Talk:Democratic Armed Republic of Independent Suburbs Archive

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Should we delete this? Looks like long-winded egotism to me... --LibrarianBrent 12:16, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

It's amusing, and adds to the game. Let them have their fun. --Spiro 12:30, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

They should get their own website for the text of the Declaration and point to it from here, but until that point, leave it. --Stankow 14:38, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

We should set up a unified infobox to place in every group page, so that people don't have to wade through constitutions, declarations of independence and lengthy stories to learn basic information about the group. So, I think the infobox such include vital data such as the name, number of members, leader(s), a way to contact the group, recruiting policy, general policy/goals and maybe a logo. After all, that's what the thread in the forum does, and it's a nice, at a glance list of groups. Thoughts?--Daranz 13:45, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Note that if this entry is deleted, it will be added back. This is a legitimate entry, detailing the history of our freshly established group. I think it's hilarious that we're still singled out, even though we contribute so much to the game. The infobox sounds like a good idea, though. --ShaqFu 14:32, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

The main problem I have is the excessive length of the Declaration and the "kill list". If that was edited out, I'd be fine. --LibrarianBrent 15:28, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

No need to get all het up about it, ShaqFu -- "singled out" doesn't really apply when there's only half a dozen groups in the wiki.

LibrarianBrent is right -- this entry currently is above and beyond the scope of this wiki (the "U.S. Constitution" entry in wikipedia, for instance, doesn't contain the entire text of the thing -- it contains a link to an external webpage with the entire text), but should stay until DARIS gets off its collective ass and finds a website. --Stankow 16:23, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yeah, God forbid anyone actually have to read anything that couldn't fit on a packet of Twinkies. That's too much like education. --Katthew 16:16, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

So we should just have one page in the entire wiki, then, with all the information on the entire game? --Stankow 16:27, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yes, that's exactly what he was implying. --ShaqFu 16:30, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

I think keeping the text of it is fine if someone adds an infobox. I would myself if I knew how. --Talain 20:18, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Done. Bit rough and ready, but done. Edit Template:Groupbox if you want to add categories, change the colours, whatever. Morlock 20:56, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

The page is looking much better now. The only issue is a reference to something called the "Council of Leaders". It's a dead link, and I haven't heard of it before. Can someone explain or put up a page there? --LibrarianBrent 22:15, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Council Of Leaders is an influencial survivor group. I assumed that they would put something up eventually. --ShaqFu 01:45, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

Just reposting the old Discussion list, since froggums fucked it all up. Cheers! --Kuroneko 08:30, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

It's NOMB, but perhaps you guys should post a link to somethingawful (My understanding is that DARIS is composed entirely of SA "goons," to use their parlance.) --Milo 22:10, 11 Sep 2005 (BST)

How does the membership keep growing if there's no way to join and intruders get shot on sight? --LibrarianBrent 04:00, 12 Sep 2005 (BST)

The number posted before was an extremely conservative estimate. We weren't sure how many of our allies were present in the area, so we said "40+" and planned to update it when we could get a better count.

--ShaqFu 04:09, 12 Sep 2005 (BST)

The membership numbers are a little silly. It went from "more than 40" to 900+ to approx 1k. 40 is a more believable number. Propaganda, or NPOV? BTW, I love/loathe you guys. You are interesting. --Jmccorm 06:15, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

I know that they seem silly, but, they are pretty accurate. --ShaqFu 14:44, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

I think if you go from 40 to 1000, accuracy is in question. Perhaps it is the definition of "member". What do you define as a member of the Democratic Armed Reuplic of Independent Suburbs, for the purposes of the info box? --Jmccorm 15:41, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

The same as any other group, a member is one player character. However, the vast majority of people have only one human character in DARIS, so it roughly equates with one player anyway. --Katthew 15:45, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

Question: "A group of Player-killers who have declared the surburb of Shearbank their own." should be added as there is currently no explicit reference to PKing on the page. Unless, that is the groups pages are meant to merely display the group's own view. Which is it?

Sign your posts from now on, okay? In answer to your question, the page displays a neutral point of view as does the rest of the wiki. DARIS is not a group of player killers. It is a group that contains some player killers. The article is fine how it is. --Katthew 17:17, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

Are you saying that there are member of DARIS which will not attack non-members inside Shearbank? If you are merely talking about members willing to do this, but who haven't done it yet, the statement should be rephrased to "PKs and potential PKs". Last time I checked "human character who kills other human characters" is the definition of a PK. -- Markus

I agree... there's a lot of crap you have to read through before you get to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF SHEARBANK and the list of people you've killed, which is really the part of the article which matters to nonmembers.--Milo 19:16, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

It could be argued that not a single person in DARIS is a PKer, beyond those with existing records. My character (of the same name) has fired in self-defence but has never killed a man. That, I feel, does not make me a PKer. Other members of DARIS only seek zombies to kill. Again, they can hardly be termed PKers. Those who do kill other human players do so under DARIS law, which makes it legal execution and not PKs. Unless, of course, you're some anal retentive who wants to class that as a PK because you decided that it'd be just fine if you went into Shearbank and nothing bad would happen, despite a thousand people with guns and axes saying you shouldn't. --Katthew 19:25, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

Sorry, but as of now "legal execution" does not exist. PK is defined as a human killing another human regardless of motive, justification or whatever. Your beef is with the definition of PK. I encourage you to add "legal execution" there an make the distinction clear. -- Markus 19:32, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

If someone PKed you, and you were revived, and killed them out of revenge, would that be a PK? If someone attacked you and ran out of AP before he could finish you off, and you killed him rather than die, would that be a PK? In this game, "PK" has the same negative connotations as "murder" and so I suggest you do not lightly brand an entire organization as such. --Katthew 19:51, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yes. Yes. As far as I'm concerned PK describes an activity. If you find the connotations you associate with the activity unpleasant I suggest abstaining from the activity or working to change perceptions. I also do not believe the connotations you mention are actually widespread. -- Markus 20:08, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

As I have said: If I were to walk into a brick wall, I would not blame the wall. Calling DARIS "a group of PKers" or even a "a group of potential PKers" is ludicrous, unless you are willing to label EVERY group as "potentional PKers" because, after all, anything is possible. --Katthew 19:25, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

If it makes you happy I'll gladly make a page for "potential PKs" differentiating them from regulars and PKs by the fact that they have declared an intention to PK but not yet acted upon it. I was however hoping this would be readily understandable. As it seems not to be, what alternative term would you suggest? -- Markus 19:32, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

Simply put that we are to be considered armed, dangerous and hostile. It isn't a label like "PK" is and it isn't as vague as "potential PK" - and a "potential PK" doesn't have to have declared an intent to PK, but merely be capable of it. Which covers everyone in the game, oddly enough. --Katthew 19:51, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

As you no doubt are aware (and were aware at the time of posting) "armed, dangerous and hostile" describes every non-zombie (except fresh Scouts, Doctors and Consumers) and even some zombies. It lacks that which sets members of DARIS apart, namely the declared readiness to make the first attack against another human player, aka PKing. -- Markus 20:08, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

You just really want to call us PKers, don't you? Well, I'm afraid I'm editin' it out because what's in there is neither accurate nor unbiased. Sorry. --Katthew 20:47, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

Unlike yours, my characters are not a member of either DARIS or any rival/enemy organisation. Hence the liklihood that I'm motivated by anything other than what I perceive as the NPOV is lower than the liklihood that you want to avoid a statement which you perceive as horrible damaging to your group (you equated it to murder). I would nonetheless suggest we submit the dispute to a neutral third and fourth person. Alternatively, how about: "because of their policy of indiscriminately killing non members who enter Shearbank (see below) the group has been discrebed as PKers. The leadership disputes this (insert your reasons here)". If you don't believe that enough people perceive you as PKs to warrant mentioning it, we could run a poll over at the forums. -- Markus 20:59, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

The current edit seems okay. I especially like "including an ongoing group objective to kill all survivors in Shearbank who do not belong to DARIS." Please leave that phrase! IMO You could take out the PKer part, but if you left the quoted bit near the top, it would be NPOV. (If that line was there in earlier revisions, then I didn't notice it.)--Milo 23:29, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

I like your idea.--ShaqFu 23:50, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

What about new people to the game who just happen to start in Shearbank? You practically don't give them a chance. They start, play a little, maybe don't get around to reading thru the whole wiki to stumble across you fags and bam, next day they got Pk'ed...

Player killing is a part of the game. Deal with it. --ShaqFu 00:13, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

If they get PKed, they can stand up as zombies and throw themselves against the barricades or something. It sucks, but, meh. There's plenty of PKers around

I copied this version to a .txt, just in case the trolls revert to the original for some reason. Really, all this babysitting is getting boring.--Milo 02:13, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Or you can just go into history, click a previous intact version, click "edit" and then click "save" - presto! Restored! I know that DARIS isn't the #1 Most Liked Group Ever but you don't see us vandalising other people's pages. --Katthew 15:08, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Sign your posts, please. Your allegations are irrelevant if you don't put in your name so that there's a way to respond to them. --LibrarianBrent 02:29, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Why is it so commonly misconcieved that the URL is "somethingisawful.com" and not "somethingawful.com"?--Milo 08:47, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

The whole "somethingisawful" thing is a recent injoke. Misinformation is always fun. --JustinHayabusa

I lost my frog. Him name is Hopkin Green Frog. Have you seen my frog? Is him in Shearbanks? May I go look for him there? Will I suffer agonizing pain? - Faetus Devourer, 14 sep 18:10 (BST)

[edit] Is this a reference page or an ad?

If we're going to let DARIS use its wiki page as a list of its kills and its "honored dead," then we can't justify NPOVifying any group's wiki page. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- DARIS needs to get a web page and put this stuff there. --Stankow 14:35, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Agreed. In the interim I'd suggest putting most of the current content (below the infobox) under a new heading "Group Statements". That makes it clear it is not NPOV or basic information and still keeps it on the page. --Markus 14:54, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

How about making a new wiki page (DARIS Group Statements), with their Declaration and kills and honor roll and such? Other groups can do the same, and those pages can be clearly labeled as NPOV statements from the group itself. That way, the base group page can be free of NPOV and clutter. --Stankow 16:35, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I changed the title of the section to "List Of People Claimed To Be Killed..." I hope that this is good enough for both of you, because we honestly don't have plans to purchase a domain and webspace. --ShaqFu 16:33, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I like the idea of a seperate "Statements" section. @ShaqFu: Leech! ;-) Just kidding. Seriously there are a number of free webspace providers, e.g. Blogger, which SLA uses. I'm sure you could find something more in line with your needs if you shop around a little.

A side benefit might be that these can not be vandalized by nonmembers. Worst they could do to you then would be to remove the link from the wiki, but besides it being reverted anyway, you could add the link to the new site to your signatures at the forum. Seems more convenient to me than having to check back here every few hours whether some f@ckwit vandalized the page again. -- Markus 17:44, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

DARIS isn't allowed into the BLOGOSPHERE. --Katthew 17:48, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

The vandalism isn't a big deal; it takes what, ten seconds to revert the page? Everybody that has vandalized the page, save Ed, has been banned. I honestly don't think that keeping the list here is a big deal. --ShaqFu 18:17, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Then you won't mind it being moved to another page?--Stankow 18:21, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

By here, I meant "on this page." --ShaqFu 18:31, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

And I meant, "do you think that moving the portions in question to another page would be a big deal?" --Stankow 18:40, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I don't think that it's necessary at all. --ShaqFu 18:41, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Well ShaqFu some of us do think it's necessary, for reasons given upthread. As of now, you have neither disputed that you are using it as a list of your achievments and statements (and not an information page) and I got a snappy comment from Katthew in response to my suggestion. Your own responses seems to be confined to "not necessary", which isn't really much of an argument IMO. So could you please offer some? -- Markus 21:11, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Because I've locked the page? Okay, here goes: webspace costs money. Free webspace makes us look like idiots with a blog. It's not doing any harm staying where it is. In fact, it's doing the opposite. This is the official wiki and as such a lot of people who are averse to hanging around the UNofficial forums read it. It states, quite nicely, that we'll kill people, and what we'll kill them for. It's fine as it is. --Katthew 22:21, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

If free webspace makes you look like idiots with a blog, this makes you look like squatters on a wiki. You _are_ using a free public ressource for your personal needs in either case. The rest is name games IMO.

"Not doing any harm" is AFAIK not a widely recognized standard for wiki content.

Finally, I find it somewhat ironic to compare your current flat and accurate statement to the effect that DARIS "kills people" to your protestations concerning the term "PK" above. -- Markus 22:53, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

You are the single most anal-retentive little pissant I have ever had the unfortune to meet, either in real life or on the internet. Can you stop assuming you're right for one second while I explain things? DARIS kills people, as a whole. DARIS members may or may not kill people. Here's an analogy, so that your tiny, tiny mind may understand: The United States of America has invaded Iraq. Americans may or may not have actually, personally invaded Iraq. Is this simple enough? Or do I need to emphasise the whole concept for you? I really hope I don't, because this is the kind of thing an eight-year-old could understand. Stop arguing your point: WE ARE NOT ADOPTING YOUR PLANS FOR THIS PAGE NOR THIS WIKI. Now, go do something useful, please, like correcting the accuracy in a page or correcting typos or founding your own group that keeps all information its released hidden away from the general public. ANYTHING to get you to go away from this page and actually contribute to the wiki instead of debating about it for hours on end. --Katthew 23:25, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Okay, as a request from a friend and fellow DARIS member I've unlocked it, but my stance on the whole thing remains. The declarations stays, and I'm not saying this as a member of DARIS but as an admin of this wiki. It doesn't do any harm by staying, so it's staying. It's a direct quote, and as such doesn't need to be NPOV. If the entire text of the page said "DARIS are PKers and they suck p.s. here is there site" it wouldn't be NPOV. Stays as is, end of story. --Katthew 22:21, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I hope no one (aside from the flat out vandalizers) has ever given you the impression that reducing the site to "DARIS are PKers and they suck p.s. here is their site" is what we would want or tolerate. IOW, strawman. As to the direct quote, it is not part of a section of "Group Statements" (or similar, see suggestion above) and hence the NPOV would still seem to apply. I regret that you are using your newfound admin powers to force your POV in a debate in which you have a clear partisan interest. I also regret to inform you, that I in turn will report what I perceive as an abuse of said powers to Kevan and hope you will find the time to present your side, so that a quick decision can be reached. --Markus 22:53, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

God, do you ever shut up? I hope so. It wasn't a strawman, it was an example of what's NPOV, you moron. I wasn't about to quote the entire Goddamn entry with a few words changed to demonstrate what was NPOV when a handful of words could have done the job. But, apparently, you find joy with taking everything at face value. Well let me make this abundantly clear: the entry is fine. It is informative, it is NPOV and it is not going to be fundamentally changed by anyone. Especially not you, you snivelling little weasel. We are not running this wiki to appeal to you, we are running it as an informational resource for the players of the game. Which, surprisingly enough, aren't comprised entirely of you. This page will continue to have the group's various statements on it. So will every other group's page. I can think of no one, bar you and the various trolls who seem to have a hard-on against this group, who will disagree. --Katthew 23:25, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Katthew, please, do us all a favor: lock the page and keep it that way. If you need to add to the dead or whatever, you can do it yourself. Or give your account info to other DARIS members, if you really can't be bothered.--Milo 23:18, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I don't think that'll be needed, especially not giving out my account info. However, I will lock the discussion page for a while. Just until everyone's calmed down and/or gone away.--Katthew 23:28, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I think we're losing the distinction here between the Declaration and the lists of victims and martyrs. IMO, the Declaration is just as OK as any of the other group POV material that we've got elsewhere -- it gives people reading the page a useful taster of the group's aims and methods. But DARIS has taken it upon itself in Articles twelve and thirteen to maintain those lists, and IMO the wiki is not the right place for them. Can someone from DARIS please explain to me what purpose you think they serve for J Random Wiki-reader? Keep them in a forum thread or something if you can't be arsed to get webspace. (Admittedly, you might already be doing this, I've given up reading anything that looks like it might be a DARIS thread 'cos the flamewars are so tedious. Or maybe you're doing it on SA.) Morlock 17:15, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

If we allow groups to go POV on their own pages, the lists should stay. Unless we want to add some sort of size limit. --Stankow 17:42, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

This is pretty much the general consensus. As long as there's enough NPOV information on the group, and the NPOV/POV is separated clearly, a group can put anything it likes in its POV section - as long as it's relevant, of course. If anything, DARIS' kill list is useful because it shows how much of a threat the group is, although I think there will always be a small minority of people who feel they might be able to enter Shearbank and not get killed. --Katthew 18:18, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

There was a recent addition to this page regarding zombie incursions, which was reverted. I believe the information belonged on the Shearbank page, not this page, although the information itself should not have been classed as "moronic vandalism." Misplaced, perhaps, but it is not moronic to report on events that occur. --otherlleft 22:57, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)

The recent changes to the page were nothing but fabrications such as this gem:

An update on recent events: A large zombie incursion has driven all humans, at least temporarily, out of the Stickling Mall (written as of 1:00 PM Pacific Sept. 20th).

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. --ShaqFu 00:24, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Shouldn't the DARIS page mention that it's the most vandalized page on the Wiki, mainly done by DARIS-haters and people who FAILED to listen to DARIS's instructions? I said I'm no longer against DARIS, yet I see no mention of the ones honored in article thirteen that were killed by SLA. --EdFanMH 9/20/05

I have no idea what you're talking about. The people honoured in accordance with Article 13 are the only legitimate deaths suffered by DARIS. Which is to say, they were dead for at least several hours before being revived. --Katthew 04:46, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

It is moronic to make up fictional events and claim they're true. Anyone can say ZOMG THERE ARE A BILLION ZOMBIES IN THIS SUBURB but without proof (and with much proof to the contrary) such things don't belong in this wiki. --Katthew 04:46, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

It's extra special moronic to say that 'One hundred confirmed zombies' with a screenshot of 70 of them is 'ZOMG THERE ARE A BILLION ZOMBIES.' Such things don't belong in this wiki.--Jeff 07:27, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Will you people get over it? I deleted something that wasn't true. Oh snap, 70 zombies. Some of which are DARIS members waiting for a revive. That's definitely EXACTLY what was said, only not at all. Look, one of my characters is in Shearbank so I reckon I know what's true and what's false. Not to mention it wasn't just the claim of hundreds of zombies, it was the stupid claims of DARIS safehouses being destroyed and so on and so forth. All presented as fact. I had every right to delete it. --Katthew 07:34, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Come on, man. Chill. I'm a SA member, too. At the same time you were posting here how Shearbank's mall hadn't been breached, people were posting in the SA forums about how they'd "just cleared the mall out," and it was safe to re-enter. When you said there were no zombies, Stankow posted 70. Then you demanded he show hundreds. All over one little post that cast a group you're a member of in a less than invincible light. Now you've banned him for posting the proof you asked for. Just stop pretending it's a War For Blessed Impartiality, and let it go.--Jeff 07:42, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

He's banned for TWO. DAYS. It's a minor probation for trying to cause untold amounts of drama. Which he was. Yes, I admit, Stankow gets on my nerves. Because he just won't fucking let me moderate this wiki, despite the fact I have to. There is a tiny minority of people who want to see me demodded/banned just because I'm a member of DARIS/SA, conveniently ignoring all the good I do for this wiki (which is all I do for this wiki), and Stankow is one of them. I have had it up to here with working my Goddamn ass off to make this place better for everyone and being insulted for it. I do a good job. Nobody can disagree with that, not without lying as blatantly as Lazarus Plus did.

Go read what he wrote. Whilst there may be a grain of truth in what he put, it is just that: a grain. If he wants to add information to the wiki he can do so like everyone else, and not have to wrap it up in layer after layer of crap and lies. --Katthew 07:50, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Whether you do a good job or not is not what I was talking about. I'm glad the wiki is here, and I'm glad someone is tending to it. I just notice that you delete entries based on the opinions of a silent majority, insult those who don't agree with your gut instinct on 'What's stupid crap and what's not,' declare other groups' pages NPOV while defending your own, and ban people for posting proof that your reasons for deleting information (rather than correcting it) were wrong.--Jeff 07:55, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I don't insult people all the time, that's a fallacy. However, I am a writer and a creative person, so I have a little more intuition than the average person on what makes for a good idea. It's not perfect, no, and that's why I've deleted ideas I have had myself. I have also expanded on other people's ideas and left others exactly how they were added. However, all people see is the deleted ideas because a) there are always a hundred bad ideas for every good idea; and b) deleting requires an edit, keeping does not.

Every group can have its own POV section. However, it has to look like a POV section. DARIS' does, what with all the 1776-language and all that. The Pretorian's operations are reports on things they have apparently done in game, and thus cannot be given free reign. Before I edited them they had such things in them as "The known death count was over two dozen." Known? Such a thing is impossible to know, you can only claim it. However, the Pretorians make hundreds of claims seem like facts, and that is all I changed. I did not delete any pertinent information, nor did I ever say they weren't allow to report on whatever they want. However, misrepresenting and lying is not permitted. DARIS has made concessions on its page - "Claimed to be Killed" for instance - and I am more than willing to edit out anything on that page that I feel does not belong there. I would not hesistate in deleting the page if such action was necessary. My responsibilities do not just come first to the wiki, they are only to do with the wiki. What I do in game shall never affect my moderation.

And I banned people not for correcting me (Stankow didn't even correct me, it's not like I don't know how many zombies are in Shearbank), I banned them for consistently insulting my ability to moderate. How am I meant to be in a position of authority if my every edit is met with people telling me I'm wrong and they're right? If I was a bad admin, I would have banned a lot more people for a lot longer than two days. However, I am an easygoing kind of guy, and as such I merely ban temporarily to let people take a step back from the wiki and calm down. Almost all of Stankow's recent edits were arguing with me, and that's not the kind of contributions this wiki needs. It added nothing but paragraph after paragraph of useless debate on a subject that had already been decided. He can go chill and then come back with all that pointless arguing forgotten, ready to edit more constructively. I might even be willing to cut the ban short by a day, if he can just relax a little.--Katthew 08:16, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I know theres a dozen links to the Shearbank page in place already, but I think this page could use something along the lines of 'For current DARIS activities, see the Shearbank article' in the first section. Either that or a new section detailing the current status of DARIS (i.e. the three way war (DARIS, rival human factions, zombies) that has erupted in DARIS claimed territory) Its important, relevant information and should be clearly pointed to somewhere on the DARIS page. --Amazing Rando 17:18, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Does adding info on the reasons that the SLA have been deemed a Class Z threat mean vandalism?- EdFanMH