARIS still runs the new CoL.--Axe-man 09:06, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Group Fight

Can a mod lock this page? It seems some people already want to vandalise it. --Katthew 01:37, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

You probably don't know this because you were away for a bit, but there's a new moderation system being put in place- see Moderation for more information. --LibrarianBrent 01:42, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
No one is vandalising it, it is a joke. --Ludwig 01:38, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
You're the one being immature. It's ok as a joke. But some people might not know if it's real or not. Do like what you did with the Petorians. That's ok. This isn't. --Saromu :Yes it is. The old CoL has done absolutely nothing over the last few weeks besides hang around in forums and complain about SA. Our attempt to revitalise the name of the CoL has obviously made you envious and you're only doing this out of spite. --Katthew 01:49, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Just because you don't see us does not mean we are not doing stuff. --Ludwig 01:51, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It appears that none of you can answer a simple question how doi you know this is a joke and where is your proof of such?--Axe-man 01:51, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)


In this situation, it'd be the best to make two pages, Council of Leaders (New) and Council of Leaders (Old), and then use the Council of Leaders page as a disambiguation. That would make both groups somewhat equal, and hopefully it'd help us avoid conflicts. --Daranz-Talk 01:53, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

That's a fair judgement. I'll do that right now, in fact. --Katthew 01:56, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I'd like to note that the new CoL has already done more in a single hour to benefit the community (by reviving the old signature approval system) than the old CoL has done in months. This is truly a rebirth and not some pissant joke. --Whelk

As I already said on this page, the Real CoL has been doing things, just away from your eyes. Please stop lying. --Ludwig 02:07, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
So the so-called "Council of Leaders" (old), charged with protecting all of Malton and assisting any in need has, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, been doing nothing publically for months. Then what good are you? A policeman isn't policing if he's sitting at home telling people that he's a policeman when he hasn't been to work in months. Actions speak louder than words, and we're starting out running. What does your INaction say? -- Whelk
A better example would be a ninja. Just because some people don't see it, and it does not say anything, does not mean that he is not doing things. --Ludwig 02:21, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Except ninjas don't exist, except in fiction. Oh, wait, I see now that it's the perfect analogy. Nevermind. --Katthew 16:21, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It isn't lieing if you can't prove it as such. Prove it.--Axe-man 02:08, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Well, for example, I have been working in Lockettside as of late. In fact, I do believe I have seen you there. --Ludwig 02:09, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I know you've been framing people you don't like for murder. --Katthew 02:17, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I know you've been faced with proof that you are a murder and lied about it. --Ludwig 02:21, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
WHY. WOULD. I. LIE. I hate you. I'd love to kill you. But I have never even seen you in game. --Katthew 02:25, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
To ruin my reputation. --Ludwig 02:23, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Why do you need anyone else for that? You are managing just fine on your own. --Laughing Man 15:38, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Link to information taht proves a CoL interference and/or a screenshot of said involvement. AKA actaul proof.--Axe-man 02:14, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Remember that Ludwig knows how to fake screenshots, Axe-man. --Katthew 02:17, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Katthew, if you are going to keep lieing, do it on Glitch's forum where we don't have to read it. --Ludwig 02:21, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
And what exactly is he lieing about and where is the proof of such.--Axe-man 02:23, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
When he attacked me, see (http://www.geocities.com/ ludwig890/Death7.jpg minus the space) but you know that, and we already had this conversation, so I'm ending it here. Don't waste your time to reply, you have better things to do right? I know I do. --Ludwig 02:23, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
As I said, why am I lying? What do I have to gain? What you gain from faking a screenshot is Goddamn obvious, though. --Katthew 02:25, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
See above --Ludwig 02:23, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)

In my photoshop there are artifacts that the system pulled out. I then ran a filter and it appears that something strange is going on. Also there is a fake katthew running around. Do you have the link from the fight that shows that it was the real katthew?--Axe-man 22:46, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Now that is a vaild question. http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=116418 --Ludwig 02:36, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Oh my profile that proves fucking everything. Game's over, lads, we've been rumbled.
Stop being such a fucking idiot, Ludwig. --Katthew 02:49, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Katthew emailed me a screenshot of a recent attack on you due to being on a "Bounty Hunter list" so which profile are you reporting at what time?--Axe-man 09:06, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Political Wrangling

Right. Can we agree that we have this page representing the newly-formed Council of Leaders, with the page Council of Leaders representing the original Council with a clear disambiguation at the top? This seems the best solution I can think of, and hopefully we can avoid any further edit wars regarding name clashes. -- Odd Starter 03:05, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

That's fine with the CoL. --Katthew 12:43, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

You are liars. I tried to change the page to show that the new CoL are former DARIS members, but some jerk edited it out. -lightman

Sorry group Npov page please stop vandalizing it. Katthew was the only person in DARIS. Prove that the others were. Also how is this assocaited with DARIS?--Axe-man 15:07, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Who the hell cares what group they used to be in? --LibrarianBrent 23:04, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Apparently we're ruining the game. Don't tell anyone. --Katthew 02:15, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Confirmed Group Status

Just a quick note to say that I removed the Category:Confirmed Groups from the page. The reason being that the Category:Confirmed Groups was created to only list groups that showed up on the stats page and, at this moment, the Council of Leaders (either old or new) isn't showing up. — g026r 22:54, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)

PKer Semantics

To Mr. LibrarianBrent: This is Lightman. You have warned me for vandalizing this page. I did not. I wrote that members of this group used to be DARIS members, which is factual information. When you said "Who cares who they used to be" I don't think you realize what DARIS was: they were pkers. This is factual, and unbiased. People should be able to know whether or they can trust a group.

Check out the current definition of " PKer " and you'll find it much more balanced. Any survivor group which isn't universally tolerant of all survivors could be called PKers (which includes the old CoL as well as DARIS). Bounty Hunters are PKers, (and they are respected members of the community); It is not important is whether they PK but the standard they use to decide if someone should be PKed. What is in contention is not actually whether a groups PKs, but its standard of doing so. Also it is very impolite to leave personal posts without a signature/time-stamp. I am not a member of the new or old CoL but this is obvious to me; the standard posted on the New CoL page is not unreasonable, and thus valid.--Matthew-Stewart 02:16, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
How can "targetting any and all players not in <so and so group>" be compared to Bounty Hunters who kill on a much broader, principled basis? Considering the targets of DARIS were many times survivors over zombies, that sounds suspiciously like PKing to me. Granted, I don't think it should be listed in this section. Perhaps instead a footnote on the pages of the player's in question, whose pages are linked from this one? Riktar 07:28, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
They are both PKs. PK stands for Player Killer. DARIS killed players, and so do bounty hunters. Many people seem to think PKing is actually bad, while in reality the term was not intended to carry such a meaning. --LibrarianBrent 15:01, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Riktar, to answer your question: Rather accurately; They both have standards of what they consider an "offense" and they both enforce that with lethal dedication (also the standard is not as you claim, it was everyone who wasn't in their group in a specific 'group only' zone). Now it can be argued that DARIS did everything in its power to prevent needless death by posting the equivalent of "Trespassers will be shot" signs. Their policy was extremely harsh, that is undeniable, but look at the scenario, zombie apocalypse with death cultists and zombie spies rampant, trusting outsiders is risky. I am not saying they are "right" in what they did, but it is understandable and even within reason (if you take into account the effort they put into warning outsiders to stay away) given the circumstances. I would say the bounty hunter standard is MUCH more widely accepted, but even then there are those that disagree with it. --Matthew-Stewart 16:33, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't see what DARIS has to do with the Council of Leaders. --Katthew 20:57, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

That is a good point, I am sorry for taking up room on your discussion page with this but this is where the discussion started.
It brings up the good point of what is the CoL policies as to what are considered punishable crimes? Thank you for your time --Matthew-Stewart 00:39, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Killin' folks, endangering lives, that kind of thing. Basically what everybody hates. --Katthew 02:26, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I am very interested in seeing this new bounty system, but I notice there is no link section to the (new) CoL. I suggest that might be a good idea turning your group wiki into a informational hub so those who visit your site can be as informed as possible. If you don't like this idea feel free to discard it (ie erase). Thank you for your time, --Matthew-Stewart 17:26, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Common History

This page refers to the new Council of Leaders. For information regarding the original group bearing the same name, which shares some history with the new group, please see Council of Leaders (original).

Out of curiosity, what is the common history? There doesn't seem to be any continuity in membership, and it doesn't appear as if any successful attempt was made to make a continuity in affiliated groups either. The only common link seems to be the name and the claimed goals. No actual common history as such. Or is there something I am missing here? Rhialto 12:29, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well, let's see: both groups are called the Council of Leaders, there's a big bit of sharing right there. Both are/were comprised of active players who have lots of in-game experience. One of the members of the current CoL was denied a spot on the old CoL due to Floridaesque vote fuckery. The whole CoL/SA thing is a big bit of shared history - the fact that SA members are now part of the CoL just adds to it.
Good to see you assume people ignoring your stupid questions = lack of evidence, though. No need to be a fucking bitch about it when you're editing. Are you going to revert what you did, or are you going to argue the point a little more? --Katthew 16:21, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
The first isn't shared history, just a shared name. The second is just a shared organisational structure, not shared history. The last fits, but isn't really included in the article, other than a mention of the claims by the original CoL that the new CoL is lead by SA members. I'd suggest expanding on that avenue more to show the shared history. As is, it's not elaborated on within the article, so it leaves readers unsure of what is meant by the phrase "shared history". — g026r 18:27, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

katthew, come up with a civil reply, and I'll start taking you seriously. If no one presents any evidence, how else is that supposed to be taken except as a lack of evidence? I did of course do some searching, but couldn't find anything. having a guy in the new team who was rejected from the old team is not a common history; its almost the exact opposite. And I never denied the common name, just the common history point. I'm also willing to believe that members of the new group interacted with members of the old group, but so did many zombie groups. Anyway, come up with a civil response and I'll read it. The only edit I did was in the npov section anyway, and so you can't really accuse me of any vandalism. Rhialto 11:18, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't talk to people who have a shaky grasp of grammar, sorry. --Katthew 17:39, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Who/What are the SA

I'll leave most of my griping about how your little battle, which I think most players could care less about, has bolloxed up some useful resources the rest of rather appreciated (with the exception of that sentence I guess ;). But I do have one serious question, just to fill in some of my own morbid curiosity.

Who or what are or were the SA?!?! I Keep seeing 'SA' bandied about, but I can't find them on the wiki and haven't come across any description. --Gilant 22:16, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

SA are Something Awful, or (more accurately) the Something Awful forum goons who decided to start playing this game a few months back. Not content with the kind of bland and boring groups around at the time, wherein people played as Irish cops or Irish beauties or mysterious strangers with a dark and troubled past, they set up their own. Most of the more "infamous" survivor groups, such as the Cult of the Coyote, the Kindergarten Cult and DARIS, were the work of the SA goons. I say "infamous" because the only reason they got so much attention is because everybody on the old, defunct forum flipped out when we refused to play exactly as they did.
SA is also responsible for the Many, the first true zombie horde that still strikes fear into the hearts of nervous safe-houses everywhere, and for quite a few of the more popular Death Rattle phrases like "harman hambargarz". However, since zombies are incredibly boring to play as, and a lot of other people seem to have exhausted most of the gimmicks available, we've since diverted our attention back to human groups.
There are a few people, mostly jerks and losers, who will tell you that SA IS RUINING THE GAME!! This is patently untrue, and the easiest way to get them to shut up is to ask them how SA is ruining the game. Since nobody can think of a good reason, they either run away screaming or their heads implode. It's hilarious. --Katthew 23:33, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I can. You taught the Zeds they could Organize themselves. That in my not even vaguely humble opinion did a lot to "Ruin" the game. True, it was only a mater of time, but you did it first so you get the blame. Alexei Yaruk 01:30, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Blame what? This wasn't a problem. This made the game fun! --ALIENwolve 01:32, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
][ dont think so, and nither do many other people. Ergo, blame. Alexei Yaruk 01:38, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Blame you for not liking it... Got it. --ALIENwolve 01:52, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Ahahaha, we got the ZEDS TO ORGANISE!! OH NO!! Heaven forfend that people actually ENJOY playing as zombies!! Ahaha, but seriously, shut up. --Katthew 02:25, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Oh yes. The current situation, with zombies almost entirely ineffectual except in huge metagaming hordes, where they're invincible, and everyone forming complicated plans and focusing on the one best way of doing everything. The game is broken now, and SA broke it. Like a broken toy, it can still be played with, but it no longer works the way it was intended to because you played it to win at all costs rather than to have fun. It's like laser tag--you could play as if you were actually trying to avoid getting shot, and shoot from the shoulder like you would a real gun. But the way everyone actually plays is to run up to the other player shooting, and then follow them around standing right next to them and pulling the trigger continuously. You get more kills that way, sure, but it's not the way the game was meant to be played and more importantly, it's not any fun. Same deal here.--'STER 04:05, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Urban Dead has never been "fun" except when the players make it so. But yeah, zombies need a little help in that regard, I'm not denying it. However, before the metagaming hordes, zombies accomplished NOTHING. At least having some way to have fun, no matter how complicated, is better than not having any. I started playing my first zombie solo, and by the fifth headshot I was fed up and went to join on with the Many. A few raids and I was finally past level two, and now he's got every zombie skill there is. Sure, metagaming hordes may be spoiling the game, but our actions didn't "break" the game. The game's always been broken, and each new addition or tweak brings it one step closer to being fixed. --Katthew 04:42, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Wait, you are complaining because zombies organize into hordes and move together? You don't do much in the way of zombie movies/games/books/whatever, do you? Zombies always team up to form an unstoppable mass of flesh that devours everything in its path. They are supposed to win, until the government/corporation drops whatever large area explosive device they have on hand on the city and wipe everything out. But I guess since it is no longer what you want it to be instead of what it should be, it's broken. --Laughing Man 05:01, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I have to disagree, with the word huge. Moderately sized hordes can be extremely effective but the organization needs to be tighter. Other than that I agree with Katthew and STER.--Matthew-Stewart 04:26, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)


AH!!! Something Aweful. Well that explains a lot, both the good and bad! As for ruining the game, I don't see how that is possible. With, in theory, 50k+ active characters (so maybe 10-15k actual players?), how the actions of a few dozen, or even a few score could ruin the game is a little baffling. If they helped teach the zombies to organize, good! They are outnumbered and as such at a disadvantage, and based on the genre all survivors should be fretting for their lives every minute. One false step should mean death. -- Now, I could see how someone might argue that they are ruining the forums (at least the two current main ones) and maybe kludgeing up the wiki (well, the small portions the opposing groups are interested in at most); at least those are the only places this whole piss-up has gotten on my nerves. Thank you for the explanation though! --Gilant 05:09, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Not a problem. The whole "ruining the game" thing stems from when we didn't play like everyone else, back when we used Proboards instead of the new awesome forum. Apparently "fun" and "entertainment" weren't what people wanted back then, but nowadays it seems everyone's mellowed out some. Well, almost everyone, as there's still a hardcore group of asshats who keep raving about how SA is ruining the game. You will see many of them on this very page.
As for "kludging up" (never heard that word before) the wiki... not as such, no. We know that the truth is usually far more damning than any lie could be, especially for those people out to stop us from ruining the game. However, the self-appointed wiki police (aka the moron brigade) apparently watch the "recent changes" page like a hawk in order to revert any edit made by any SA member, without even checking to see what that edit is. Because, of course, we are RUINING THE GAME!! I mean, RUINING THE WIKI!! --Katthew 16:21, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moving in?

Recently, someone has been tagging this message in the Tompson Mall area: "Officially renamed Laughing Man Mall by the CoL." They seem dedicated, too; I myself have seen the tags sprayed over with the MC's url, only to have the Laughing Man message back up within a day or two.

This situation has been puzzling me. I looked on the Wiki entry, and nothing was mentioned of any plans to re-name established areas. One thing that's worrying me is that this might be interpreted as a hostile action against the Lockettside inhabitants. I'm trying to avoid a bad situation here. What does the CoL have in mind for the Lockettside area, and specifically the Tompson Mall, if they're making an effort to rename it without contacting the inhabitants?

And if it's not the CoL or anyone affiliated with them that's putting these messages up, you may want to spread the word that this is happening. Dinferno 23:13, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Tompson Mall: Serious Business. Calm down, dude. Don't shit your pants over some Goddamn graffiti. --Katthew 15:54, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I think what Dinferno is trying to determine is whether this is A) an official CoL action, B) just you guys having some fun, or C) somebody trying to stir up trouble between the CoL and the inhabitants of Lockettside. I think most people in Lockettside are indifferent towards the CoL, but there are always a few people who will "shit their pants" over things like this. (And for the record, Dinferno isn't one of those people. He's trying to defuse any unnecessary bad blood.)
Since this is in all likelihood just somebody trying to stir up trouble, you should be aware that there are some notorious trolls operating in the Lockettside area (some of whom have been vandalizing this very page recently). I'm sure these trolls would love nothing more than to create undue strife between the CoL and the inhabitants of Lockettside. --Chester Katz 17:59, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

For once I am with Katthew & co. Even if you could rename buildings, (Oh how I wish you could.) I dont think the TMI would let them get away with it. Alexei Yaruk 18:06, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I agree, if harmless graffiti is the worst thing that's going on, then things are pretty good. Unfortunately, there are always thin-skinned people who will take this as a personal affront. (Yes, yes, I'm agreeing with Katthew and Alexei at the same time. Dogs and cats living together ... mass hysteria!)
As far as changing the name of the mall, the TMI couldn't allow that since it would mean new letterheads, new business cards, change of address forms for all the magazine subscriptions that go to the mall, etc, etc... --Chester Katz 18:55, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

ChesterKatz has it right. Personally, I really don't give a shit if someone's trying to rename the Mall - it won't work. Graffiti's too impermanent, the largely displayed proper name is too convenient, and the idea that you can arbitrarily rename a block is really, really dumb.

But, I know for a fact that there are people who would take offense at a group moving in and claiming land with what seems to be no warning. (We had a run-in with that ourselves recently) I'm just trying to find out who's doing this. If it's the CoL, we need to know why to explain to people who think this is a takeover. If it's not the CoL, they might want to know that somebody's using their name to muddy the waters. Dinferno 22:40, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Okay, guys, look: it's just graffiti. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Nobody debates whether or not streets are truly watchin'. Sure, there's the kind of graffiti that sends a message, like "Revive Point" or "Keep barricades at very strongly", but there's also the kind of graffiti that doesn't, like "this mall is now named Wombatopia" and "STREETS BE WATCHIN" and various ones that talk about raping/killing/raping and killing me. --Katthew 07:08, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

So is my question going to be answered? Does this mean it's just the CoL screwing around? I really don't care about the graffiti. However, there are people that do, and you saying "It's just graffiti, don't worry about it" doesn't answer anything. Dinferno 23:13, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

My guess is, it's someone trying to cause strife between the Malton Confederacy and CoL, figuring a much larger adversary will supress the CoL's growth. For the record, I support both organisations in their plight to unite players against a common foe. I also support Alexei is an asshat. I'd say both groups have a lot in common, which is why the undying army of !!!111AAA will protect them (because both groups are so puny by comparison to the might of our e-penis that is). !1A 04:02, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

PK Aiders

Targeting Leaders

Just a few days ago members of anti-Pker groups found that their leaders were killed under the orders of the New Council of Leaders. Two of my chars are involved with anti-Pker groups and found that on both of them the leaders were targeted and killed in the name of the New Council of Leaders for a bounty. This needs to be public knowledge. If this gets deleted I have it saved and can always repost it. Both the names of my chars and the groups will be nameless for fear that they will be targeted. --John Doe 05:57, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

This could be nub's trying to cause e-drama, livejournal style. Wait until one of the nub's from CoL reply before insisting it was a sanctioned killing. If it's legit, I recommend you appeal to some of the larger groups to use their sleepers / spies to persecute CoL right back in a similar manner. Although I have grave misgivings that CoL would slit their own throats. !1A 09:29, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
This is not nub's trying to cause e-drama. I am a person who thinks that the truth should be knowen. If you think that this is false talk to the members of the RAF including their leader. I have reciently talked to one of their members and they said the same thing happened to them. If you dont believe me just ask them. -- John Doe 23:05, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
The Council of Leaders maintains a list of PKers. Some choose to kill those on the list. --LibrarianBrent 23:08, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I think that he's trying to say that the people doing the killing may not actually be associated with the CoL. They may be posing as CoL to try to stir up strife, ala OMAR Vengabean. --Chester Katz 23:22, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Yeah. --LibrarianBrent 23:27, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
It wouldn't be the first people to try and pose as the utterly fantastic and ass-kicking Council of Leaders. --Katthew 14:09, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
As far as I am aware, none of the amazingly new awesome CoL are killing random people. The only targets we are currently attacking are all on the PK list on the good forum. And no, I am not behind attempts to rename malls after me, either. It is a nice gesture, but I hardly need it. --Laughing Man 23:58, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Yeah, that's more or less the way I'm seeing it. There's been a rash of people posing as members of groups lately solely for the purpose of stirring up problems for those groups. --Chester Katz 00:27, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Could this be the work of Black Nanosecond? Alexei Yaruk 03:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

A ple for help.

We are not your allies. In fact we are trying to destroy you. We think you are trying to take over the city, and several agree with us. We even put a bounty on Katthew's head. But we do agree with one thing. DARIS and the Sons of DARIS both must be destroyed. Now we are in need of your help. The 501st Armed Division has gone to war with The Shining Ones, The Ridleybank Resistance Front, and the Church of the Resurrection. We have asked for help from the The Human Liberation Front but we don't think all will help.

Please In our hour of need, we ask for you and all your allies to join in our fight. As reward, we will agree to peace talks, the removal of the bounty, and even more. We know some members of DARIS, we will even tell you thier names. Also We know some other information. That incluses the Return of both the DARIS, and the Many. I worn you the information we have for you is both true, and disterbing. The List Incluses members of DHPD, Channel 4 News Team, and other Humen, and zombie groups.

Please help us and all this is yours. We sware!

Gone?

Alright, word is on the Brianstock forums that with the dessensitised forums being down, the neoCoL and their buds have all left UD to play Nexuswar instead. Is this true? If it is the page should be revised. I'lll assume it's true if no-one says anything for a few days.--'STER-Talk-Mod 17:57, 29 May 2006 (BST)

It seems that this is pretty much the case, is there a need for this page anymore, they don't really hold any historical significance and the actually page is heavily biased. Dreadnaught, Councillor 02:33, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Because you don't like them does not make them not historical. They had a big impact on the game. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 04:15, 12 August 2006 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements