UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Pure Group And Suburb Act

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

1.0

As of right now the Group and Suburb pages are a wreck. Groups with power cannot claim anything without being targeted while groups with no power can claim.

An example would be a zombie group claiming control of a suburb. Since they are the majority they lay claim. The RRF control Ridleybank, the CRF control Chudleyton and Darvall Heights. The same goes for survivor groups. DHPD controls Dunell Hills, CDF controls Creedy, etc.

But what about the other suburbs? Can a group of 3 survivors really control a 10x10 square? Can 200 survivors really control a suburb while only in one building? Can a group of 100 control a Mall that they aren't in?

This is where the Pure Group and Suburb Act comes in. It gives any user the right to get rid of ridiculous claims on suburb and group pages without getting in trouble for "vandalizing". Vandalizing group and suburb pages outside of ridiculous claims will still be punished.

An example of how this would work:

The 369th Infantry Regiment sets up shop in Old Arkham. They say "This suburb is now our property." However they have no other members besides the leader. A regular wiki user spots this and edits it. Good ol' General of the 369th gets mad and throws a hissy fit. But our regular user is safe from vandalizing because of this act for preserving the truth.

Another example would be the Federation of Multon claiming they control the whole city. Users would be allowed to edit the page to get rid of the ridiculous claim.

Also, if a group claims to be "hundreds" but isn't on the stats page, or any other proof of numbers, the numbers can be change to reflect the estimated number. This also includes groups that are "classified". Because nothing is that important in this game to be kept a secret.

The second part is that groups with the ability to back claims are allowed to claim. If Shacknews claims they took down Caiger, they are allowed. If the Federation of Multon claim they took down Caiger, they are not allowed.

2.0

Edit:

Suburb pages

• Anyone is allowed to remove ridiculous claims that fall in the POV category.
• Groups with the power to control an area or a suburb are allowed to claim it as theirs. As long as they have de facto control, or de jure if they did have de facto control once.
• Ridiculous claims would be control of the whole city control of the suburb when they do not have actual control. And general asshattery.
• Removing ridiculous claims can not be considered vandalism unless a mod sees it as griefing.
• Groups with legitimate control of an area are allowed to claim it. Groups that once held control but now do not are still allowed to make claims.

Key Points

• Suburb pages that have ridiculous claims are allowed to be edited to show the truth without the editor being called for vandalizing.

• Groups with the ability to back what they say are allowed to claim. (Stats page, forum members, forum signatures, character links, etc.)

• Mods are allowed to punish someone who vandalizes a page claiming it was ridiculous when it clearly wasn't. (To stop trolls who abuse this policy)

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Policy is currently under discussion.

For

1. For - Voting begins now. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 02:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
2. For - Sounds reasonable. -- BeefSteak ^WTF 05:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   For -- Froggie 05:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Can't vote using a proxy.--Gage 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3. For - Too many groups making ridiculous POV claims on the suburb pages -- Officer Otep 12:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
4. For - A group can't claim a suburb unles they have enough numbers to keep a person or two in every building. --Whap 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
5. For - Great Idea!!! UDfan 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. For - This sort of thing happens anyway - if people object, it could always be accused as vandalism, and the moderators called in - there is room for abuse, but then, there always is... Crabappleslegalteam 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC
7. For - I've been seeing some major problems with this all over the wiki, somthing has to be done to show that the players do not have the level of control. --Apex 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
8. For --Snikers 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Against

1. Against --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Against See my comments on all over the discussion page.--The Envoy 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Against - see the talk page. This policy would result in nothing but drama.--Gage 05:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Against - As much as I'm in favor of keeping the Drama Llama well fed, this would end up killing the poor thing. --Blue Command Vic ^DvB 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Against - This doesn't really do anything but give people the idea that suburb pages need to become territorial pissing grounds. I've never seen anyone but Sonny have trouble with this. -- ∀lan Watson ^T·RPM 05:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Against - Sorry, Sonny, way too ambiguous. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Against - Hmm, after reading it again I have to agree with the guys above me. Pillsy ^FT 08:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Against - See my concerns (which haven't been answered by policy author) on the talk page. Also Alan: I have had trouble with suburb page griefing before, with Sonny by consequence. This is not the way to solve the issue though. --Bonefiver 09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Whether a group has the power to control a suburb or not, its not fair for those few people in the group to say that they do. Malton is for everyone not just the powerful. --Marie^{The Grove} 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Against -*cough* - Isn't this just "I'm Sonny Corleone, I'm in charge of the RRF and I should get to write whatever I want and delete whatever I want and nobody else should be allowed to"? Because that's what it sounds like. --Funt Solo 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Hey, good job at being a dumbass. I'm not in charge of the RRF. But congratulations! You get our second place prize! It's a statue of a Dick, because you sir, are a dick. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Way to take the high road, Sonny. Way to take the high road.--The Envoy 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    What the hell are you talking about? You want me to be civil after that? You got another thing coming. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    To be fair, I've struck the bit I was wrong about. --Funt Solo 18:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    The rest of it sounds 100% correct, though.--Blue Command Vic ^DvB 22:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Obviously the concept of "taking the high road" or "being the better/bigger man" escapes you. Someone called you on this being a vanity project, and yeah he stepped a bit too far in his accusations. You blew your stack with name calling instead of simply voiding his claims against you. In doing so, and not just in this instance but your "defense" during discussion, your readers may find your maturity, and thereby ability to shape policy, suspect from here on out. Just saying, --The Envoy 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

11. I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but at least in this revision; it's ambiguous; and the implementation would create more problems than it would solve. No, I'm not suggesting a way of fixing it. --ExplodingFerret 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Against It would cause more problems then it would solve.--Blood Panther 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Against - Too ambiguous. But a good idea in principle.--J Muller 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Against - Ban claims of suburb ownership/control completely on suburb pages. Say whatever you want on Group pages. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Against - Like I said on the Talk, this policy makes clear of in theory WHAT it wants to do, but just isn't specific enough in its current form to show us HOW to do it without question. Needs more work. --MorthBabid 21:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Against - I'm not sure I like the idea even in principle, let alone the way it is written. It's not bad, it just doesn't seem like it would be such a good idea. --Vikermac 01:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Against - It's not bad, I just don't think this would solve any problems. -- Nob666 07:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Drama drama drama...it's all I see in this policy. What problems would that fix then? None. It'll only cause more drama. --Axe Hack 17:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Against - Sorry, I'm against communism.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Against - The basis of the policy is good, but it needs more development and needs to be more definite. It seems to have quite a few loose ends that need tightening up. --Zombie slay3r 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Against - Solid theory, needs more clarification for it to be practical.--John Blast 07:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Against - There is a problem but I don't see how this solves it, because its too hard to tell what is ridiculous and what is not based on the concept of "control". Only way I can see to solve the problem is designate (perhaps elect) one or more accounts to have ability to edit group pages and restrict the rest. The theory being that the designated editors act like reporters with NPOV (and can be removed if they ceas to act that way). -- Bubba^T 17:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Against - Dramadrama.--Samuel Hewitt 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Against - Ummm... This is stupid. --Niilomaan ^GRR!•M! 09:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Against - Malton's a war-zone. Of course people are going to make ridiculous claims. Daniel Hicken 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Against - Control extends beyond sheer numbers. Sure, they help a lot, and brute force usually works, but it's not the only way. As stated, 2.0 just leaves too much to opinion. --Sgt. Expendable ^JG
27. Against - The idea looks good on paper, but would just create more drama, not to mention more restriction in the game. Bluffing is normal when trying to gain power. --Krauser43 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
28. Against Same as everyone else. Over drama is bad. --Rogue 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
29. Against - Very ambigious, and it would create drama as well as encourage PKing. --Yin Starrunner 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Against You don't define "control" at all. And what's up with the "if you once had control, you can always claim it?" Qarn Barnok 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Against - As Ray Vern says above. Groups on the suburb's "Active Groups" roster and that's it; encourage claims of any sort on the Group page only. Game Stats will tell the truth. --TastesLikePork 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Against - I think this would cause far to much confusion, and some people would get in trouble for unjust reason. --Keithg 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Against Seems overly complicated. A better and clear draft should be created. --KingofSpades 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Against There's a good idea in here, but not in this form. Paul Brunner 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Against This seems like a pretty ridiculous idea to me. I don't think it's really possible to regulate which groups control which suburbs. Also, it seems like a bad idea to allow anyone to modify a page just because they feel that it is not true. Darkxarth 06:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)