UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Human Groups Policy

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


It's just me or this policy looks a lot like an Arbitration case? Maybe you want to bring it there Headless Gunner, as as a policy this doesn't seem like it's going to pass. Wiki Mods do not regulate or have any authority over what you do in game as far as I know... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 07:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My aim is not just to affect CDFs status, but to initiate policy change as well. I am NOT accusing CDF of vandalism. I believe this is the correct page. The page has only been up for 5 hours. I believe I have two weeks to make my case.--Headless gunner 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide hard evidence that they (or any group) regularly, and systematically kills other survivors, that havn't been aggressive towards them, then yeah, take it to arbitration, and get them listed in the appropriate category. But, expecting the "wiki staff" (whatever that means) to go around checking that every group is appropriately categorised... bugger that for a joke when it's such a judgment call between PKing and self defense. You present your evidence before an independent arbiter, and let the group put forward a defense against your claim, and let the impartial arbiter decide -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one, am for this motion.--Jambalaya 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an "arbitration" case, not a policy, and it's an arbitration case that should be immediately thrown out.--Jorm 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Gage 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure of the semantics of this case, but I must say that the CDF is a PKer group in the same way that the CGR is a PKer Group. Boxy, you imply that killing restricted to a single group or group of players does not qualify one as a PKer. The CGR kills only CDF with a handful of exceptions, yet we are still considered a PK group throughout the entire UD community. I ask you, what makes the CDF different other than the fact that they openly attack multiple groups and random people that anger them. The CDF has historically moved towards PKing beginning with their war with the ICB, which in turn spawned the CGR. It is only appropriate that they be classified as such. If anyone needs any factual support for the above statements, I have more than enough.--Franz Molotov 23:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree Fair is fair and If the CGR are listed as Pker then the CDF should be listed as such Johnny Reb 24:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So go prove it in court, don't expect moderators to arbitrarily decide and enforce categorisation of groups (which is what this policy seems to be suggesting) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While the CDF is being used as an example in this case, and rightly so, reclassifying some groups provides a clearer picture of their activities and purpose. The wiki is a billboard for others to advertise the groups attributes, presumably truthfully. The issue, I think, is misrepresentation and a lack of enforceability. Much as I'd hate to make additional work for anyone, the wiki mods and staff are our equivalent to the American FCC (in this instance.). Just an opinion, but some accountability should be administered to peoples claims, groups or otherwise. Currently the CDF have a number of PKers operating with their name, and this status seems to have become a sought after and preferable "rank" amongst recruits. They use an unsanctioned KOS-only list and to date have refused any and all attempts to coordinate or cooperate with sanctioned (publicly acceptable, for lack of a better term) PK lists. As said above, if the CGR is considered a PKer group, despite the entirety of the group not participating in activities such as murder, then certainly there are others who belong under the same classification.--Shark 02:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not being used as an example at all. All those for this "policy", up 'til now, have beenCGR members, and they're at war with the CDF. It's obvious that it's targeted fair at the CDF (rightly or wrongly). And the wiki mods will enforce a change, if you prove your case through arbitration. How do you think it should work if this policy gets up, how is a mod supposed to know whether or not the CDF are a PKing group without being presented both sides of the case (as would happen in arbitration)? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure of the proper channels that are required for this type of modification to be put in place, as this is my first "contribution" to the wiki, so I apologize if this isn't the appropriate venue for discussing the subject. If it is a necessity for this issue to be taken to arbitration for approval before implementation, I'd prefer to move directly to that aspect of review regarding the above claims.--Shark 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's just the fact that you don't think that the CGR should be classified as PKers, then just tell the CGR to take the category off their page. Presumably they're the ones that classified themselves as PKers, GKers and what-not. As to arbitration, there have been numerous links to it already -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall saying that the CGR were not PKers, just clarifying that not all members actively partake in doing so. Only attempting to point out what I see as a double standard, really. Yes, I've noticed the links to arbitration, but I don't think it's my place to spur this particular action.--Shark 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the CDF are pkers. Reasoning being is as a person who started as a "good" guy and moved to being a pker I see how the CDF has transformed into a more pk orientated group. Sure they help survivors, but so do some pker groups. Heck if I remember correctly the BotR has helped during a siege or 2 ourselves. Does this mean we are a "good" group rightfully. No we are a pking group since we do this for the majority of our play time. The CDF are like us on a bigger scale. They have become a group where they pk most of the time.--Coil Snake 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't hard, part of me thinks this is being perpetuated by CGR members who weren't aware what they were signing up for. CDF exists to defend Fort Creedy. They formed to keep it safe from zombie hordes and keep that as their primary mission. They were not formed to PK. The CGR's reason for existence is war against the CDF. A group who's sole function is to destroy a group of humans IS a PK group. A group that is attacked by another group, and then mops the floor with that other group is not a PK group but acting in self defense. There is no double standard. Just idiocy brought about by excessive wound licking.--The Envoy 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow politics of the game to closely, and I haven't logged on for some time, but as a pker myself, I don't want the CDF listed as a PKer group, because then, since I'm so honorable, I wouldn't be able to kill them. Honor Among Thieves, you know. -StealthPenguin KOS | PK | RR | HATP | CFT 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god…

…it is "wiki", it's not an acronym, it's a borrowed word from another language. It does not go IN ALLCAPS. Thank you, that is all.

Wait, did I make out like I was done? My bad. Apart from the fact that this is only going to cause needless drama, I wouldn't mind seeing groups getting a classification that is accurate. (That is, however, but a pipe dream. God forbid accuracy be present on the wiki.) This is not a generic policy, nor is it accurate. I say this 'policy' should burn. –Xoid MTFU! 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically what I hear the opposition to this saying is that, "it's too much of a hassle to manage." I don't hear anyone saying that I am wrong. That's because I am not, and I think everyone knows it. This is not a case for arbitration. It is a case of the need for a policy. The bottom line here is: the CDF mis-represent themselves on the Human Groups Page. I challenge anyone to disagree and show otherwise. Guidelines are needed for inclusion where none currently exist.

Xoid: If I am not mistaken, this is not the place to write a final policy as stipulated in the guidelines for creating this process. You are correct. The policy should be generic, and I am using CDF as an example of the lack of a necessary policy.
Matthew: If Wiki Mods are not responsible for maintaining the Human Groups Page, then who is?
Gage: You have obviously not even read the policy proposal as evidenced by your post on Resensitized, mistakenly thinking I was referring to the Crossman Defence Force.
boxy: I have already provided a link in my proposal to the evidence available to the public, where members of CDF, and CDF PKRU regularly PK those who disagree with their way of life. The CDF is well aware that this discussion is underway. I have posted this proposal on Brainstock and Resensitized.

If everyone can get past the fact that this is a PKer vs the CDF matter and look at the merits, instead of judging this thing emotionally, I think you will see I have a solid point.--Headless gunner 08:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case for policy. At best it is a case for arbitration. Making this into a policy is actually a pretty slippery slope that ends with wiki sysops becoming content police: if your page doesn't meet the standards of the fifty or sixty obscure, pointless policies that will be passed after this, then the mods have to step in and waste time.
What I'm seeing out of this is that your group got its cornflakes peed in, and wants the wiki staff to act play the vengeful big brother. Suck it up, accept the state of affairs, and move on.--Jorm 09:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we noticed an inaccuracy and thought that perhaps the people in charge could do something to ensure accuracy in the future. I thought the wiki was meant to accurately depict the state of affairs, so as to provide new players with a good idea of what to think of aspects of the game. This is less about we don't like the CDF and more about an accurate informative wiki.--Franz Molotov 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Please learn to indent correctly.--Jorm 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That better? Is that all the responce you can muster? A simple barb based entirely on my unfamiliarity with the wiki that doesn't address the above concern? So, do you agree or disagree that the issue is footed in the desire for accuracy?--Franz Molotov 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For a response, just go back to the top of the page, and start reading again -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. Dude. I said my bit; it's not my fault if you didn't grasp it. This is a stupid policy and I don't know how many more ways I can say that.--Jorm 07:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point the Creedy Guerilla Raiders should remove our names from the PKer Groups Page and declare ourselves strictly a survivor group. We will no longer consider ourselves PKers. We are now freedom fighters, defending Malton from tyranny. Maybe I will call for all PKer groups to do the same since we don't want the stigma of being called a PKer group. The Philosophe Knights aren't PKers either, they erase stupid n00bs from the city streets. If I can get all the PKer groups to do this, we won't need a PKer Groups Page anymore. Under current Wiki policy (or lack of policy), there's really nothing that can stop us from doing this since we can put whatever we want on our group page and the Groups Pages. I think we'll also list ourselves in the Zombie Groups page as well since we now have a Z-Raiders branch. This should help our recruitment since we will now attract all three types of players. See my point?--Headless gunner 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. Just expect to get taken to arbitration by anyone who actually gives a shit (which apparently is no one who reads your policy).--Jorm 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly? I doubt there are many who care enough to try to force accuracy through an arb. case. It's not even like arb. is a good solution, it's entirely dependant on one person's point of view. –Xoid MTFU! 10:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, just why is this worth it? --Karloth Vois RR 02:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always felt that Human and PKer can't really be separated that distinctly. There are human groups who sometimes PK (or very frequently, in this case), and there are PKers who occasionally help people. Personally, I've always had my group listed under both PKer and Human groups. PKer or not, they're technically still a group of human players, not zombies. I agree that CDF belongs in the PKer category, but that doesn't mean having them under Human is false advertising. Just put em under both.--D4rk N00b 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The main issue with this policy is proof. Look, let's say this policy is passed. People will then point fingers at groups and claim they are PKers and should change the category. They will ask mods to enforce this policy. Then the mods will say "Where is your proof that said group PKs? Take it to arbitration, get it proved, then we'll force the group to change their category." But the problem is that if someone accuses a group of lying about stuff now, the mods would (gasp!) tell them to prove it in arbitration. Therefore, this policy is beyond needless.--Lachryma 00:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this "policy" is stupid and whines personal gripe more than anything else. Any reasonable person in the game and on the wiki is well aware that marked 'PK groups' are groups exclusively dedicated to PKing. CDF is not such an organization. The fact that they PK when at war with other groups, or have rogue members who PK under CDF colors does not make them a PK group.

I think with the exclusion of death cults and groups like ASS, the PK label for groups is entirely inappropirate, and betrays a naive sense of the game. This is a game of zombie apocalypse. Throughout the zombie genre across media, there is a common trope that more harm is done to human survivors via the flaws of human behavior than the zombies, including humans visiting violence upon each other. If you want a game whose definitions and parameters are more cut and dry, I imagine there may be a game for you somewhere ... though even the red box beginners Dungeons and Dragons set isn't as black and white as the needs of this policy writer require.--The Envoy 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of connotation

PKer is thought of as, especially to news, griefers. It's therefore logical for a group, even though they engage in PKing, to not want to be associated with the word. Especially with those lame bounty hunters around who look for any reason to kill other people and feel justified. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the motive that does it, do they publicly announce that their goal is to kill someone? No? Then they aren't PKers, plain and simple. The CGR is just being a bunch of whiny babies because want the mods to make the CDR look like the Bad Guys so the CGR would look like heros. (Like anyone would believe them) I suggest putting this suggestion up to deletion. --Rogue 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
PS Considering the amount of Vandalism the CGR seems to support. I could care less about what they think about the rules. --Rogue 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What vandalism? --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about CGR and CRF. If the few is the same as the whole (As in the judgement of the CDF) then everyone in the CGR must be wiki vandals. --Rogue 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Those two accounts are both the same person. I can't tell you who they were (mainly because I can't remember), but I can tell you that the person in question is in another group. I've seen them on the CDF forums, but I can't recall if they're actually in the CDF or not. In summary, your "theories" aren't at all correct. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to put my two cents on the Vandalism bit. We never vandalized anyone! In fact, the vandalism was perpetrated by someone that wants to grief us. Our forum was also deleted by the same or a related person. We in the real CGR play fairly and do not vandalize wikis. Period.--Franz Molotov 02:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools