UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/New Suburb Tag/Discussion Archive

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

Seeing as there are many singling bits of this policy that need to be ironed out, I'm going to divide up this discussion into the parts in which it is concerned with, along with a basic "what do you think of it as a whole" at the bottom.

Name (Dead/Abandoned/Ransacked/Deserted)

• What should this tag be called?

It should be called "Deserted." –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:34, 31 July 2006 (BST)

"Deserted" sounds great. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:46, 31 July 2006 (BST)

"Deserted" - What Darth said. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 07:11, 31 July 2006 (BST)

"Deserted" sounds best, and is the most objective. --Censustaker 09:19, 1 August 2006 (BST)

"Deserted" does sound fantastic. --Chameleon47 10:56, 1 Aug 2006 (BST)

"Deserted" sounds good. --Tico 12:13, 2 August 2006 (BST)

"Deserted" It fits in with the game. "The deserted part of Malton after the zombies attacked." Very good. --Gold Blade 22:01, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Now I'm just sad. My uniqueness and irreverence for authority and rules has become passé! :( –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:04, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Fine then; just to reassure you, I'll publicly admit I lean more towards "Abandoned"! -- Empath 05:52, 4 August 2006 (BST)

"Abandoned" --EMAG TRESNI 20:04, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Well I do belive "The deaserted part of Malton after the zombies attacked." is to long, so i think dead would work best. --Komora

I just had that for an example. I didn't mean that should litterally be used, just for a mood setting thing. --Gold Blade 21:28, 17 August 2006 (BST)

"Deserted" --Lt Potter 21:55, 8 August 2006 (BST)

"Deserted"--VitorBelfort 00:27, 12 August 2006 (BST)

"Ransacked" I think it's closer to the meaning that this new tag is trying to convey, dangerous no-man's land. Something with the connotations of both 'ransacked' and 'abandoned' would be perfect. Guess it's time to break out the Thesaurus. --Kyran Nahari 11:28, 15 August 2006 (BST)

"Deserted"--Mr yawn 15:22, 15 August 2006 (BST)

"Deserted"--DirskoSM 16:43, 17 August 2006 (BST)

"Desolate" -Tito 21:13, 20 August 2006 (BST)

"Deserted" sounds best imo -HaGz 21:21, 20 August 2006 (BST)

Color (Grey/Brown)

• What color should the tag be?

Providing the template example yourself gets you bonus cookies!

Here's what I think the color should be: background: #963; border:solid 2px #AAA;

This looks like:

Suburb Name

Now give me cookies! ;) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:31, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Will this do?

	A FREE COOKIE
	Karlsbad has given BobHammero a cookie for well, you know...

--Karlsbad 06:37, 31 July 2006 (BST)

You're awesome. That's going on my user page. Thanks. :P –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:40, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Here's my idea... background: #A9ACB6; border:solid 2px black;

The Moon!!!

Your stereotypical place devoid of life. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:55, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I demand a more lackluster cookie for Darth Sensitive, since he no doubt copied my template. :( –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:56, 31 July 2006 (BST)

No idea what you're talking about. :::Whistles::: And could I get milk too? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 07:05, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Here you go:

	A FREE COOKIE
	Karlsbad has given Darth Sensitive a cookie for because I can't give him the moon.

Grey's good, but I think we need something paler - abandoned suburbs should be faded relics instead of dramatic black border attention getters. background: #EEE; border:solid 2px #CCC;

Ghost Town

I think this fits the existing suburb map colours a little better. --Censustaker 09:11, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Tag Battleground
Tag	Code	Author	Bonuses
Suburb Name	background: #963; border:solid 2px #AAA;	Bob Hammero	+8 Damage, +20% Attack
The Moon!!!	background: #A9ACB6; border:solid 2px black;	Darth Sensitive	Actually wearing a spacesuit in hard vacuum
Ghost Town	background: #EEE; border:solid 2px #CCC;	Censustaker	+4 Ethereal

–Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:56, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I added links to both so that you can see what they look like with a purple link and a blue one. And added my bonus last night. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 15:31, 31 July 2006 (BST)

1. Ghost - Fits Best. -HaGz 21:23, 20 August 2006 (BST)
2. Grey - I like the Moon. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 01:15, 1 August 2006 (BST)
3. Grey - ditto --Tico 12:06, 2 August 2006 (BST)

   Which one? Max voted when #2 was the only grey one. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 15:06, 2 August 2006 (BST)

   The Moon one --Tico 17:47, 2 August 2006 (BST)

4. Moon I like the idea of the moon. We can explore the moon now! --Gold Blade 21:59, 2 August 2006 (BST)
5. Ghost I think the very slight whitish tone really looks like it's a ghost town. Which happens to be exactly what this is trying to convey. --Nomader ^T•RCDC 02:20, 3 August 2006 (BST)
6. Ghost All of them are rather appealing, but Nomader has a very sensible argument about subtle implications. --Empath 05:55, 4 August 2006 (BST)
7. Ghost Much more spooky than Grey --EMAG TRESNI 20:07, 4 August 2006 (BST)
8. Ghost This is a great idea and we really need it. Ghost looks cool. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it looks "1337." --Ron Burgundy 00:23, 5 August 2006 (BST)
9. Ghost For The Win Komora(some random time a round 12:00) 5 August 2006
10. Ghost For the win indeed. Eemeli 19:32, 6 August 2006 (BST)
11. Ghost - Kick ass...But can someone make an idea for a Black colored suburb? To represent death? The death of a Dead Suburb? That would be cooler...If only I knew how to make it...--Canuhearmenow 22:21, 8 August 2006 (BST)
12. Ghost - Lt Potter 21:55, 8 August 2006 (BST)
13. Ghost -fits it best i think--VitorBelfort 00:37, 12 August 2006 (BST)
14. Ghost I'm actually not that fond of this color scheme...I think an orange-ish color would work best, but faded, like Ghost. --Kyran Nahari 11:33, 15 August 2006 (BST)
15. Brown Though I would prefer a 'dried blood' color. --Doc Groucho 21:40, 15 August 2006 (BST)
16. Ghost -- DirskoSM 16:45, 17 August 2006 (BST)
17. Ghost - Easiest to read. --Terminator 21:53, 21 August 2006 (BST)

(Many/Most/All) Buildings

• How many buildings have to be of the correct classification to qualify for this tag?

Many, as in, 60% or more. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:36, 31 July 2006 (BST)

How about 2/3^rds? --Karlsbad 06:41, 31 July 2006 (BST)

That's a good number too. :P –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:46, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I would say 1/2. But I could be persuaded to go with 6/10 for some silver in the sack. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:46, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I have placed the gold in the basket. No silver for you. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:47, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Bronze in the barrel? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I bid Tin in the Teacup, do you raise me? --Karlsbad 06:50, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Platinum in the pot. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:53, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Latinum in the lorry. (God, I'm a nerd) --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:56, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Iridium in the icebox! –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:01, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Rhodium in the rowboat! --Darth Sensitive ^W! 07:12, 31 July 2006 (BST)

How about some Ununoctium under the table to stick with 1/2? Yet I think this bidding war is getting to heavy for the issue at hand, though; maybe we should get back to Bismuth? --Empath 06:06, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Gold Blade suggests it was the Chromium in the Conservatory using 2/3 of a Candlestick. --Gold Blade 21:40, 17 August 2006 (BST)

I think a real number like 12 or 50 would be much easier to interpret than an abstract concept like Many or Most. All would cause the tag to be seldom used as a single building could be easily strafed at the corner of four burbs discounting the measure all together. To genrate a number for the purpose of discussion I'll suggest %50 percent of the burb with the least number of buildings Gatcombeton having 44 which divided by 2 would be 22. Someone check my math. Yagoton with 63 buildings would in this case be half again easier to enter into a grey Deserted state but it would be clear where the line was. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 07:02, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Interesting but there IS a disparity between what people are leaning towards (1/2 - 2/3) and what you suggest (a range of 1/2 to 1/3). I'd prefer either a 'half' ratio or maybe a concrete number that ranges from 3/4 of the 'smallest' suburb (33 for Gatcombeton) to 1/2 for the largest (31-32 for Yagoton) and then split the diff to end up with 32? --Empath 06:06, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Half would be so much easier to interpret rather than counting up the number of buildings... --EMAG TRESNI 20:12, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Leave it at most and leave it open to interpretation. If nobody's there, it doesn't matter whether 20, 40 or even 60% of the buildings are lightly barricaded.--Mike the Shoe 04:05, 18 August 2006 (BST)

(Open/Empty/Both/One-or-the-other) Buildings

• At what state do buildings have to be in (or less) to qualify for this tag?

The buildings should be open (no barricades). –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:38, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Well then you have the issue of Barricade-Straffing, don't you? Should there be a "many Empty, mostly open" then? --Karlsbad 06:42, 31 July 2006 (BST)

That could work too. How about most are empty or barricaded and vacant? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:55, 31 July 2006 (BST)

It'll work for me. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:56, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Open. The second is great fodder for more edit wars. But it might be right. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:46, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Open. Empty is not easily determined from the other side of the cades. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 07:03, 31 July 2006 (BST)

How about Empty and Ransacked. That seems to support the spirit of the poicy trying to reflect the effects of the new ransack changes. If these are both true its likely to be Open. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 08:24, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Empty and Open. Seriously, just because you barricade strafe doesn't mean the place is a thriving utopia. If the place has to be barricade strafed it tells you right off the bat that it isn't a safe place to be. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 14:47, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Isn't that an argument for "Empty irrespective of Open/Barricaded", if you want an unbarricaded ghost town to be considered the same as a barricaded but unpopulated ghost town? I'd agree with that. Barricades and ransack status should be ignored, as they're so easy to strafe and clear in a genuinely abandoned suburb. Emptiness is all that matters. --Censustaker 08:58, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Empty, open, and ransacked, it cant get any worse (unless it became a crater)! --Gold Blade 21:42, 17 August 2006 (BST)

I won't weigh the merits of each, but if I need to gauge both zombie population and building state, it's easier to survey for Open buildings than Ransacked or Empty ones. --Mike the Shoe 04:09, 18 August 2006 (BST)

(Very Few Active Zombies / No Zombie Groups)

• What must the suburb's zombie population be to qualify for this tag?

"Very Few" is just asking for wars over the definition. "No Zombie Groups" is better. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:46, 31 July 2006 (BST)

How about a strict definition of "very few": fewer than three zombies per ten squares. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:03, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I like Bob's definition. Using real numbers provides easy interpretation. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 01:09, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Not sure I like the fact a suburb can move from "Deserted" to "Moderate" as soon as four zombies move into the same block. Maybe "fewer than thirty zombies in the suburb"? (Should we ignore documented revive points?) --Censustaker 09:01, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I like the idea of using actual numbers and also revive points should be excluded for that purpose. Pillsy 12:47, 1 August 2006 (BST)

What is your opinon of the policy proposal as a whole?

• Please note that this isn't for debating that you only like one part of one selection and would not support it otherwise; this is simply a place to voice your opinion of the concept of the proposal.

Seems good. Does it really need to be a total policy vote? Seems like we could just run it through the Suburb page... oh well. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 06:46, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I did this because I prefer the Talk:Suburb page to be entirely about the "You're a barricade straffer!" "No you're a Barricade Straffer!" "I'm a Zombie!" etc convorsations and let there be a reason for more people to check this page rather than it only being modly-folk. --Karlsbad 06:49, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I think it's a good proposal. I await your deposit of gold in the basket. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:03, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Isn't your cookie enough evidence of my impropriety? --Karlsbad 07:28, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I accept your cookie as a gold substitute. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:40, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I think that it is going in the wrong direction. Including multiple qualities to determine a single variable muddies the waters. I think this just gives a wider range for us to be innacurate about. --Kiki Lottaboobs 02:09, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Although the other four states need to be clarified. A community driven process for producing a well defined state is a great idea and should pave the way to a better understanding of the others. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 07:07, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Others being the other tags I assume- if I am correct in that assumption, I can bet that within a month something new will be up to further define the other tags. --Karlsbad 07:28, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I think it's looking good. All we really need is a scaled "zombie threat" marker, with the "deserted suburb" being a useful bonus to distinguish zombie-free "safe" suburbs (which have a strong survivor presence and would take care of newbies) from zombie-free "empty" suburbs (which lack the friendly support groups but might be a good place to hide from other survivors). I don't think we're muddying anything. --Censustaker 09:16, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I'm not really fond of the idea at all. I think Kiki is right, this will only make things less specific than they already are. If anything, we need to add another level, not take one away. Why make things more difficult to define? --Vikermac 09:33, 1 August 2006 (BST)

This proposal is to add another level. --Censustaker 09:37, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I like the sound of the proposal, it seems as though it would be good to impliment this so a new person doesnt wander into a suburb thinking it's safe when all the buildings are ransacked and the like. Although the one thing I find about the suburbs map is there seems to be alot of people who disagree with someone else changing a suburb level so it would need to monitored well. Overall it seems like a good idea. Pillsy 11:24, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I think that the conflicts that take place when people disagree over the Danger Level of a particular suburb can all be traced back to people applying different definitions than those stated on the suburb map. What happens is people get into disagreements about what "Dangerous" "Very Dangerous" and "Safe" mean to them, and don't adhere to what those words are defined as in the key. Currently, the key is somewhat defunct, as it uses vague words such as "most" and "rare" and has no requirements for those who update a suburb (like "if you want to update a suburb's danger level, a player must have visited at least x buildings and traveled at least y blocks in the streets to count zombies."). As is, the Danger Level system is in disrepair and adding a new type of block is a band-aid on a gaping wound. --Kiki Lottaboobs 21:43, 4 August 2006 (BST)

This is a great idea. Why not add another tag for a suburb that's hotly contested? It could lead to problems like small groups contesting Ridleybank, so you could make the requirement for such a tag something to the effect of "survivors don't outnumber zombies by more than 150% and vice versa." It'll get the attention to where battles are maybe, just maybe, draw some people out of the big malls and into the real action! --Ron Burgundy 00:28, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I dislike the idea. Why does it need to be even more safe for the humans in Urban Dead? I think the uncertainty of dangerous suburbs is one of the zombies precious few advantages. As it is, I never get killed by zombies, only pkers. I just don't think humans need more help.Jjames 17:51, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Should we have a two-dimensional system somehow?-Mike the Shoe 04:12, 18 August 2006 (BST)

Personaly i think we need to make a "Status" sub catagory using the labels: Deserted, Overrun, Fortified, Secure, Contested, and WARZONE! it just seems more eficient and informative. --Not A Xombeh 19:56, 27 August 2006 (BST)

Chatter

I support it. Instead of Red, Orange, and Yellow suburbs in the SW they'd all be Grey. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 02:09, 31 July 2006 (BST)

So I am guessing you support the color being grey instead of brown? Cool. So what about the other singly/italized bits of of policy discussion/proposal? --Karlsbad 06:08, 31 July 2006 (BST)

The combination of multiple qualities (zombie concentration and survivor population and barricade levels) into a single variable (Danger Level) actually limits the Danger Map's usefulness . Seperate charts for zombie populations, survivor populations and barricade levels might well serve the purpose better than a single chart combining them into one of 4 or 5 colors. As we've seen, there has been a lot of contention over how these three factors interact to make a Danger Level color determination. If it were a single element, there would be significantly less debate. Are there x number of zeds in this suburb: yes or no? I would support a division within the Danger Level of any suburb, where there was one color code for barricades and another for zombie population. I'm sure this could be worked out with a little more coding. From my recent discussions with members on this topic, I am coming to the opinion that including barricades and survivor populations (in addition to zombie population) in the Danger Levels makes it more difficult to get an accurate read of how dangerous a suburb is (because in order to get a statistically viable sample, you would need to travel through and record more data). Not only that, but making barricades (which admittedly change daily) and survivor population (also capable of mass migrations) a part of the equation makes this process equation prone to disagreement, as different areas of a suburb can differ widely in these qualities. Besides, all things stem from zombie population. Barricades are broken down, generators are destroyed, survivors flee or are killed, all because of the number of zombies. Once a horde moves into an area, it's Very Dangerous already - regardless of the barricades or the strength of the survivor population. Look at all the malls that have fallen despite vigilant defense by coordinated survivors. Zombie population is truly all that matters. The Danger Level should reflect zombie populations only. It would be clearer, easier and less contentious if that was all it considered. --Kiki Lottaboobs 02:09, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Clearer and eaiser and less contentious, of course, but also completely useless considering that a suburb could be incredably dangerous or safe with either very few zombies or very many zombies. Zombies are not the be-all-end-all of suburb status; the ammount of barricades and surivors willing to revive and defend other survivors is also very, very important.
While I understand that you may want to simplify the process so that you or new users like you would not continue to make mistakes on the suburb page or elsewhere, you must also consider that the wiki is to contain the best information first and foremost, which is WHY it is so difficult for some to edit this wiki properly.
Secondly, you fail to understand the game's rules as they are today; because of the ransack changes it is quite possible, as is stated in the policy, for every single building in the suburb to be too dangerous to sleep in for a single survivor and should therefore be regaurded as such on the suburb page. Since you cannot barricade in a building with zombies inside it there does not have to be 50 or 60 zombies wandering around the suburb to make it uninhabitable for at least small groups. I apologize if you failed to understand this upon your first read-through of the policy, but this new rule change is the primary reason that we ARE having issues at the moment; Red has the either/or mandate of barricaded buildings and zombies, and green has the either/or of buildings and zombies as well. It used to be that, because of the possibility of barricade-straffing, this was all you needed to account. But now with ransack this change is needed to allow there to be a tag that is between these two extremes so that survivors can quickly and easily understand the reports that come in in the most efficient manner.
Considering the slow pace of this game and the "end-game" of survivors both in the consideration of Reviving Costs and Ransack effects, it is very easy to understand when a suburb is in a state of danger that does not fit any current catagory; and considering that this change will allow people to understand that there can be a basically neutral state between Safe and Very Dangerous, it would remove much contentiousness because a brown/grey suburb is an admission of a draw in the sense of holding territory; either "side" of the battle can attempt to hold it as they wish.
So in closing I ask for you to consider exactly how "simple" and "easy" you want a page which's primary purpose is utility. --Karlsbad 02:39, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I don't see it as completely useless. What you are proposing is taking the total number of survivors (which means counting them ALL), and then taking the number of barricades (again, visiting every single building), then counting all of the zombies and then taking all of that data and putting it through a highly subjective equation which seemingly always ends up being red. Now, I see what you are saying, and believe it or not, I even understand what Sonny was tyring to tell everyone. If you don't have personell, the barricades won't hold - I get that. But unless you can clearly show how the color codes are calculated without using the words "some" "most" "often" "few" "many", etc., it is fuzzy logic. Tell me the definitions, show me the equation. Let's make it clear, and maybe we can see the flaw. As it stands, I think adding another color solves nothing. I don't want to be contentious, but I've seen a lot of people running fast and loose with their interpretations and the key to the suburb Danger Level map is almost completely ignored. --Kiki Lottaboobs 02:50, 1 August 2006 (BST)

The fact that you cite things "seemingly always ending up red" shows that you both haven't been attempting to watch the suburb page for a long time and more importantly have not read my reasoning: the reason that VD is trumping Safe is because VD is more important to be told than safe, and if this new tag is adopted then there will be a better tag for the situations in which the two are in conflict; specifically when the relatively new effects of ransack are effecting a majority of the suburb.
And about some mystic Equation I am supposed to run from the Wise Man on the Mountain for you? You yourself said that it is incredably difficult to be completely accurate with Survivor and Barricade and even Zombie counts on anything more than a generalist sense. The flaw is that the definitions are outdated because of the ransack change and until we adjust the page to account for this. The colors are calculated by what you see on the ground and unless reasonably disconfirmed or counter-confirmed they stand. Usually if there is a serious issue I've sent an alt in the area to look at it from one side. Attempting to act like there needs to be "Yes there is 22 zombies, but there needs to be 24 zombies across 33 buildings to count as Safe-but-not-sliver-2!" kind of arguement on the suburb page is just asking for more conflict, not less. So it is entirely played by feel, and the best way to figure it out is through experience. --Karlsbad 05:55, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Your said: "The flaw is that the definitions are outdated' because of the ransack change and until we adjust the page to account for this."
So, if this is the case, then you agree that the current method involving barricade levels, survivor populations are not congruent with the current definitions. You seem to be saying that since the legend is outdated (because of ransack), you are assigning Danger Levels according to quantities that are different from the legend. I understand you are trying to achieve a more complete picture of overall danger, but isn't this misleading? If someone sees the Suburb page, and then looks at the key, they would assume that in a red suburb "Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested; or hostile zombie mobs of 150+". But this isn't necessarily the case, because you've expanded the criteria beyond the agreed upon key. Shouldn't we all be operating with the same key?

Suburb Danger Level Colors
	Safe Structurally intact and inhabited by survivors, with numerous lit buildings, and few to no zombies.		Moderately Dangerous Active zombies and break-ins, but no major hordes.
	Intact Structurally intact with few zombies, but a very low survivor population and few to no lit buildings.		Dangerous Zombies inside many resource buildings and/or significant hostile mobs.
	A Ghost Town Mostly or entirely ruined, and devoid of significant survivor or zombie populations.		Very Dangerous Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested and/or massive hostile zombie mobs.
Suburbs listed in boldface contain notable locations, groups, or events. Factors beyond the scope of this map may affect the situation on the ground.

--Kiki Lottaboobs 08:08, 1 August 2006 (BST)

How do we note the differences between "safe" and "deserted"? By open buildings? By the survivor numbers? My problem with this entire idea is that a suburb could be safe, or dangerous for that matter, but it might be deserted at the same time. Which takes precedence? The problems don't stem from the current colors we have in the danger maps, or the new ransack skill, but the problem is that those colors we have now are too vague.
We shouldn't have trouble with ransacked buildings: buildings are ransacked by zombies, so zombie numbers should amply provide us with all the information we need. However, the problems arise when the current key we have is far too vague: vague enough to start an edit war as seen with myself and Sonny in the Rhodenbank edit. All we need to do is define safe, moderate, dangerous, and very dangerous more specifically. Once we do that, we should be set to accurately display information on the suburb map. If an edit conflict between safe and very dangerous comes up, we should know how safe the suburb is by the number of zombies, not by the status of barricades. Barricades do little to tell us of an accurate situation inside a suburb, and that's something that must be remembered. The ransack ability has nothing to do with inaccuracies - it's only the vagueness of the key that's getting to us now. --Nomader ^T•RCDC 02:34, 3 August 2006 (BST)

A suburb is empty when there is nearly no activity going inside it. If doors are open or extremely barricaded, doesnt matter. The important thing is if there is people inside it, be them harmanz or zeds. --hagnat ^mod 06:12, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I like the idea, but a differnt shade of grey would be great...I have one of those new fangled screens that gets darker or lighter if you look at it from an angle, and that was the only way I could tell the differnce between the backround, and the box thingy.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 09:23, 5 August 2006 (BST)

New fangled? Labine, the "new fangled" ones now don't do that. Yours must be a couple of years old. Cyberbob  Talk  09:30, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I personally think that in the event of a suburb being sort of "one the line" between two danger levels that people should err on the side of caution and go with the more dangerous one. No this isn't some attempt at zombie propaganda or attempting to artificially make the situation seem worse than it is. Hell, as far as I'm concerned it would actually help the humans since suburbs wouldn't jump back and forth between moderate and dangerous (or something along those lines). Plus I reckon in a zombie apocalypse that humans would be as careful as they can anyway, so any sort of danger report would be somewhat pessimistic. Most of the time they wouldn't say "Theres only 1 zombie outside, nothing to worry about" I imagine they'd be more inclined to say "AHHH!!! Theres a zombie out there! Kill it! Kill it!" --Yarr Brains 8/20 11:41 EST

Democracy?

I see that the key now has a "Deserted" color scheme. Did we skip the voting part of the policy implementation process? --Kiki Lottaboobs 10:33, 5 August 2006 (BST)

This is the kind of implemention that can go through whitout voting for it. This policy discussion was merely a way to gather info on how people think this could work out. --hagnat ^mod 14:59, 5 August 2006 (BST)

That's fine, but the almost meaningless key description of "suburb nearly empty" ignores everything that's been said on this page. --Censustaker 15:09, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Guys - this isn't cool. I'm going to revert it until we can actually come up with a meaningful definition and put it to a vote. We're trying to get away from vague definitions. If this was just a get opinions thing, it really shouldn't have gone here, but on the discussion page. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 16:49, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Agreed. --Kiki Lottaboobs 19:05, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Yup. If it's not objective, why should we vote for it? We already have four totally non-objective categories to argue over, no need to add one more... this definition has a long way to go if "nearly empty" is how it is now. Rheingold 06:50, 9 August 2006 (BST)