Talk:Ridleybank Danger Report Ranting
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Due to the space that's being chewed up on the Suburbs page. It seemed like this might be a fine idea.
Sprawling semantic arguments
Relative Saftey: Measures and Methods
- 150 AP and here's what I've got: there are 80 zombies in Ridleybank (including those not counted in the necro-net). They're in groups usually consisting of 4 to 6 zombies and there are no groups larger than 10. About 20 zombies are standing alone, many of which are in open spaces. There are two open buildings, neither of which were ransacked when I went by, and neither of which were resource buildings. Everything else is EHB, with one or two VS exceptions. There are between 60 and 80 survivors in Ridleybank, itself, though many buildings are unpopulated (I'd say about half). Breakins are rare and the Channel 4 News Team has not even needed to make a revive point. Before survivors get too excited, Sonny Corleone has said that there are no members of the RRF in Ridleybank. Group 1 is not there, the DoHS is not there, and the strike teams are not there. As such, Ridleybank is a lonely place. This claim has been substantiated on the ground; we've not found one with DNA-Scanners, either (at least not that I've been made aware of). And so, I'm sorry to say, there's not much Glorious Battle in Ridleybank- maybe there will be, but until then, the place isn't "very dangerous" at all. As long as it stays listed as such, the real "very dangerous" places will get less attention than they deserve and that devalues the whole system. Since the RRF isn't here and breakins are rare, that implies "safe." Since there are more than 50 zombies, that implies "dangerous." Since they're not inside resource buildings, that implies "moderate." God, someone fix this system! From the ground, it looks between "dangerous" and "moderate" and since the RRF has a commanding presence, even with no presence, I suppose that lands us squarely on "dangerous." --Ron Burgundy 00:32, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- However most of it is taken out of context. No RRF Groups are there. DoHS is not a group and it is indeed there and in Barhahville. Because buildings are barricade strafed everyday after they've been cracked into does not mean it is less than Very Dangerous. Because they are broken into every day and then barricaded up afterwards by a free running survivor it is proof that it is very dangerous. Dangerous would be 1-3 buildings broken into everyday. That is the case in Stanbury Village. However in Ridleybank 10+ are broken into, usually empty or containing 1 person, and then barricade strafed by a free runner. For Ridleybank to ever drop a danger report it would need to show without a shadow of a doubt that barricades are never lowered. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 01:02, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- It would require Revived Zombie Jesus himself to appear on the wiki and declare Ridleybank for humans for the zeds to cede a drop in Ridleybank's threat level without a barrelfull of qualifying statements to negate the change in status. And even then there would be claims of zerging. We don't require such demanding terms for a change in status with other suburbs, why should we here? Tyler Whitney0
- It was decided with the Shore Hills danger reports that survivor numbers do not add towards the upgrading or downgrading of danger reports. And because C4NT's presence cannot be counted towards the report it cannot be downgraded. And since it is known that barricade strafing is going on it only pushes more to the fact that buildings are broken into every single day on a large scale and then barricaded up later to mask the danger level. Since survivor numbers and barricade strafed buildings do not count only buildings with survivors attacked by zombies can count. And since a good portion are empty, dummy buildings it pushes even more to the fact that the suburb is very dangerous and that survivor populations would not be remotely safe. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 03:43, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Surely the report would make it moderate? Dangerous at worst? From what seems a well documented report the suburb should not be very dangerous as there are no hostile mobs of 150+ and even if a lot of buildings are broken into if they're not left wide open and zombie infested it does not meet the status for very dangerous. --Tethran 16:21, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- It would be Safe Green if any one wanted it to be. In fact you could change it now to Safe. Why? Because when you don't read other people's comments everything is interpreted the way you want it. The suburb is very dangerous. Every building would be opened if it wasn't for it being barricade strafed. And barricade strafes are only there to mask the true danger of a suburb. And like I have been saying, if it must be strafed then it means the place is very dangerous. If you find a bomb in a building you know that it is very dangerous. If you hide said bomb does it make it any less dangerous? I think not. So why should hiding the buildings being opened on a regular basis be any less dangerous? It's lunacy to think because you use a band-aid on the suburb that it is suddenly safer. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 16:28, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The only reason I didn't change it is because I didn't do a thourough survey of it. However, when I went through the 'burb I didn't see many zombies and I saw very few open buildings. You've completely ignored what I said after I carefully read what you put. The current rules state that you have to have mobs of 150+ or the buildings have to be zombie infested and left wide open. If they are getting rebarricaded that quickly it doesn't matter if there's a survivor in every building or 1 survivor in the whole burb. The buildings are not wide open. Based on what I've seen and, what someone else has seen and an offical report here I am changing it to dangerous as that's the most it should be at this stage. --Tethran 16:35, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- 10 survivors can sleep in Roachtown. Everyday they run into Ridleybank and barricade as much as possible. Can they say Ridleybank is less dangerous? No they cannot. Why? Because they barricade strafed. They completely wiped out the open buildings aspect of the danger reports. Barricade strafing makes the danger reports obsolete. Who cares about zombies breaking in? Just have it barricade strafed in a day and it's Safe Green. Because it has been barricade strafed it means they were all opened. And since it is still being strafed it means they are being opened. Ridleybank is Very Dangerous. Sorry but that's final. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 16:42, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- You yourself I believe said that the number of survivors in the suburb makes no difference to it's danger level. So whether there are no survivors or 100 if the survivors can keep barricading it without leaving the buildings wide open then it's not very dangerous. --Tethran 16:55, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- That's my whole argument. Survivors being there do not matter. But survivors not being there does. If a suburb is barricade strafed then it is Very Dangerous. You want to pull that shit in a low key suburb then go ahead. But in Ridleybank we won't stand for false information. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 17:02, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Show me in the guidlines at the top of the page where it says that there have to be a significant number of surivivors in the suburb to make it anything other than very dangerous? It doesn't. It relies on the number of zombies, which from the report and what I've seen is low and the barricade levels which again from what I've seen and from the report is pretty good. --Tethran 17:04, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I give up. At least the last person I got in an argument with read what I said after I said it five times. Survivors numbers don't mean shit as per the current reports. But barricade strafed buildings do. Since they are open and empty buildings that have been griefed. A good example. Blesley Mall during Mall tour was empty of survivor life. Zombies did not need to break the barricades down since it was empty. Tethran, can you explain to me why the suburb of Gulsonside was considered Very Dangerous despite the zombies not clearing it out? Oh! I remember! It's because it was empty and devoid of all life. Barricades stood but it was empty thanks to a griefer. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 17:09, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Uhhh... By their very nature if they've been barricaded then they're not open buildings. --Tethran 17:14, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I give up. At least the last person I got in an argument with read what I said after I said it five times. Survivors numbers don't mean shit as per the current reports. But barricade strafed buildings do. Since they are open and empty buildings that have been griefed. A good example. Blesley Mall during Mall tour was empty of survivor life. Zombies did not need to break the barricades down since it was empty. Tethran, can you explain to me why the suburb of Gulsonside was considered Very Dangerous despite the zombies not clearing it out? Oh! I remember! It's because it was empty and devoid of all life. Barricades stood but it was empty thanks to a griefer. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 17:09, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Show me in the guidlines at the top of the page where it says that there have to be a significant number of surivivors in the suburb to make it anything other than very dangerous? It doesn't. It relies on the number of zombies, which from the report and what I've seen is low and the barricade levels which again from what I've seen and from the report is pretty good. --Tethran 17:04, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- That's my whole argument. Survivors being there do not matter. But survivors not being there does. If a suburb is barricade strafed then it is Very Dangerous. You want to pull that shit in a low key suburb then go ahead. But in Ridleybank we won't stand for false information. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 17:02, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- You yourself I believe said that the number of survivors in the suburb makes no difference to it's danger level. So whether there are no survivors or 100 if the survivors can keep barricading it without leaving the buildings wide open then it's not very dangerous. --Tethran 16:55, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I'm in complete agreement with you on the fact that a empty barricade strafed suburb is still very dangerous. I don't agree that it's that case here though. The original report had the survivor population at, "between 60 and 80 survivors in Ridleybank, itself", which is roughly on par with the reported zombie population of 80. Now, survivor population doesn't directly effect danger levels, but if these people are actually sleeping in Ridleybank, then it's not a case of strafing from Roachtown every few hours. So, if there are no zombie hordes, most building are barricaded and not simply a case of strafing, I think it matches the definition of "Dangerous". That being said, if the original report is now out of date, or was inaccurate, and there are no survivors actually in the burb, then it deserves Very Dangerous. (Hey everyone, I'm sorry to add another long post to an already huge report.)--Andrew McIntosh 06:27, 17 August 2006 (BST)
- 10 survivors can sleep in Roachtown. Everyday they run into Ridleybank and barricade as much as possible. Can they say Ridleybank is less dangerous? No they cannot. Why? Because they barricade strafed. They completely wiped out the open buildings aspect of the danger reports. Barricade strafing makes the danger reports obsolete. Who cares about zombies breaking in? Just have it barricade strafed in a day and it's Safe Green. Because it has been barricade strafed it means they were all opened. And since it is still being strafed it means they are being opened. Ridleybank is Very Dangerous. Sorry but that's final. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 16:42, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The only reason I didn't change it is because I didn't do a thourough survey of it. However, when I went through the 'burb I didn't see many zombies and I saw very few open buildings. You've completely ignored what I said after I carefully read what you put. The current rules state that you have to have mobs of 150+ or the buildings have to be zombie infested and left wide open. If they are getting rebarricaded that quickly it doesn't matter if there's a survivor in every building or 1 survivor in the whole burb. The buildings are not wide open. Based on what I've seen and, what someone else has seen and an offical report here I am changing it to dangerous as that's the most it should be at this stage. --Tethran 16:35, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- It would be Safe Green if any one wanted it to be. In fact you could change it now to Safe. Why? Because when you don't read other people's comments everything is interpreted the way you want it. The suburb is very dangerous. Every building would be opened if it wasn't for it being barricade strafed. And barricade strafes are only there to mask the true danger of a suburb. And like I have been saying, if it must be strafed then it means the place is very dangerous. If you find a bomb in a building you know that it is very dangerous. If you hide said bomb does it make it any less dangerous? I think not. So why should hiding the buildings being opened on a regular basis be any less dangerous? It's lunacy to think because you use a band-aid on the suburb that it is suddenly safer. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 16:28, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Surely the report would make it moderate? Dangerous at worst? From what seems a well documented report the suburb should not be very dangerous as there are no hostile mobs of 150+ and even if a lot of buildings are broken into if they're not left wide open and zombie infested it does not meet the status for very dangerous. --Tethran 16:21, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- It was decided with the Shore Hills danger reports that survivor numbers do not add towards the upgrading or downgrading of danger reports. And because C4NT's presence cannot be counted towards the report it cannot be downgraded. And since it is known that barricade strafing is going on it only pushes more to the fact that buildings are broken into every single day on a large scale and then barricaded up later to mask the danger level. Since survivor numbers and barricade strafed buildings do not count only buildings with survivors attacked by zombies can count. And since a good portion are empty, dummy buildings it pushes even more to the fact that the suburb is very dangerous and that survivor populations would not be remotely safe. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 03:43, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I did not get a chance to go outside do to all the buildings I was in was extremely heavily barricaded. In the buildings There where no zombies. I really dont think this sub should be Red. --Tagteam 17:26, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- What? Ruddlebank is safe enough, do I have to come up there to do a damage assessment myself just so I can get you guys to stop filling up the page? And I got complained to that my reports were too big... >.>; --GrayscaleRain 20:17, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I think this is wrong. The burb is secure, there are sporadic break-ins, but there is no 50+ hostile horde - only smaller groups without a clear agenda. That makes it (according to the definitions given) "moderate". The reputation of the RRF (or any group) shouldn't make it "Dangerous", unless they return, form a 50+ hostile horde and carry out consistent break-ins. Put it this way, I've been hanging out in the burb with no backup for a while now, and I'm safe as houses. --Funt Solo 10:55, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? You seem determined to misrepresent the danger level of Ridleybank due to some personal issues. It's Moderate: I know it, you know it. I just thought the rest of the players might want to have an accurate reflection of danger levels and not a skewed perspective from someone with a vested interest.--Funt Solo 18:02, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- My mistake - I just got my contact lenses fixed and spotted the 65-strong zombie horde.--Funt Solo 21:58, 27 August 2006 (BST)
That's what I thought. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 21:59, 27 August 2006 (BST)
