Talk:Grigg Heights/Grigg Heights Controversy

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Days of our Revives
Warning: The "D" stands for Drama. Er, I mean, There be drama here. Chances are at least one member of at least one of the groups involved is doing this for his her their own twisted pleasure. You have been warned.

The Drama in question involved DORIS's attack on Grigg Heights after they claimed the suburb as their own, Red Rum's assistance in that attack, and the drama that ensued between them, Lebende Tote and The (not quite so) Invisibles (NQSI's).

Contents

[edit] Grigg Heights Controversy Summary

This section is here for individual groups to express their current P.O.V. of the situation at Griggs. DO NOT discuss, argue, defend, etc. under this header. Discussion is happening in all the other areas. This is for the benefit of those unaffiliated or otherwise new to the discussion to read.

Here's how this works. Under the first section, the group leaders, will express their P.O.V. of the situation. Groups not involved are free to give their P.O.V.s, but all groups are advised to avoid flaming. Individuals that wish to express their P.O.V. without representing their group shall post under the second header.

[edit] Group Leaders

Red Rum We see the NQSInvisibles as having taken unnecessary and downright dirty steps to obtain Red Rum Member lists from the Red Rum forum by accessing forums that were clearly secure and then lying about it, first saying they used a spy to - by their own admission - to sow chaos and confusion (an attempt that failed) and then saying they merely searched the forum for "Griggs" to find any information about our attack on the suburb. Near as we can tell, they did this because they were unable to counter our in-game tactics: Changing Group Affiliations and Calling in new members as dedicated revivers. Essentially, our beef is that we used in-game tactics, and they used what amounts to forum spying.

Beyond this, after an investigation, we now have PROOF that one of our enemies in Griggs Heights has used a forum spy. This spy was active at least up to August 23rd, and has posted screenshots of Red Rum's memberlist, a thread which could not have possibly been seen using the search bypass. We suspect, based on heavy evidence against, that the spy used the account Nye the Science Guy on the Red Rum forums. Because of the account used, it is clear that the perp used the Nye account to make the Totes look bad, as IP records have confirmed that the perp is not a member of the mentioned zombie horde. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 19:20, 30 August 2006 (BST)

DORIS We see the Totes, NQSI, and the OB as being over reacting children. Their personal attacks of "Nazi", "fascist", and "guilty of genocide" are uncalled for, especially in a game where the goal is to survive and kill your enemies. Their hypocritical views on killing players are so unrealistic it amazes me that we are both playing the same game.

Lebende Tote We have had enough. We have personal matters, and young members to attain to that have been neglected because of all this. We are packing up and moving to another area; for now. Expect us to come back when a clear winner has been decided (we will then promptly eat them). We support and respect The NQSI's, and habour no ill feelings towards Red Rum. DORIS however is generaly hated by us, and as Doc Smith of the Lebende Totes said it (his words) "go pound sand". So thats where we stand. Best of luck to the NQSI's in thier struggle. Once again, we support the NQSI's, but we can no longer stay. We will return; after all, Griggs belongs to the dead. Jackson 5 02:27, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Lebende Tote would also like to thank Mia for changeing the wording of her response to forum spying. This is a more accurate account of what happened and shows that an outside player has been trying to make an ass out of our group. Thank you Mia.--Balistic 21:09, 3 September 2006 (BST)


The (not quite so) Invisibles We see DORIS as being incapable of distinguishing between IC attacks on their group and OC personal attacks. We believe anyone who is a member of a group whose defining characteristic is to kill all non-Doris survivors in Griggs and cannot understand how their group might be described as fascist or wishing to commit genocide and is not mentaly prepared for such, is in no position to describe others as children. We also feel that if members of DORIS wish to complain about personal attacks, then they should avoid having members who will habitually refer to those who do not share their views as retards or inbreds.

The (not quite so) Invisibles will kill any solitary Pkers or crucially any member of a PKing group, even if said member of PKing group has not Pked in Griggs. We do not view this as hypocritical in the slightest, these people are combatants and made their choice when joining admitted PKing groups.

RedRum are quite happy to play dirty, removing their group affiliations, sending in members of their group under false flags simply to revive other members. There is no in game counter measure for this! These undercover members could revive the PKing members indefinitely and would not be found, therefore our steps were necessary, those revived would go on to kill again and again. NQSI do not attack anyone who is not a PKer or a known member of a PK group, so those revivers under false flag would have been totally safe. In contrast as RedRum are happy to kill anyone in Griggs and as despite accusations we have not removed our group affiliations, our revivers and independent revivers would be under constant attack. RedRum quite happily laugh at others who get upset that they are not playing by their rules, however the moment someone does not play by what RedRum consider the unwritten rules they start crying foul. Hypocrites. The (not quite so) Invisibles got their information on who RedRums members in Griggs were by going to RedRums site, hitting search and typing Griggs, this does not amount to hacking a secure forum. Rickgrimey 12:42, 29 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Individuals

Danny Floyd: Ma personal stance is that Red Rum and DORIS should put their group name back in their profiles, so Ah knows who will eat buckshot and who not! Ma sole goal is to keep Griggs running and flourishing, wipe out Zombies and PKer alike and protect the rest. Oh, and I´m awaiting the return of Doc Smith, hehehe! When ya come back, I´ll be still around (*salutes to a lonesome Zombie stumbling away into the sunset on a raggedy ole horse*)

BTW, Ah still haven´t learned how to post mah profile, silly ole me :-P User:Danny Floyd 11:00, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Xoid (Note that if this is screy, it's because it was written at around 1 in the morning, but I tried to make it as coherent as possible.) Yet another group has blurred the lines between IC and OOC. It's not DORIS or Red Rum, folks, it's The (not quite so) Invisibles. This is a suburb page, and this here is a talk page about the events in said suburb. This is not in game, and IC statements should not be placed on the Grigg Heights page, much less the talk page. That's what a lot of this animosity stemmed from — the groups previously using this page, when left to their own devices managed to devolve into IC commentary. When someone from the real world, unprepared for their departure from the norm reads the page, they get false impressions. Their heavily POV news was replaced with NPOV news. Then they begin to whine about the page being used properly for the first time in months.

Red Rum hid their affiliation, leading to the "uncounterable" situation The (not quite so) Invisibles complain about. The Invisibles could quite easily have held one character or two in Crooketon, or had an ally stay there reviving them and achieved the same effect. They showed some innovation with their alliance with Lebende Tote. Due to a lack of critical thinking on their part they concluded that there was no way counter a legitimate in game tactic and they resorted to desperate measures.

The issue here is not that they "hacked the site", it's that they obtained confidential information and used it to their own advantage. They compounded upon this with lies and deceit. Again, they cross a line; saying that they infiltrated the forum in order to sow confusion. The first offence? Almost forgivable. They couldn't have known that the forum was not as secure as we hoped. They still should have tossed that information away. For those who say the temptation is too great to simply throw away such information, I have thrown it away before.

As for the second offence? Untennable. Members of Red Rum could have been accused and thrown out over this, even if they were let back in they would still feel burnt. That would've been damage to the group dynamic that simply could not be undone. That is far beyond merely taking it below the belt. Even now, we cannot be certain that Rickgrimey is telling the truth. He has changed his story more than once now, which one are we to believe?

This is why I feel The (not quite so) Invisibles have done themselves a great disservice; they've marked themselves as dishonest and not above using deceit simply to spite the other side after they get what desire. Something they shouldn't have set out to obtain in the first place, something which they claim they did not try to obtain at any cost, and something only they'll ever truly know what lengths they went to get it. –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:02, 29 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Discussion of the Summaries

Rick, you're lying. I've already explained that it's impossible to get any of our membership by searching for Griggs. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 16:21, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Ditto. If you actually tried searching for "griggs", you'd know there are only 4 threads throughout the entire forum in which that word was used. Searching for "grigg heights" returns 20 results, none of which include a list of RR members. Let's see the actual keywords you used. --c138 18:54, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Oh I already know. "Members", "Member Lists", "Member Rosters", "Orders"...Things like that. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 19:09, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Wow well I've just got back from a relaxing long weekend to find this torrent of hate directed at our group! First up Rick's not a liar. Griggs Heights (Coop event with Doris) ring a bell, that thread showed us which members of RedRum were in Griggs as most of you had the same username on your board as in UD. It didnt give us anything else as you could only see the first line and I never saw anyone stupid enough to post a location. I've trawled this thread and Rick has said we got your member list from your board, by searching for griggs. Thats exactly how we got it, you want to deny that a search for griggs threw up that thread? I may have a screenshot kicking around at work, I'll have a look, maybe I can post it here. Oh and Rick if you see this before getting my mail, seriously you've given these obnoxious children WAY too much time, there's no talking to them, let them say what they want, arguing on the Internet, seriously its rarely worth the effort... Got to say though you've showed a damn sight more patience than I would have expected, hell a damn sight more patience than they would have got from me had I been around!JakeWeber 22:47, 29 August 2006 (BST)
I got the following searching for "Grigg" and "Griggs"..thread title first, followed by whatever possible information you could get from the thread by reading the search summary...which is what you claim you did...or did you mean to say you read the whole thread?
DORIS - Xoid saying he can't participate.
Don't Kill These People - A bit telling RR Members not to kill DORIS
Yagoton - A post by Sirens saying she's heading to Griggs
Current Orders - Saying we're, SURPRISE, going to attack Grigg Heights
Applying, the proper way - A post by Sirens telling whoever was the OP to head to Griggs
Grigg Heights Kill Reporting - A post by Jin Ming Kui Di (Not his in game name) asking if anyone else thinks Griggs seems abandoned.
Another Request - A post by Chris Masanori indicating that he was heading to Griggs
Grigg Heights (Co-op Event with DORIS) - A post by karlorth_vois indicating that he was heading to Griggs to do revives
Non-Event Kill Reports - A post by c138 indicating that she was in Griggs
Grigg Heights Kill Reporting - Indicates the new Wiki Entry for Griggs by Sirens
Creedy Mass U2U - Sirens talking about one of her alts spawning to close to Griggs and having to be moved away.
Grigg Heights (Co-op Event with DORIS) - post by Civvydude999 saying he's in Griggs
Non-Event Kill Reports - Post by Mr. Underwood that relays no useful information (He's not in Griggs, by the way)
All the other threads that came up in the search were either after I closed the security hole or were to useless to any spies ::::for me to bother posting them, and thus, irrelevant.
So lets see here...what can we get from this? The following people are in or heading to Griggs: Sirens, karlorth vois, c138, and Civvydude999. Now, since I remember quite clearly a post on brainstock where one of you indicated that you know ahzid was a member of Red Rum from the intel you got from our forum, I am now, more than ever, quite sure someone here is a filthy liar...and it's not me. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 23:27, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Christ on a bike, we search for Griggs, we find 'Griggs Heights (Coop event with Doris)', then we search for that, that gave us your member list. quote from above 'Griggs Heights (Coop event with Doris) ring a bell, that thread showed us which members of RedRum were in Griggs as most of you had the same username on your board as in UD'. Jeez do we have to spell EVERYTHING out to you?JakeWeber
In order to get that information, you'd need to have been able to actually open up the whole Co-op thread and read it. All that the search returns is a two-line preview of a single post by one author. So tell us, if all you were able to do was use the search, how did you manage to get results that the search cannot give you? --c138 01:46, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Scratch that. By unselecting the checkbox it would've returned all posts from the thread with "grigg heights" in the post. Apologies for misunderstanding. --c138 01:51, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Wow, thanks to c138..you almost had an air-tight alibi. Except you don't. Searching got Griggs AND unchecking that box STILL doesn't account for how you knew the following people were members of Red Rum: ChrisMasaroni, LessisSolono and Murgel --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 03:16, 30 August 2006 (BST)
As Rick said below we didnt get confirmation LessisSolono was RedRum until very recently, he's been seen reviving you sirens, but we did not PK him as supicions arent enough. Chris and Murgel were both found by independents posting on our board. Remember PK people in Griggs and they will grass you up, not everything came from your board... I seem to remember someone saying they got murgel but I dont believe any Invisible has yet killed Chris. Oh yes and I should have mentioned the 'ignore double postings' check boxJakeWeber 03:39, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Wait...you didn't get confirmation on Lessis until recently, and yet you were still killing him? --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 04:49, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Which part of 'but we did not PK him as supicions arent enough.' did you not understand? We've still yet to PK him. Though now I have a kill report through for him that will prob change as long as we can find him.JakeWeber 08:59, 30 August 2006 (BST)
The fact that he was attacked and killed by a non-DORIS, non-Red Rum character with your brand of Invisibles in their group affiliation is suspiscious as hell, but I'll give you the benifite of the doubt this time. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 16:11, 30 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] DORIS in low down tactics

I should check my emails befoe posting just found all this mailed to me by another Invisible. Check this page out on Resensitized, remember what DORIS is an acronym of, they're from this board.


Moria used the resensitized PK reporting to report a hit on TheBigT, who has PKed in GRIGGS and given DORIS's stated aim of PKing EVERY person in Griggs not in DORIS, which she knew fine well. DORIS are from the resensitized forum, they knew what was really going on re DORIS in Griggs.

Quote from: Moria on: August 12, 2006, 11:10:00 PM » TheBigT - murdered - http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=239932 Bagman - murderer - http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=148356

Link to her post http://zombies.dementiastudios.org/boards/index.php?topic=2.msg10841#msg10841

So Moria gets Bagman added to the PK list, low down and deceitful? Given she knew her character had pked in Griggs and Bagman was retaliating.

She then does the same for FredThe Fireman and Half and Half (neither of whom are Invisibles despite her assertion)

Quote from: Moria on August 15, 2006, 08:39:56 AM Fred the Fireman - http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=318588 Half and Half - http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=502058 TheBigT - http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=239932 Those PKer Invisibles strike again.. got to watch out for them hehe

And heres the fucking beautiful bit, she uses the fact that she got them on the resensitized pk list (in a low down and deceitful way) to have HER FUCKING ALT MoreCowbell, just to make this plain the alt of a DORIS member TheBigT, bounty hunts Bagman...

http://zombies.dementiastudios.org/boards/index.php?topic=2.msg11202#msg11202 Moria Bagman - http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=148356 MoreCowbell - http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=282271 Took down evil grigg heights PKer who killed friendly DORIS guy. Revenge is sweet... although done with a different character


Note no Invisible came on here and started screaming 'dirty fucking cheating cunts' or similar. But of course I'm sure thats a legitimate in game tactic as far as you guys are concerned. Fucking double standard tastic around here.... JakeWeber 01:31, 30 August 2006 (BST)


Geeze, like you didn't see that coming. You should know that as a survivor who plays as a non-PKer that people can and will use PK lists. Don't wanna get hunted for being a PKer? Then don't hunt someone who is not on the list. If they kill you, report them. Then kill them while they're on the list. If you don't report them, and then go take the "law" into your own hands, you have no one to blame but yourselves. Don't even begin to say "but it's Resensitized, it's rigged!" or some other bullshit, you could easily have reported it to Brainstock instead. What did you do? You took the "law" into your own hands and are now targets for bounty hunters. Tough luck. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:09, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Man way to miss the fucking point as usual xoid, its another double standards question! Yes, I know you love those as you have been astidously avoiding the thread in which Rick pointed out that by your definition of cheating, either some members of RedRum were cheats or you were guilty of, wait for it double standards. Now apparently the (not quite so) Invisibles are low down dirty decievers, yes? So what do you, xoid, call a person, who submits a PK report, knowing full well that the character killed was a Pker. Is that upstanding and honest, a valid In Game Tactic? How about if that person then takes the falsely filed report and uses the fact this has got a (not quite so) Invisible on the PK list to have their ALT attack the same character as their main... Is that fine by you, no accusations of lying, deciept any of that from you, of course not because that's a DORIS member... Note none of us came on here and started abusing anyone about it, when it happened, once again we're just using it to show your shocking bias and amazing inability to see you own double standards, oh guardian of all thats good and holy as you appear to have set yourself up to be. Follow the law, dont Pk unless they're on a list, these are beside the point, the point is a DORIS member knowingly filed a dishonest report, you dont like deitful tactics, then denounce them too... Oh and not even having the balls to post after making such a big deal of your definition of cheating? I knew you were an obnoxious little rodent but I didnt take you for a total pussy.JakeWeber 09:14, 30 August 2006 (BST)
A couple of points:
  1. Not a thread you idiot. A wiki is not a fucking forum.
  2. c138 answered your drivel admirably so I felt no need to. Besides, it's pointless for me to point out the bleedingly obvious to the unimaginably oblivious, isn't it dumbcunt?
PK lists can and will be used against you. If you don't use them, you will suffer from them. TOUGH FUCKING LUCK. PKers are free to submit PK reports, just like every other person in the game.
The line is drawn at exploiting game bugs, zerging, spying, and stealing information from another group. Guess which two you did, dick head? Oh, and good show at ignoring the other half of every meaning of "cheating" that I highlighted. No really, that was above and beyond what I expected from the numbskull brigade. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:53, 1 September 2006 (BST)
Now c138 I'll excuse as she's clearly young, but you honestly believe what she said answers Rick's point about your double standards re your definition of cheating? Either your terminally naive, an idiot or full of shit, I haven't decided which yet. As for your obnoxiousness above, the more you descend into insults the more its blatantly obvious you havent a clue how to intelligently respond to the accusations of double standards. Next you will be coming on here and saying 'oh I could resond I just can't be bothered', pathetic xoid, really, really pathetic, I expected marginally better of you.
Yes PKers have a right to submit PK reports, note no one came on here and said they didnt or complained that they had done this. The point being made is if they do so, knowing full well they were pked in retaliation for their own killing, then try and make out the ones who killed them are 'evil Pkers', then this is being dishonest. Btw if anyone had believed Morias claims Bagman could have been thrown out of The (not quite so) Invisibles. It would appear though that you hate dishonesty only in everyone who isn't a fellow member of DORIS or RedRum. But you know, hey way to go about showing just how biased you really are! Oh and Rick fully answered your definition of cheating down where you originally posted itJakeWeber 18:34, 1 September 2006 (BST)
"Clearly young"? I'll go tell my college lecturers to send me back to high school then. Thanks for that boost to my morale. :P Also, I don't recall posting anything that was meant to defend or answer for Xoid... I was just responding in general to points you made. --c138 23:34, 1 September 2006 (BST)
c138 its sweet that you dont think your young as you're at college (genuinely I'm not taking the piss) but Im sorry thats still young ;) Oh and I know you wrent defending him specifically but he seems to think what you said clears him of double standards. It doesnt...JakeWeber 12:13, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Okay, gramps. --c138 12:32, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Not just yet but getting there ;) JakeWeber 12:59, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Addressing the Pkers reporting PKing...it's not dishonest. If a PKer is getting PKed for PKing, then the people managing the list will already know that. Reporting people PKing PKers is our only way of getting our bounty points removed, as ***holes don't properly report their bounty claims. How do I know this? Because I've watched people who were mistakenly placed on the PK lists get killed numerous times, and because the "Righteous" bounty hunters didn't claim the kill, those in question remained on the PK lists.
That said, report your bounty kills. If you don't, you're nothing more than another PKer, and deserve to be bounty hunted yourself. As for me, I'll randomly report bounty claims against me simply because I find bounty hunters hunting bounty hunters to be one of the funniest things in game, and I'd like to keep that process in motion. ;) --SirensT RR 19:21, 1 September 2006 (BST)
A PKer reporting being PKed knowing this was a revenge killing for PKing themselves and trying to make out the other person's group are 'evil pkers' is dishonest, no one is saying they cant do it or even whining about it, just as usual pointing out xoid's double standards and myopic view of the world.JakeWeber 12:13, 3 September 2006 (BST)
The only points Rick came up with were clearly pulled out of his arse. I don't need to respond to them, anyone with more than an ounce of gray matter can see it for what it was: a pathetic attempt to focus on how your guys could've been burned. Had they been stupid enough to revive someone they knew was a bad guy. Really, I stopped answering half of your patently ludicrous claims because you post all over the place. I'm not going to go out of my way to answer someone who has an IQ somewhere between that of a yam and a carrot, let alone someone who is that stupid and continually adds comments under sections that are over and done with. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:54, 2 September 2006 (BST)
You dont need to respond to them eh? After responding to everything else ad nauseum... So basically you're coming out with the defence I theorised you might above 'oh I could respond I just can't be bothered', if you weren't so obnoxious I might feel sorry for you, cause thats just crap. xoid a pathetic attempt to focus on how your guys could've been burned. no xoid it showed how they tried to decieve survivors (not just Invisibles) in Griggs into reviving them, by your definition of cheating, that was clearly cheating. The whole post was about your double standards, a point you seem to be deliberately missing.JakeWeber 13:05, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Oh and this xoid 'The line is drawn at exploiting game bugs, zerging, spying, and stealing information from another group' way to change your tune xoid! Oh and who draws this line, would that be you by any chance oh great rule maker ;) So first you put up a definition of cheating that you use to explain why you think we cheated. We explain why what we did, didnt fit that definition and further point out how what members of your group did, does fit your definition. Then unable to counter this you decide to rethink your definition. Jesus you really are worse than I thought, yeah you're totally unbiased. JakeWeber 12:13, 3 September 2006 (BST
You're right that I can't be bothered putting effort into this. No need to when you've been proven wrong ad nausem. As you've ignored the other half of every part of the definition I gave, you're only proving yourself to be selectively interpreting the facts. Again, and again, and again. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:15, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Oh bullshit! I've read this whole damn thing and I havent seen a single case where either Rick or I have ignored half of any of your multiple, differing definitions. You think we have fine post them here and we will answer them. If we do so I expect you to do us the courtesy of answering our points you've studiosly ignored. Oh and the only person on here I've seen having to retract accusations is you mateJakeWeber 20:54, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Hm? Retracting things? Why does that seem familiar? Perhaps because Grimey retracted his claim that the NQSI were spying? Y'know, the one that we based our claims of the same on. Of course, you said I was the only person you've seen retracting things, right? Because unlike some other people, I retract statements once I learn that they are egregiously false, instead of only retracting it when you've admitted something that would pretty much make you a universal target of any group with even a modicum of standards. Of course, we retracted the accusation of forum spying because you said you weren't. Funny that after an exhaustive look into the forum's security that it's actually impossible to have found it the way you said you did, isn't it? You've been changing your tune since day one. I knew I shouldn't have taken Grimey at his word when he said he was just bullshittin' for kicks. I don't care what you say from this point forward, I'm not answering any more of your hollow claims; you've dug yourself deep enough as it is. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:10, 4 September 2006 (BST)
No xoid I was referring, as you know fine well, to you retracting your baseless claim we had Pked innocents and of course your claim that we were only facing 10 pkers in total. Perhaps if you checked your facts before typing sh*t you wouldnt have to. Rick made his attempt to stir up in fighting on the DEM board not on here. Like for example this latest one, xoid 'Funny that after an exhaustive look into the forum's security that it's actually impossible to have found it the way you said you did, isn't it?' If you check this Discussion of the Summaries you'll see that actually it is possible, Mia and c138 have seen it too. As I was one of the two people doing it, I know that your belief we couldnt have got it that way is cr*p. I note you STILL havent addressed your double standards or indeed presented us with any of your veried definitions of cheating that we have apparently selectively ignored for rebuttal. Damn you really are a gutless pussy aren't you.JakeWeber 14:21, 4 September 2006 (BST)
I read the discussion of the summaries. I know that it is technically a possibility, but after an exhaustive search and finding that you actually got it by spying, I don't see it as being at all realistic to trust your "but we got it the way I said we did, well not the first way, but the one that doesn't make us less than a group of PKers!". Don't give me the bullshit that it was someone framing you, we both know that didn't happen. Knowing how utterly smug you and yours are, I don't doubt for a second that Grimey was telling the truth for the first time.
Since you simply will not shut up and actually read the definitions (I really did trust you to, y'know, read them, instead of your usual tact of "nuh uh!". I know you're damn-near braindead scum, but I didn't think you illiterate. Obviously I gave you too much credit.) I'll give you a little push in the direction of the answer you're too thick to discover for yourself; "fraud", remember that other half of the definition now? You stole the list. You counter with claims of dishonesty; something I have not been in the slightest. Of course, you then make references to what other people did that could be construed as dishonest. If you're braindead, that is. Did you PK any of us? Guess the answer, dipshit, better yet, don't. You'll only draw it out waiting to be spoonfed it, again. You PKed, you got put on a PKer list.
Now, to the crux of this whole argument: you say what you did was not wrong due to the fact that you had your group names clearly visible. So you'd do the same thing if more than one or two groups joined in? What if it were a lil' coalition, with numerous members of disparate groups joining in? Would you steal the lists from each group then, simply because even if they did list their group names, it wouldn't have done you any good and you'd need the list to compensate? Of course. ( Nevermind the fact that you could've quite easily countered the tactic without resorting to something as low as spying. Nope, we'll completely ignore that.) You couldn't be bothered doing the legwork before, why would you suddenly start doing it merely for this hypothetical situation? In short? You wouldn't.
Man oh man for someone accusing others of not reading posts you dont half manage to miss a lot!
Firstly we did not acquire our list through fraud, we did it exactly as we said, by searching for it.That was posted right beneath your definition of cheating, maybe this thing needs to be sent to you in braille. So no one has ignored the fraud part of your definition, way to go xoid, your intelligence is really shining through now. If you had bothered going on the griggsdefender board you would have seen the Invisibles left it after that list was posted by a third party. We didnt commit fraud, so that parts BS, whether you believe it or not I really dont care, we did not commit fraud, so your definition does not apply to our actions.
Secondly I see once again you have ignored the fact that by one of your very own definitions of cheating, what c138 has admitted to doing was cheating. Fradualent acquisition of anothers property, that ring a bell? I love it when you ignore your double standards like that!
Thirdly, no Invisible is moaning about being on the PK list, manage to miss the multiple times I stated that as well? We are simply again pointing out your double standards xoid. You accused us of being dishonest and crossing the line by spreading disinformation and potentially getting someone thrown out of redrum. The point to take on board there xoid, is claiming a person was an evil pker, knowing full well the truth, is dishonest as well, but you keep managing to ignore that too don't you. Bagman would have been thrown out of our group if we had believed that. Just to make it clear we do not care about being on the PK list, but we would like you to address your own double standards re dishonesty, especially as you are so big on accusing others of that crime.
Finally where in this entire thread has any Invisible said what we did was not wrong becuase we kept our names in? We showed why we believe our actions to be justified as redrum removed their names. Our names being in or not is not part of that argument, we pointed out that there wasnt much point removing our tags after you spent a week in Griggs spying. We also replied to people claiming we didnt have our group tag in, stating that it was. Perhaps if people didnt go off half cocked and assume everyone in Griggs killing you guys must be an Invisible that wouldnt have been necessary.
If another group moved in keeping their tags, we wouldnt employ the same tactic we wouldnt need to, note we still havent done so with DORIS. Quite how you jump into a totally hypothetical situation like that from there I dont know, but you're given to going off on one, so I shouldnt expect much more.
Oh and I'll take smug over obnoxious and infantile any day, frankly its hard to be anything but smug with someone as incapable of holding a coherant argument as youJakeWeber 19:31, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Hang on, I didn't say anything about admitting "fraudulent acquisition of another's property". I denied that as the proper definition of what I did. I was taking advantage of people not being aware of who I was, in order to avoid being killed immediately, shot at the RP, ZK'd, or denied revival by anyone who knew Red Rum by group name and reputation but not by individual names. I was not deceiving anyone into reviving me. In order to be guilty of "fraudulent acquisition of another's property" I would need to have a) actually used the group affiliation alongside a request for revival in an active attempt to convince them I was someone I wasn't for the sole or primary intent of getting an illigitimate revival (I changed my group affiliation and did nothing further than that), AND b) actually been revived during all of that by someone fooled by my disguise. The answer is "no, I was unsuccessful" at both counts - all I did was attempt to mask my true identity. And on top of that, I disagree that the power, ability, or materials to revive are anyone's property but Kevan's, we merely borrow them under his hospitality. So shush, you, stop hurling badly chosen accusations about. --c138 RR 21:52, 5 September 2006 (BST)
As for retracting falsehoods when you learn that they are indeed false, you and yours do not. No, instead you simply use misdirection, poor formatting and replying to week old messages to plead your case. On top of knowingly lying. Give yourselves a medal, gentleman. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:41, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Yeah we're pleading our case, ha ha ha, christ I dont really give a shit what you think pedant boy. I just love making it very, very obvious that you're a massive hypocriteJakeWeber 19:31, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Unfortunately, the more you argue about our wrongs, the more your wrongs matter. Every time you hurl the accusation of "cheat" and "hypocrite", it's reflected right back on you as clear as day. --c138 RR 21:52, 5 September 2006 (BST)
C hon Im not sure how many times I have to spell out that I am not accusing you of being a cheat, I dont think what you did was cheating, neither do I think what we did was. I am simply pointing out by xoid's definition of cheating, your actions qualify. I am using this in turn to point out xoid's hypocrisy. No one is going on about your wrongs we dont care about what you or others did or consider any of it particularly wrong, you changed tactics, so we did the same, big deal. We just care that xoid having set himself up as self appointed judge and jury on double standards, address his own. By his stated standards what you did was wrong, but he apparently cant handle discussing that. As I am not accusing anyone of being a cheat, I am certainly not guilty of hypocrisy here but he very clearly is.JakeWeber 12:33, 6 September 2006 (BST)
We found that your claim of using the search engine stood up to our test. THEN, we saw two screenshots of our full memberlist that are impossible to create without a user account with full access rights to that area. Thus, there WAS a spy, and you took full advantage of this, and your dear friend Grimey blatantly lied about it. Forgive me for saying this, but the lack of honour involved in changing our group affiliation in-game is not on par with inserting a spy in your enemy's forum then (on top of that) retracting your claim, to keep the spy in business. :3 --c138 RR 17:09, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Someone inserted a spy not us, we thought it was you guys trying to stir up shit. We stopped using that board as soon as that was posted. We never used the list, we used the one we grabbed as borne ouit by the fact we have only being killing your guys on our list. Rick did not lie, neither am I, whoever posted that was nothing to do with us, so dont go throwing accusations of spying and lying in regards to that in our driectionJakeWeber 22:03, 4 September 2006 (BST)
I'm not accusing you of spying. I'm stating fact. You spied. Don't think for a second that you are anything less than transparent. –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:42, 6 September 2006 (BST)
Wow! This BS above is your idea of a 'fact' is it? Still belive they are going to find WMD's too do you? It is not a 'fact' that we had anything to do with any spy in your organisation, it is conjecture. A third party posted that list on our board and we left the board as soon as that happened. I was one of the two people involved in searching your board for your members and am therefore in a better situation to tell you what we did than you. Find one point on here that I have lied about then call me a liar, you little charmer. Oh and a quick look in the mirror shows I am in fact not see through ;)JakeWeber 12:26, 6 September 2006 (BST)


It's probably that damned senile dementia of his old age making him miss your points. ;) --c138 14:30, 3 September 2006 (BST)
Aye right, that must be it for sure, ha ha ha...JakeWeber 20:54, 3 September 2006 (BST)


Hey, don't diss the carrots! You'll put me off dinner. --c138 08:32, 2 September 2006 (BST)
Lol. You PK, you get reported. You take that risk when you fight other survivors. Don't whinge about it. --c138 08:21, 1 September 2006 (BST)
Mm where is anyone whinging about it, all I am doing is pointing out xoid's double standards, the way it was reported was dishonest. Xoid hates dishonesty in those not in his group apparently, but you know not in those he fights besideJakeWeber 14:21, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Ahh shush. Nobody here, particularly not a leader of the NQSI, has any right to comment on the dishonesty of others with regards to this ugly mess, unless you'll agree you're also a hypocrite for bringing it up. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that.
Here's a novel suggestion. Why don't we drop all this shit and just get back to the game? Okay, you got our memberlist in an underhanded way. Okay, we changed our affiliations to get revived. Neither was a cheating move, by Kevan's rules, so we're even. --c138 RR 20:13, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Fine by me, you'll note I wasnt giving anyone shit for being dishonest, just pointing out xoid's double standards. As he clearly doesnt have the stones to address either of the two topics where we have pointed this out in him, its not worth continuing thisJakeWeber 22:03, 4 September 2006 (BST)
Ad hominem, ad infinitum. Hurr. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:41, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Ah ha ha ha ha ha! Nice one, xoid, a man who has studiously refused to defend his own double standards throughout this and other topics, replying instead with insults such as 'dirty fucking cheating cunt','inbred', 'retard' etc etc actually has the temerity to come out with that, to a person who has gone to a fair amount of trouble to answer EVERY accusation that has been dealt out. Wow there's your hypocrisy right there, perhaps on the other hand you just dont fully understand what you wrote, which would not surprise me in the least.JakeWeber 12:26, 6 September 2006 (BST)

[edit] Xoid's Shocking Double Standards

Alright Xoid explain this then (oh and the inbred comment below, man you're well out of line, try and restrain your obnoxiousness just a little eh?)

This is your definition of cheating Cheat v. intr. 1.To act dishonestly; practice fraud. n. 2.An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle. 3.Law. Fraudulent acquisition of another's property.

You are a member of RedRum, yes? Lets take item 3 'Fraudulent acquisition of another's property', although I think its fair to say this fits into all 3 categories. Then lets take the example of one Necrotech syringe, another players property, yes? A member of RedRum standing at Riddles place, changed their group affiliations from RedRum to 'The Invisibles' c138. She's just the one I know off the top of my head, there were others. Why did she do that? Well because those standing there were informed they wouldn't be getting a revive as members of a Pk group. In c138's case anyway, she imediately changed her group name on being informed of this! Therefore they fradulently acquired another's property or at the very least attempted to. You know it, I know it. Did any member of The Invisibles come on here and start shouting, oh lets say, 'dirty fucking cheating scum' as I've see you do of us? No we just got on with it, Jake said it was lame and we weren't happy about it, then we informed those in Griggs what was going on.

This is by your very own definition of cheating (see below), now you're a big one for hurling around accusations of double standards. So whats it to be, are you going to admit that by your own definition of cheating, RedRum members cheated and denounce them as vehemently as you have us, or as I suspect, as far as you are concerned, is it one rule for you guys and another for everyone else? I dont believe your correct in your assertation that even by this defintion of cheating we cheated, for example there was no fraud involved in what we did, but I'll rebutt your sh*t below tomo, its late and frankly I've already spent far too much time on this for one weekendRickgrimey 23:20, 27 August 2006 (BST)

Well I see Xoid's posted up there and not bothered to reply here, check mate to Rick. Oh by the way Rick, contrary to what you think, no problem with you posting here, frankly from what I've read of these tools posts'dirty, fucking cheating cunt', 'retard', etc etc, you were a damn sight more even tempered than I would have been. Thanks for the heads up btw.JakeWeber 22:50, 29 August 2006 (BST)
...yeah, I'd just like to comment here that if you were retarded enough to revive me after I changed my profile page to a non-existant group after I was killed by one of your own, that'd be your own fault. It wouldn't be "fraudulent acquisition of another's property" because you would be willingly giving up the syringe for someone who just happens to be a known PK'er. And clearly you weren't fooled, because of the reaction "bagman" had when he came out and saw me.
I changed it to try and sneak a revive out of anyone in the area who had vaguely heard that "RED RUM IZ EVIL OMG DEY WIL KILL U AN EAT UR SOUL". It's not cheating, and it does NOT compare to sneaking private information from your opponent's forum. If that's not a bad tactic, why not make your forum public so we can take a gander at your own private information? Your excuse "we wouldn't know who you were otherwise" doesn't work, because it's quite clear that from the beginning you knew exactly who was actively PK'ing. --C138 23:49, 27 August 2006 (BST)
Right c138, first up read the post above, I quite clearly stated that none of the Invisibles came on here and accused you of cheating because of what you did in changing your group name at Riddles, that hasn't changed! This post was directed at xoid, xoid is big on accusing other people of having double standards. Xoid posted this definition of cheating below to try to illustrate his point, now if xoid is true to his belief that this defines cheating, then what you did was cheating and he should denounce you. Lets see what he has to say. Oh and it doesnt matter whether we were fooled or not, obviously The Invisibles weren't, we know who our own members are. c138 'I changed it to try and sneak a revive out of anyone in the area who had vaguely heard that "RED RUM IZ EVIL OMG DEY WIL KILL U AN EAT UR SOUL"' so basically you are admitting that by xoid's definition of cheating Xoid '3. Law Fraudulent acquisition of another's property' you cheated, you tried to get a revive from independent characters that otherwise you would not have got. Once again I personally and none of the Invisibles are accusing you of cheating, simply pointing out xoid's double standardsRickgrimey 12:56, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Let's go for a quick dictionary check.
prop·er·ty (prŏp'ər-tē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.
1.
1. Something owned; a possession.
2. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
3. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
4. Possessions considered as a group.
Revivification is not property to be owned or stolen. It's an in-game action. You can't steal an adverb. "You cheat! You stole my running!". And besides, you wanna know how many times I was DNA scanned at that revive point, either before or after changing affiliation? Once. So it really made zilch difference at the end of the day. --c138 18:39, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Ok once again this was posted for xoid, in a no doubt forlorn attempt to make him see his own double standards. It wasn't posted to get at you and I'm not calling you a cheat, just pointing out that by XOID'S definition of cheating, not ours, your actions qualify. In game i.e. IC a revive syringe is someone's property, so IC you can try and fraudulently aqcuire one, which is what you did, though I agree if you wanted to try and sue someone OC about stealing one IC, clearly you would be laughed out of court. Once again cause I want you to be clear on this, I'm not calling you a cheat, when you did it in the frst place we didnt come on here and call you a cheat either. I'm just pointing out xoid's inconsistencies of logic, something it must be said that he loves to point out in other people. So lets see what he has to say about it.Rickgrimey 22:07, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Thats exaclty WHY the names where collected. You dont see that as "dirty" but we do. So again, our views are different here and creating an impasse. Since you cant be trusted to keep your group name, or even enter and PK with it in, we needed to find out another way. Info was obtained that under normal circumstances would be given. Its the same reason the Totes many times keep thier names in even when revivid.Jackson 5 02:37, 28 August 2006 (BST)
You did not "NEED" to find another way. Most honourable players would install UDtool for name highlighting and get the DEM's PK'er list, which most of us are on, and would check the profiles of people they bunk down with or revive before doing so. So far you're the only group I'm aware of who's found it necessary to trespass on your opponent's webspace in an effort to defend yourself, rather than going the honourable route, out of sheer laziness, because that's exactly what it is.
But I know you're not listening to anything that isn't what you want to hear. Just remember that the (not quite so) Invisibles will always be remembered for stooping to new and pathetic lows out of ADMITTED incompetence when faced with a threat. --c138 08:40, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Hon we were doing that, but as you made it obvious that RedRum were changing their group names, checking the profiles doesnt help much eh? As for googling and wiking names, we do that too, and the names we took form your website were freely available. Admitted incompetence you fucking idiot, 8 of us faced 23 of you and you were the ones spending most of the time on the ground, yeah how incompetent of us...Rickgrimey 12:56, 28 August 2006 (BST)
We never expected to leap into a full-scale war. That's all. If we had, we'd have made the relevant plans to avoid the mess we're now in. You Invisibles were the unexpected variable that screwed our plans over; the buffer overflow that crashed our program. That's probably the closest you'll come to a compliment from me. --c138 18:30, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Hon thats fine, I'm happy to take it as a compliment and acceptance that we aren't totally incompetent ;)Rickgrimey 21:55, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Looking at past PKers doesnt really help us here, you where bringing in new and "clean" PKers to do revives. They where Red Rum and just as guilty of all the things Red Rum does, but had none of the baguage to ID them with. Its 100% unfair to bring in a revivor, that we have NO CLUE is red rum to bring your guys back. If we didnt find out, we would have NEVER been able to kill a dedicated revivor (espscialy one with a false group) since the NQSI's dont PK under normal circumstances.Jackson 5 22:26, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Wait a minute... did you just say "unfair"? It's unfair that, in a zombie game where revivification is an integral part of survivor playing, we brought someone to revive us? What are you smoking? Because whatever it is, it must be good shit. --c138 23:39, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Wow, way to misread. I never said revivors are unfair, i said unmarked revivors are unfair. Yes, we may be able to gather the same list through PK sightings, but NEW players, players that have not killed many times, and non-PKing revivor's, ID's would NOT have been able to be obtained. You could VERY easly bring in a new Red Rum member in, have them a wear false group name, and revive for a VERY long time without trouble. And he would never be PKed in retaliaiotn by the NQSI's because they dont random PK like you do. You can PK the NQSI's revivors non stop, but they have no recourse agasint you when you decieve who you are. See the unfairness?Jackson 5 00:51, 29 August 2006 (BST)
No, I don't see any unfairness. There are un-allied revivers reviving your group, but they won't revive us for obvious reasons... We're not going about crying that this is unfair - we brought in our own aid instead. You think this is unfair because it means we would get the same chance at staying alive as you do. Do I think you're whining about letting other people play the game? Oh yes, I do. --c138 09:03, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Yeah sweetheart but you're killing the unallied revivers too! You're killing everyone, we are only killing those we can prove are members of a pk group. Rickgrimey 11:40, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Are we talking about RR, DORIS or ASS here? Because DORIS' whole purpose is to kill everything that moves. That's what we do. I know RR does as well, kind of, but they do it when they feel like it; randomly. DORIS' entire premise is kind of a mirror of DARIS' - claim a suburb and kill everything and everyone that wanders inside. --Cyberbob Sys U! 11:44, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Well actually this whole topic was about xoid's double standards with regards to his definition of cheating. He doesnt seem to be replying though and thewhole thing has got rather off topic! C138 is RedRum, so I was replying to her, she reckoned that their bringing in revivers under a flase flag is balanced by the fact that we get revives from independents who wont revive RedRum members (because they were Pked by them, oddly enough). I was showing that as RedRum are killing members of any group, those independent revivers are in just as much danger as Invisibles, however as we dont kill anyone unless we know they are a pker or member of a pking group, anyone they bring in under a flase flag to purely revive RedRum is totally safeRickgrimey 13:17, 29 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] The NQSI Use of Unconventional Tactics

Ok I normally leave Jake in charge of the wiki, he is more even tempered than me but I wasnt letting this stand! Show me the rule that says you cant use spies or aquired intelligence as part of a group war in UD, then call me a cheat. Till then shut the fuck up! The Invisibles did not start coming on here calling RedRum cheats for changing their group affiliations, we just informed people that was the situation. Stop throwing your toys out of the pram because after you started playing dirty, people changed up their tactics and started playing dirtier. Bear in mind we have only being spying on RedRum not DORIS as DORIS keep their affiliation in their profile. Given that fact, there was no other way for us to find out who they were, other than wait around for them to pk.

We read this on the Red Rum 'Whinging' section
'yea yea i know you are a Pker grup but rules are rules. I'm just gonna go away now this is starting to look like the whole RRF incident Prof semaj 06:29, 14 June 2006 (BST)
You were placed here for my amusement, ne? What rules? Are you refering to rules set by your group that you think apply t other grups including ours? --Sirens'
Frankly it made me laugh, she had a point, so I thought f*ck it lets see what we can find out about them. I went on their website and started doing searches. Know what I found, their webpage isnt half as secure as they thought, you can search on your password protected areas and get results. No hacking involved, no spy, I only came out with the spy thing to try and get a little infighting going amongst them as that would help us out, which is also dirty and also not against these 'so called rules' you are the guardian of. Unconventional tactics yes, cheating? See what Sirens said, show me the f*cking rule I broke then call me a cheat!
Oh and enough of calling danny a cunt, you ignorant fool, he's not even an Invisible, doesnt stop him being right though.
xoid ':#Why didn't you zerg? Hm? Because it was wrong? Because it's dirty fucking cheating? You're no better than the Stallones or the GODhack zergs, you're fucking less than them. The lowest form of scum on the planet. Infiltrating a group because you are too fucking lazy to put some effort in an actually fight back?'
How are we better than the zergers? because zerging is specifically against the rules! Going to a groups webpage searching on their and gathering intel, not against the rules, fighting dirty yes, but if you as a member of RedRum are going to come on here and whinge about someone fighting dirty I am going to fucking laugh in your face! Aw poor didums did we not play by your rules... Well wake up thats how some of the groups and individuals you have attacked and killed feel, you laugh about that dont you, 'we're just playing in character as murdering psychopaths'. Well fuck you we are just playing in character as Invisibles, cyber hackers extraordinaire and gathering intel is part and parcel of that. You dont want people to know what you are up to, design a better website...
Xoid 'I've seen them PK an innocent or two.' I thought you guys didnt allow things on the wiki unless they were verified or does that just count for us(and by us here I mean everyone in Griggs whose not a member of Doris, before you start) not you? see the whole ASS debacle..
Show me proof an Invisible murdered an innocent and I will investigate, names times screenshots if you have them, until then you can fucking shut up about that and all... Oh and the Invisibles do not count 'members of RedRum', who we know are members cause we have seen it on their website as innocents in Griggs, whether they are there just to revive the redrum members who are pking rather than pking themselves.
Oh and the too lazy to fight back, hah we've been hading you guys your ass on a plate and it aint just because we had intel on you, all we knew were RedRums members its not like you were posting your locations on your board.. Check the revive queue see a lot of redrum and Doris members? Theres your fighting for you right there mate! --RickGrimey 12:04, 25 August 2006
Oh I am fucking loving this. Two choice quotes from you — "Show me the rule that says you cant use spies or aquired intelligence as part of a group war in UD, then call me a cheat." and "You dont want people to know what you are up to, design a better website…" — just because something is written as specifically being against the rules doesn't mean it's not wrong, or that it's not cheating. If I were to leave my house unlocked and you were to steal anything inside… does that mean that you're suddenly off the hook? Huh? Does it, genius? "But that's against the rules!" You say? So? If it were not in law, does that suddenly mean it's OK to rape your mother? Fuck no. You knew what you were doing is morally reprehensible and you did it anyway. You're scum. Pure, plain and simple.
Me too! What a crock! Double standards from me, ha ha ha!
xoid 'just because something is written as specifically being against the rules doesn't mean it's not wrong, or that it's not cheating.'
First up I assume you meant to say' Just because something is NOT written as being specifically against the rules doesn't mean its not wrong', either that or you're making even less sense than I think. Actually if we are not doing something specifically against the rules, then hey guess what Xoid we're not cheating, so you can bloody well retract the cheating claim! We've got double standards, well that depends on how you look at it. In the sense that we use different tactics against those using, what some would consider to be 'dirty tactics', hell yeah. In the sense you mean, hell no! Notice we didnt even attempt to spy on Doris, why would we you had your group afiliations in so there was no need for it. Against RedRum, damn straight we will spy on them to find out who they are sending in to Griggs to Pk. You think that makes us scum fine, you think that its reasonable to equate that with raping a mother? Jesus man go fuck yourself you're well out of line!
Now if you were to leave your house unlocked and I stole stuff that would be against the law and I would not be off the hook, you're quite right. Obviously what we did is not illegal, so again you're right I will point that out. As to whether what we did was morally wrong? A more reasonable analogy to make would be this, country A, it is illegal to buy Marijuana, do it there its wrong legally i.e. according to the state, country B, it is legal to buy Marijuana. Now how does this change your personal moral stance on the buying of Marijuana were you to be in either country, well not at all. Personally I have no issue with people buying it, but in a country where it is illegal to do so, if I was caught doing so, then I would have to take my lumps for it. Wouldnt change how I felt about the morality of the law though! Now my stance is that what we did in spying on RedRum was not wrong morally or legally. Once again I'll point out we only did it to the group hiding their affiliations. Personally I think that pking newbies is wrong, we said so to you, what was your response, a big fat we dont give a fuck, we dont think it is, so frankly you can take your moral outrage about this and stick it up your arse for all I care. Hardly even fair to call it spying, using their own search engine to search for Griggs, christ its not exactly Watergate is it.Rickgrimey 20:37, 25 August 2006 (BST)
As to your claim of not killing innocents: I said that one of the NQSIs PKed someone on neither UDTool list. Not one of Red Rum's members, not one of DORIS' members. It's entirely possible that it was a random PKer without any affiliation.
Fine I know we killed BenzinDevil at least who isnt affiliated with either group. A quick google and wiki of his name takes you to his site saying he is a Pker, thats SOP right now in Griggs, so we killed him, I've got no problem with that. Until you can prove we have killed a single innocent, you can fucking retract that assertation too, cause I know I haven't and I would be really surprised if any other Invisible has too! Show some proof or take it back! However on the other hand if you can prove it, I would genuinely like you to come to me with that proof! I will be the first to discipline any Invisible that has! --Rickgrimey 20:37, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Oh, and on a final note: "…Well wake up thats how some of the groups and individuals you have attacked and killed feel, you laugh about that dont you…", oooh. PKing a newbie is wrong. But storming his safehouse with zombies is not? PKing a newbie is wrong. But headshotting a starting zombie is not? Ding ding ding! I think we have a winner, folks. Double. Fucking. Standards. For the win. –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:51, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Ok kill a zombie newbie how does he feel, he feels nothing about it he's a zombie he expects it, he gets right back up, no loss to him. Just as a side note I only took headshot when it changed from taking XP to AP, some might feel its still griefing as it is that their moral standpoint, I thought it was as it stood originally but as it stands now I dont, thats my moral standpoint on this issue. There is no such thing as a universal moral standopint on any issue, you fucking idiot. A zombie storms a safe house kills a newbie survivor, the survivor signed up for a zombie game, he might be down about it but he knew it was a risk so he gets a revive and gets on with it. You PK a newbie, then when someone revives him in his area pk him again (this was what was happening in Griggs) whats going to happen, this isnt what he was expecting, survivors work together surely, every chance that newbie is going to leave the game permanently. I'm against that, you want to be for it, shit go for it, but I'll fucking fight you tooth and claw to keep that thinking out of Griggs! Quite apart from that I think its just lame and not to mention tactically foolish. You could choose who to kill, who should you kill the high level survivor or the newbie, spout DORIS propoganda while killing the newbie, chance are he'll run out of Griggs, doesnt make any difference to you, except the high level guy who could revive is down. Thats the difference as far as I am concerned, you want to think differently thats fine, you have your moral stance on this, I have mine.
However we're certainly not guilty of double fucking standards because of that, there is a definite difference in the circumstances and outcomes of those 3 scenarios as far as I at least are concerned. From my point of view, your morals are a bit weird (but then again mine clearly are to you too). Taking your group tags out is not dirty tactics, as far as you are concerned, neither is pking newbies or indeed everyone in a whole suburb, according to DORIS's aims. BUT a group faced with such an enemy are scum for spying against only this enemy? Man you clearly feel that way, but fuck that seems weird to me, what did you expect us to do, just lie down and let you fuck us over? You thought we would fight fair by your rules after you rucked up started pking us under false banners? Shit man you dont want to play by the articles of war, fine. Dont come fucking whinging about it when against such an enemy (and such an enemy only, once again you dont see us doing this to DORIS, they pk but they show there banners), we also dont play under those articles. You didnt fight fair by our rules, apparently we didnt fight fair by yours but at the end of the day there are no rules, so for fuck sake get over it, you obnoxious little fool. User:Rickgrimey|Rickgrimey]] 20:37, 25 August 2006 (BST)
You guys were FUCKING ZERGING thus you are lower than the piece of roadkill I ran over with my car this morning. --Technerd CFT 02:31, 26 August 2006 (BST)
As for you Technerd, you fucking retard, no one is accusing us of zerging, we're not, the Totes aren't, to the best of our knowledge no one in Griggs is. So just shut the fuck up, you're out of your depth in this discussion.Rickgrimey 14:21, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Woah, I was reading all of this, and while pretty much everything has been correct so far, there was no zerging going on. I just definitely had to throw that in there, but I'll leave the rest to everyone else.--Experiment C 03:39, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Its ok, for the longest time they thought the NQSI's where also the Lebende Totes, meaning the whole 3 week fight we had was part of the conspiracy lolJackson 5 04:04, 26 August 2006 (BST)
BenzinDevil? I know him. He's a PKer. I don't remember who was killed, but it's possible it was him, it'd make sense from what I've heard. Consider the claim of killing innocents retracted.
Back to the crux of the issue. If I managed to get stuff from NASA, that they obviously wanted to keep confidential and took reasonable measures to, then that would be spying or stealing the information from them. There is no gray area here, it's wrong.
PKing newbies is wrong, but headshotting a new zed is not. Yup. Double standards. Killing a newbie zed, taking away more than a fifth of their day's AP isn't wrong, especially when they can expect it to happen over and over. Yup. Understood.
"What did you expect us to do, just lie down and fuck us over?", no we expected to get PKed back in return, have bounty hunters on our arse, have to put up with zombie breakins and pretty much everyone else in the neighbourhood. Of course, a mere 10 PKers is such a threat that you have to go and bypass Red Rum's security to steal their information. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:20, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Thanks for retracting your claim we were pking innocents, much appreciated as I'm sure we haven't.
A mere 10 pkers eh? I count 23 that we know have been in Griggs, against 8 Invisibles and the Independents.
Smoked,
Technerd,
K'BSGG'ECM'AS'QL'AV,
pinotnoir,
Empress of Moldovi,
TheBigT ,
Crotchshot,
Sirensdiscord,
C138,
Faunt,
MarkBrandonRead,
Karloth vois,
Captain Cleanoff ,
b3ardo,
Whiteash ,
Civvydude999,
Neal Stonebroke,
Teddy Tucker,
CypherZero,
JamesBillings,
ChrisMasaroni,
LessisSolono,
Murgel
You want to consider spying wrong fine, In these circumstances I have no issue with what we did. Lets just say we disagree eh?
Headshotting a z, I have explained my stance on this, you can consider my stadards different to you, but I've made it clear why to me these are not double standards. I think on this we are just going to have to agree to disagree as well.Rickgrimey 14:16, 26 August 2006 (BST)
You have the Totes to hide behind, or work with. You formed that alliance in the early days. When there were originally 3 Red Rum members in Grigg Heights. Plus a handful of DORIS members. A handful, quite literally. You outnumbered us then, and by a fair margin. Your alliance still does, even if you yourselves do not.
As to the spying, what other intel have you stolen? You could quite easily have taken a lot more than you are claiming you did. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it if you say "but it was only the list". –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:52, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Well check what was avaliable on there, I've told you how I came by the info. As it happens there was nothing like character locations on there, so all we knew was which RedRum members were coming into Griggs. Believe me or don't, I really don't mind. The Totes aren't even in Griggs anymore, haven't been for some time, they're in Owsleybank last I heard. At the time you are talking about when there were only 3 members there, we hadnt even bothered cracking your website, as RedRum hadn't started removing their tags. When they first turned up Sirens and c138 both had redrum in, by the time we were investigating them there were a hell of a lot more than 3 RedRum members in Griggs... Can I take it you do accept my refuting of your claim that we faced 'at most 10 Pkers'?Rickgrimey 19:46, 26 August 2006 (BST)
PKing a newbie is sooo diferent from a zombie killing a zewb. Human players KNOW zombies are coming after them and can act accordingly. They cant do a thing about PKers. You cant go to a safe town, you cant hide behind EHB walls from PKers. I know when i first started i was PKed when i was like a level 2 or 3 and that turned me off of the game for several months, how many people dont return tho? UD numbers are falling. Again, why are you sooo upset over us knowing who you are when we should have alreayd known who you are by your group name? opps, you no longer can deceive people, why not wear the group name proudly?Jackson 5 04:41, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Ha. Sooo different. Yeah. Zombies can't hide either. Numbers are always falling. The game has been dying since before I even joined, back in December. Nothing is going to save it now short of an advertising blitz. We both know that will never happen.
I'm not pissed because you know the members of Red Rum, I'm pissed off because of how you found them. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:50, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Zombies tho lose nothing but a few more AP when shot. They dont have to spend a day or two looking for a revive, then deal with a PKer shooting them the secound they stand. And yes numbers always fall, but the percentages are dipping into the zombies favor. I remember when i started the zombies where out numbered 3:1, now its almost 1:1 and will fall faster with the low level PKs. And about the info, i would be upset to if i where you, IF i didnt hide my name. Showing your name and letting a PK show who you are is different then hiding your name all the time. No one would have looked for your list if you didnt hide it.Jackson 5 04:59, 26 August 2006 (BST)
"…spend a day or two looking for a revive?" How about spending a week or two looking for a meal? Every single AP wasted by a headshot is another good walloping to the odds you'll ever hit level two. Get revived, and move on. You simply do not sit in a hot spot if you have any semblence of intelligence whatsoever. As to the falling percentages, that's a good thing. Do you have any idea how many zombie players quit because of the percentages you are touting? Because they were completely useless?
As for the "No one would have looked for your list if you didnt hide it.", why not do your job and remember when someone has killed you, and add them to the list? It's not like we started off with a complete listing of NQSIs. Or Totes, who's affiliation is almost impossible to discern. Do you think the non-listing of affiliation has helped Red Rum to any great extent? Hell no. Until DORIS was finally OKed to have our UDTool list, they managed to PK quite a few Red Rummers because of that. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:12, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Do we think the hiding of affiliations has helped them?! God yeah! It hasnt helped them nearly as much as it would have if we hadnt done some intel work on them though. Take Lessis Solono for example, its only today I found out 100% he was redrum, I'd had reports he was reviving them and talking to Sirens in the revive queue. However I wasnt going to have an Invisible Pk him without more proof than that. So we let him live, so he's been wondering around, reviving and maybe Pking for over a week, simply because he changed his group affiliation. If he had had it as redrum he would have been dead first time we saw him. Now if he had ever killed an Invisible, we would have had him, no doubt, everyone who did was marked straight of the back, but there are plenty of independents to kill out there. Unless they get back up and talk to us how are we to know who killed them. We started up a seperate board to let all survivors in Griggs list anyone that pked them, but not everyone is going to go on there and tell us. As we were keeping our group affiliations in it wasnt nearly so difficult for you to get a list of our members. Hell you were there for a week undercover before you started killing, you would have done so then if you had any sense. If they didnt think it would help them, they wouldnt do it...Rickgrimey 14:16, 26 August 2006 (BST)
I've countered most of your points in a post above, so I'll keep this brief. If Independents won't report to you, or any other PK list, then they have no right to complain. You get PKed? Report it. It's not like there aren't enough bounty hunters out there as it is. Hell, you could even ask for some support from nearby groups, oh, wait, you did. You managed to even out the odds more than enough without spying. So why sink to spying? –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:52, 26 August 2006 (BST)
I dont see where you countered my (forgive my english here) counter of your assertation that removing group affiliation did not help RedRum much? Have I genuinely missed one or do you accept my point of what a large advantage such a tactic offers?Rickgrimey 19:46, 26 August 2006 (BST)
That list is wrong. I can count several people who aren't in DORIS. Don't know about Red Rum though. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 16:37, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Jesus, Sonny read the post before replying, where did I say that was a list of Doris members? I said this was a list of Pkers known to be in Griggs, as it happens all those Pkers are either in Doris or RedRumRickgrimey 19:46, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Xoid was saying you're afraid of a mere 10 PKers, as in DORIS. You then gave a list saying there was 23. But of those 23 less than 10 are DORIS. Meaning you're overreacting about DORIS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saromu (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 August 2006 (BST).
Xoid said Of course, a mere 10 PKers is such a threat that you have to go and bypass Red Rum's security to steal their information, if he was tallking about Doris only why would he refer to RedRum? I was pointing out that in total there are a damn sight more that 10 Pkers in Griggs.Rickgrimey 11:04, 27 August 2006 (BST)
I countered your point by pointing out that there were only 3 members in Red Rum there at the time when affiliation was being removed. Guess what? They got PKed as often as you guys did. Friendly fire is quite counterproductive in my book. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:54, 27 August 2006 (BST)
Thats it your whole belief that removing group affiliations didnt count much, is because you guys couldn't cooperate enough to tell each other who you are, so you shot each other from time to time? Well first up if thats true and you had multiple friendly fire incidents, no offence but you're idiots. Second unless those friendly fire incidents came at the same rate as deaths you would have faced from us had you left your tags in then removing the tags was still a massive advantage. Oh and how the fuck were we supposed to know how many members of RedRum were there, they were changing their group affiliations, how could we know? Thats another of the advantages of removing your tags, hiding your numbers, but of course you think its not big deal and not an advantage at all?!Rickgrimey 11:04, 27 August 2006 (BST)
Red Rum suffered two friendly fire incidents from DORIS, both of which were appologized for, and the causes fixed. If DORIS suffered any friendly fire from Red Rum, I don't recall it. Try again. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 15:45, 27 August 2006 (BST)
Christ read the posts, xoid claimed removing your tags wasnt much of an advantage as RedRum got pked by Doris and vice versa, to listen to him you would think that happened lots. But hey thanks for pretty comprehensively refuting his idiocy.Rickgrimey 13:12, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  • Shrugs* Maybe he did get PKed a lot, and just didn't report it. I don't care. I saw information that I found inaccurate, and corrected it. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 03:08, 29 August 2006 (BST)
My turn to be a real b*tch. Here's a break down of that list you gave as applies to Red Rum.
Smoked - Not in Red Rum
Technerd - Not in Red Rum
K'BSGG'ECM'AS'QL'AV - Not in Red Rum
pinotnoir - Not in Red Rum
Empress of Moldovi - Not in Red Rum
Neal Stonebroke - Not in Red Rum
TheBigT - Not in Red Rum
Crotchshot - Not in Red Rum
Sirensdiscord - Legit. on list
C138 - Legit. on list
Faunt - Legit. on list
MarkBrandonRead - Legit. on list
Karloth vois - Legit. on list
CypherZero - Legit. on list
JamesBillings - Legit. on list
LessisSolono - Legit. on list
b3ardo - Legit. on list
Murgel- First Kill Today (26th)
Captain Cleanoff - No Kills in Grigg Heights to this day
Civvydude999 - No Kills in Grigg Heights to this day
Teddy Tucker - No Kills in Grigg Heights to this day
Whiteash - No Kills in Grigg Heights to this day
ChrisMasaroni - No Kills in Grigg Heights to this day
Okay, I made a trio of mistakes when getting that list together, but think it still makes a good point: You said you were under attack by an *ssload of PKers before you spied, and yet several of the people you listed hadn't even PKed yet! And that's an estimate based on who hadn't PKed up to the point when I found out you were spying. They'res probably more who shouldn't be on that list. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 21:41, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Where the hell did we say they were all redrum thats all the pkers spotted in Griggs this month! Xoid said we were facing 10pkers I said we were facing more and provided the list. The guys ytou say arent RedRum are Doris. As for your people with no kills, they were there to kill or to aid in kiiling by reviving other RedRum members, are you denying that any of them are RedRum i.e. the names from Murgel to Chris? Cause if they are RedRum (or Doris frankly) in Griggs at this time, they are considered combatants. So even if we take the 5 off your list who havent killed, sirens 'You said you were under attack by an *ssload of PKers before you spied, yet several of the people you listed hadn't even PKed yet' that still leaves 18 Pkers, thats still a shit load of pkers! Rickgrimey 11:04, 27 August 2006 (BST)
Your slightly mistaken about the list Mia (sirens right?) The list is PKers. Some are found through the wiki because they where reported for PKing, and some there are DORIS. Technerd and Smoked for example are DORIS. If the list was ever labled "red rum" then that was a mistake since its a general PKer/PKer allie list.Jackson 5 22:15, 26 August 2006 (BST)
First, I said that was as applies to Red Rum. I didn't say none of them were in DORIS. Second, when the initial list was given it was either implied or stated that they were under attack, but as you can see, several of those people haven't killed anyone in Griggs Heights (Mostly because a few of them arrived just recently, AFTER you were caught spying) --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 22:18, 26 August 2006 (BST)
So what that makes them innocent? They are there to revive the other pkers, or they got killed before they could pk, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Yes, it does. Someone doesn't PK, they haven't done anything wrong. Going by your logic I should go and PK everyone who has ever mistakenly revived a PKer because their just as guilty under your logic. Brilliant thinking there, by the way. –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:35, 27 August 2006 (BST)
You fucking idiot, a member of a pk group in a suburb specifically to revive members of said pk group, who they are well aware will go on to pk again are not innocent! They are combatants, accessory to the crime, yes? We didnt kill anyone who mistakenly revived a pker, I let LessisSolono live after seeing him revive sirens, cause I wasnt sure he was redrum. Only an idiot would take what I said about killing members of a pk group and extrapolate outwards to reach the conclusion that you should pk anyone mistakenly reviving a pker. Either you are even stupider than I think or you are deliberately missing the point. Either way you're the wrong person to be accusing anyone else of being inbred...Rickgrimey 13:12, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Red Rum is attacking Griggs, therefore all red rum members are the enemy. Regardless of wiether or not they PKed they are still Red Rum and aiding the genocide in Griggs.Jackson 5 00:31, 27 August 2006 (BST)
Genocide!? Again. Fucking idiots. Why do I even bother to try and smash some facts through your damn-near-overwhelming idiocy and ignorance? –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:35, 27 August 2006 (BST)
You're missing my point. The justification given for the forum spying was that a large number of PKers were attacking Grigg Heights. While that was true (although it doesn't justify such a low tactic) the list given above could not have been obtained before spying, as the members that hadn't killed could not have been I.D.ed at Red Rum members. As var as NQSI was concerned, 9 (or less) Red Rum members were attacking Grigg Heights. Therefore, their justification(HA!) for forum spying went straight out the window. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 01:11, 27 August 2006 (BST)
No actually I simply refuted Xoid's assertion that there were only 3 redrum in Griggs when wee spied and that we faced in total a most of 10 pkers overall. The justification for ooh spying on RedRum and only RedRum is that you removed your group affiliations. Know what I'm gettintg tired of this, I asked myself why I was bothering even talking to you but realised I'm not trying to justify myself to you or any of Doris, accusations of cheating were made and this is for those in Griggs who know us and want to know what happened and why.Rickgrimey 11:04, 27 August 2006 (BST)
(speaking for myself here since i cant speak for the NQSI, only giving my take as i see/saw it) When DORIS was said to be coming it was clear that they would act as DARIS had, that alone was enough to cause concern. Then add that the Philosophe Knights (P.K.'s) and Red Rum had joined them made it more of a concern. The P.K.'s are well known and numurous, and Red Rum has a reputation as well. Also Red Rum numbers where seen as being high (19 now not including, obviously, those with a name change), they did not know if all or some where in the area. So here comes DORIS with a well explained agenda, P.K.'s have said to lend aide, and now Red Rum, with numbers higher then the NQSI's (*note* i belive thier numbers have dropped over the past month, when G.o.B. left i belive some NQSI's left as well) where in the area undercover it lead them to the forum spying. At least P.K.'s and DORIS never attempted to hide thier ID, NQSI's simply wanted to know who they had to deal with. You certianly knew when you came in since the NQSI's never hid thier IDs. NQSI's did a wiki search to find out some of your names, then realized some where undercover and went furthur to expose those members. I think the fact that they did no such action on another group (includind us when we fought) shows thier soul intention was to find who they where being attackted by. Just my view on it Jackson 5 03:03, 27 August 2006 (BST)
Wanted to add that most the names found where given right in your own member list that is availbe to be seen by ANYONE, that isnt hiden. Unless of course the forum name is different then your game name, but it doesnt appear many people did that.Jackson 5 03:11, 27 August 2006 (BST)
I don't mind people using the forum member list to find our PKers. In fact, it's an excellent idea. Every person on the forum member list is a PKer and should be Killed On Sight :P
I don't care how badly the NQSI's wanted to find out who they were up against. They still cheated. They should do as we've been doing ever since we found organized resistance: Log each person's ID as you come accross them in game.
As for the Philosophe Knights, if they're in Grigg Heights, that's news to me. --Image:Miasig.gif(user)(talk) 03:45, 27 August 2006 (BST)
Well i mean if you want to know, very little more was learned from the forum post's that wherent already given on the member list page, the exceptions being the ones that post under a different name, otherwise its just a matter of matching the name to a player in game and getting the link. The well indepth screen shot that was posted actualy wasnt posted till AFTER this all came out, and i still dont know who it was that posted that other then the name they gave. And the NQSI COULDNT do as you did and log IDs. You could log IDs as you saw them because they didnt hide who they where. You could collect data with no risk to yourself. The NQSI's however would not know who you where unless you attacked one, and if you picked off lone suvivors you could PK for quite some time without notice. And your revivors could revive non stop since they where hidden. NQSI revivors could not do this since they supply thier ID, making them a top target. That right there is a little bit of an advantage for you, no? (especialy when also bringing in numbers, Red Rum as it stands now outnumbers the NQSI easly) As for the Knights i belive they where working more with DORIS then you. Doc Smith brought this to our attention because we WHERE allied with P.K.'s untill this (infact Doc Smith had them remove his forum privlages there for the time being since we are un-allied with them now). I would be right there with you yelling cheat about this whole incedent if it where not for the fact that you hid your IDs, forcing the NQSI to find them to try to level the field.Jackson 5 04:49, 27 August 2006 (BST)
The PK said they weren't going in because they were allied with the Totes. They still are, and still weren't going to go in. The point is, we don't know what else the NQSIs took. They may have just taken the list, or they may have taken anything else that took their fancy. Names of allies who are not involved. Locations, for the rare times they are posted. Our next big event. Anything and everything that we did not want public. Regardless, Sonny was right. I was talking about DORIS in terms of "a mere 10 PKers". I then illuminated the fact that even with Red Rum, we were still under the big one zero when they thieved the list. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:54, 27 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Long Stuff, New Heading for Easier Editing

Regardless of EVERY possible justification, the NQSI still bypassed the forum security I put in place to gain informration we didn't want public. Feel free to try and justify it, or make it seem like it's not that bad, but until they can prove that they didn't do that, they're still dirty cheater