UDWiki talk:Poll/Classifying Suburb Groups

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Test of a good classifier

If we are going to adopt one of these nominations, it should be able to handle all of these groups. If it has difficulty or would be open to interpretation, then we're no better off with the changes than we were before them. Some of these are obvious, of course, but others of them are perhaps not quite so obvious, depending on how you try to draw the lines. Please keep this list in mind as you evaluate each classification system.

  1. 404: Barhah not found - A ghost town reclamation group that specializes in repairing ruined suburbs.
  2. Big Coffin Hunters - PKs the Dulston Alliance on the grounds that they are bad for survivors.
  3. The Big Prick - Goes around mass-reviving zombies.
  4. British Broadcasting Corporation - A news organization.
  5. Cobra - A PKing group.
  6. Escape - A group with no objectives other than to survive for a certain number of days, then commit suicide.
  7. Dead Air - A zombie group that works to destroy the cell phone towers in the game.
  8. Feral Undead - A group of loosely aligned zombie players.
  9. Illuminati - A bounty hunter group.
  10. Malton College of Medicine - Is known for their organized lectures and first aid runs.
  11. Malton Telephone - Works to maintain the cell phone towers in the game.
  12. Organization XIII - Fights for whichever side is in the minority.
  13. Philosophe Knights - A group which tries to benefit and educate survivors by using PKing as a teaching instrument.
  14. RDD - A death cult group that has career zombies and PKers in it as well.
  15. The Ridleybank Resistance Front - The zombie group that defines zombie groups.
  16. St. Ferreol's Hospital Noise Abatement Society - A territorial zombie group.
  17. Soldiers of Crossman - A survivor group.
  18. Urban Anonymous - A nonsensical zombie-human alliance group.
  19. Z.A.L.P. - A life cult group.
  20. Zerg Hunters Unlimited - A zerg hunting group.

Borrowed from Aichon.


This is dumb. since when did we have to make workarounds to our base classifications just to benefit niche groups? -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 01:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If we want to keep on truckin' with the current system, that's fine with me. It's no water off my back. That said, our base classifications back in the day was just Survivor and Zombie. Hostile was thrown in --really as a stop-gap measure--because no one knew better, and no one really cared. In my experience, I think Hostile today means different things to different people. Which can be a problem if you truly believe the Suburb pages should be a resource for neutral game information.
Yeah, maybe this is a waste of time and maybe at the end of the day, the community will want to keep the current system while whistling "Daisy Bell," but we can at least see where people stand. As far as doing this to benefit niche groups, well, I think the winds are blowing toward either something based entirely on the game classes (you are either dead, or you are not dead) or active / not active. But we should at least see. -MHSstaff 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yarp, I can see why this poll will be useful.~Vsig.png 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
All we really really need is for people to stop being silly cunts about this thing and let it work out how it used to. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^-- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the template talk page has already shown that there is interest in at least evaluating the current system, and polling the community on how they feel things are working, and if there might be better alternatives. There may not be. The real point of a poll at this stage is to make sure we are actually asking the right questions to gauge those viewpoints. Yeah. We get it. Railing against the system and/or defending your favorite suburb group POV/status quo, while hot and sexy, is sorta down the road and stuff. Let's not put the cart before the horse on this. -MHSstaff 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is if this is actually not needed, well, it should come out anyways in the poll results. -MHSstaff 02:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dual Nature is not a "niche" style of play -- it's not only how the game was intended to be played, but it's now the #1 "group" in the stats. But the Dual Nature renaissaince is not reflected in the current group categorisations. Imnsho this is the most important failure to redress. Next, groups which openly PK but do so selectively and in the name of a pro-survivor cause are not a "niche" style, either. There are not only the Philosophe Knights, but many other groups who take this approach. Now, "ideologically" speaking, I think all PKers are pro-survivor just like all the other revive juicers who hide behind barricades... But realistically speaking, they are a distinct faction. Even if they all taste like chicken.... "Hostile" was created to be able to describe these PKers, GKers, overbarricaders, etc. etc. -- all of whom play mostly as survivors but prey on or disrupt other survivors. I don't like the term "Hostile," personally, but I can't think of anything better, can you? Anyway.... these are the categories I think need to be reflected in the listings. --WanYao 05:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I never specified duel nature. Look above. I'm talking about most of those. We don't need a "educates people via PKing section" for PK do we. Add dual nature if you want to, we dont need to go on massive "ONE FOR ALL" democracy trips to have it done :| -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Eh. Honestly, I see this as a dry-run of the Poll system more than anything. I expect most of the ones to die except for Survivor/Zombie/Dual Nature or Active / Historical. -MHSstaff 05:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Some things don't change here, do they? DDR still sets up straw man arguments and in so doing pats himself on the back and thinks he's made Wan Yao look bad. Cute.
Anyway.... I was very clear about what I think the groups list should reflect. And it was nothing like the weird shyte you just described. Go read my comment again. Slowly, carefully this time. --WanYao 05:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
What the fuck are you talking about? I was agreeing with you -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't read your whole text wall of doom, because the first sentence was the bit that addressed me and it's the only thing I feel obliged to answer. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think DDR is really talking more about me and Vapor with the "one for all democracy." Sounds like all that 'crat power finally went to his head. -MHSstaff 05:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've dealt with such 'criticism' before. All I've learned from it is that there are some people who like to voice their opinions. If they are a hobo no one listens. But if they are a crat they are mad with power!! -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 06:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
MAD! MAD! MAD! Yeah I know. I am just teasing you dude. -MHSstaff 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was going to apologise for the misunderstanding. But since you can't even take the time first to read the things you reply to, DDR... whatever... And fuck, 6 edit conflicts, sheeesh --WanYao 05:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
THE EDIT CONFLICTS ARE YOUR FAULT TOO DDR, AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM. Look. Dual nature is fine, even though I personally don't really care about it so much. As for the NICHE gameplay types (read niche and actually envision one that IS niche, not one that isn't niche, claim it's niche in ddr's opinion and have a cry), fuck them up the bottom.
I'm worried about people lopping on too many categories for gameplay styles that belong to one group, and who most likely don't give a shit how they're lumped on a suburb listing... Adding the biggest one besides the big 3, is fine. I'm agreeing with you on that and saying that instead of doing this poll stuff, you should just add the listing. The best way to get stuff done on this wiki is do it yourself, not file it through ugly bureaucracy. That's my advice -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 06:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Says the bureaucrat. Anyway I agree that polling isn't for evey issue but this particular issue has gone through policy discussion, arbitration, template talk and god knows what else. No consensus has been met. If it were as easy as someone just making the change and it sticking someone should have done it by now. Polling isn't a democratic vote. Majority doesn't matter. Nothing is binding we're just getting an idea of what people really really want to do here. The answer I feel is probably just leave it alone or make a minor change. Piss off if you're upset about the way in which a group is classied. ~Vsig.png 06:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree with you. Mostly. But I think type of groups I identified -- like PK or those anti-Dullston Alliance rebels, who are ostensibly pro-survivor but who do selectively PK -- should be allowed to identify as Survivor groups. However, in the interest of NPOV and clarification for newbies, maybe they should be asked to specificy that they do resort to PKing in the name of their "cause". --WanYao 06:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
And I think that having a good, open discussion about this is healthy. Let's not jump the gun and shut it down too soon, kay? --WanYao
Yeah that's fine and fair. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 06:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As much as the fact that WanYao is saying nice things about the PK gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, I disagree. Seeing as we take a certain amount of pride in being entirely peaceful in Lamport Hills (unless it's retribution for attacks on us), while laying waste to other suburbs without mercy, there's no need for specification. We're just not hostile in some places, while being extremely hostile in others. Except to zombies, because zombies have no sense of class and need to learn that their place is at the back of the bus. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you and I are basically in agreement, DT. But, as you've said, PK is hostile to zombies in all cases. So, from a zombie persepctive, you're definately a pro-survivor group, period :) This is no mere rhetorical joke, however, because it underscores the fact that this is a zombie game and that there are only two states a character can be: alive or dead (and revivifying). And everything else is posturing, rhetoric... That's an extreme position, yes, but not an unjustified one. That being said, in the interest of helping players orient themselves, I think it's a simple matter to allow variation on a suburb-by-suburb basis. PK could be listed as "Hostile" (or whatever) on most pages and "Survivor" Lamport Hills. --WanYao 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't kid yourself, Wan. This is a game about Humans, with some zombies sticking around the edges like a bad rash. And the PK are listed exactly as you describe as it is (hostile in Yagoton, survivor in Lamport Hills). What gets me about 'specifying motives' is the idea that, if a survivor group were to move into Lamport Hills, and then attack the PK, the resulting war would undoubtedly see us placed into some dumb category like "Pro-Survivor PKer" (because, hurf durf, we're shootin' da good guys) as if the PK were treating the place like any other fool-ridden suburb. The actual situation would be a lot closer to the small conflicts groups have over barricade levels and such. Getting too detailed is like getting too vague - "Dual-Natured Death-Cultist Territorial Anarchists" is just as bad as "Active Groups/Historical Groups". The first tells you too much and you end up with half of the groups' wiki page in the Category listing, the other doesn't tell you anything. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
DT, are you ok with how I phrased your "At War with" suggestion. Feel free to change it if it is not right. -MHSstaff 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd actually say add that subcategory to Survivor/Zombie/Hostile/Dual Nature. Because racism monomortalism is a Bad. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we just make it its own thing? It could work with any of the listings. Up to you though. -MHSstaff 04:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like we don't have a very obvious one, which is just adding Dual Nature to S/Z/H. One comes close (independent instead of hostile). This has been brought up before and so I wonder if it is worth making its own question on. Something like "Dual Nature has become blah blah blah. Would you like to see DN added to the current list? or something-MHSstaff 05:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a no-brainer to accept DN as a legitimate, seperate category. Let's just do it. However, let's allow more discussion before going ahead... --WanYao 06:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
not that i really ever pay any attention to what the wiki says about a group since most of the time it's just bias and chest thumping.. but why not. survivor, zombie, PKer, duel nature. ta da!-- 07:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
How about Nice People/Mean People/Dead People/Bi People? --WanYao 16:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Or Barricade-positive/Ransack-Positive/Barricade-Neutral/Flexible (S/Z/PK/DN).
All seriousness aside... If a group feels like it needs a special category, and if they can reasonably argue their case, allow them to add a different category. I know this could open a big can of worms, though... Ah well, keeps Arbys busy... In all other cases, use logic and common sense while allowing the groups to self-identify within reason. --WanYao 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
i like your first suggestion better. and where the fuck have you been?-- bitch 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dual Nature

I am thinking of adding this:

Dual Nature Groups

Dual Nature is an in-game philosophy where players play the game based on their current in-game state (dead or alive). Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes how you would feel Dual Nature groups should be classified (if at all). You may select only one.

  • I would like to see Dual Nature added as it's own separate category
  • I do not think it is necessary to create a new category for Dual-Nature themed groups

Thoughts?-MHSstaff 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dooo eeeet. ~Vsig.png 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I bought it up originally, so obviously I'm all for this. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not following all of this properly, but Dual Nature itself isn't a group, and shouldn't be classified as such. --  AHLGTG 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is more a reflection of DN as an in-game philosophy that some groups have adapted and may wish to be classified under. We should at least ask the question IMO.-MHSstaff 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, an either or category. Dual Nature itself shouldn't really fit there though, and there are other niche-like groups that are mentioned above that wouldn't fit with DN. Perhaps an "Other" category will do, instead of listing multiple sparsely populated categories? --  AHLGTG 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I quite like the proposal for Zombie/Survivor/Dual Nature. It actually covers everything. If a PKer group wants to self identify as Survivor let them. If a radio group or a GKer group wants to self identify as Zombie let them. The suburb listing should be as generic and simple as possible - just a way to say "hey, here are the active groups". If people want to find out more detailed info they can click on the links and view the group pages. No need for millions of subcategories - rotter, educational, wiki-oriented, newfangled hippie, etc.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 01:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because Dual Nature covers everything that 'Hostile' currently represents. And wikis are supposed to have the least amount of info available up front as possible as well, yes? --DTPraise KnowledgePK 03:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I interpret it more like this: Your group either has zombies, survivors, or both zombies and suvivors. So yeah, you're stripping it down to the bare bones somewhat. -MHSstaff 03:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I still think that "Dual Nature" is the wrong term for the listings. The idea of including some designation for multi-mortal groups is okay (but not great, given that it "fixes" a non-existent problem while not addressing the actual problems that we're already having), but the term "Dual Nature" has been misappropriated and is being misused in this context, and is entirely inappropriate. "Dual Nature" players aren't just zombie sometimes and survivor other times. They are always whatever they are at the moment. That's a major distinction when comparing them to death cultists or the like, which are always playing for one side even when (un)living on the other side at the moment. Also (not aiming this at you in particular), I'm kinda annoyed at how the fact that DN is the biggest group in the game gets bantered around as a reason to add them to the suburb listings. They may be the biggest "group", but can anyone point me to a suburb where they're listed? Or where any DN group is listed, for that matter? Compare that to death cultist groups, or even just trans-mortal tactic groups in general (e.g. just look at the list at the top of this page or the discussion from the page it came from). They're all over the place in the listings, since they have to organize to be effective. In contrast, DN players rarely organize as functional groups in specific suburbs, so adding them to the listing makes little or no sense since there wouldn't be any groups to add. Aichon 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If you think about it in terms of only the "Dual Nature" group, then yes, it would be like making a listing for "Feral Zombies" or "Unaffiliated Survivor." Kinda pointless then. We would basically be redefining what the term means. It wouldn't be the "Dual Nature" group per-se, but more the idea that some groups in Urban Dead may be composed of 1) players who play both sides or 2) who use both classes routinely within their group. In that mold, groups listed as "Survivors" are not groups that revive, cade, dump, or help keep suburbs "safe." They have classified by the sole fact that their members are simply "alive." Zombie groups are simply "dead." Dual-Nature could be both. There is probably a better way to phrase it in that context and a better name.
What do you recommend? What term would you like to see instead -MHSstaff 14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that we're commandeering a term that is already well understood within the community. Any meaning that we ascribe to it will be ignored or unknown to 95% of the people using the listings, meaning that it will create more problems. As for an alternative, I don't really have one. As I mentioned, I think that the idea is okay, but I also don't think that it really fixes anything, so much as simply offers an orthogonal improvement to the system we have now. I already offered an alternative on the previous page, but I side more with the idea of simply listing all groups, with no breakdown of who they are or what they do. Easier, less controversial, and most people know which are which anyway. Aichon 15:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's tricky. -MHSstaff 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
See below. Let's just see what the people actually want. -MHSstaff 04:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a doubt, add it to the poll. There is plenty of interest in the concept to have a line of questioning spefically for DN. ~Vsig.png 01:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add it probably tomorrow. -MHSstaff 03:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's emphasize what we are trying to ask and get a feel of community opinion on...

Remember, in some ways, this is more about making sure we are asking the right questions to get an idea of "how people see the system now", "what qualities they think should go into the system" and "what they may like to see instead (if any)," rather than arguing for one way or the other. With that in mind, what are people's thoughts on getting a community feel on the "Hostile" category, or really any of our current categories? Good idea? Bad idea? Do we want to see if people feel that having a hostile section is useful, if it should be renamed, etc? -MHSstaff 04:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think debate on the issues is healthy on this page. The whole purpose of the poll is to get the public opinion of an issue and to exclude debate would be counter-productive. Its the responsibility of the poll author to try and keep things on track and to formulate polling points which reflect the debate. So far you're doing a good job of that so just keep it up. Just don't discourage debate.
I agree provided that developing a system to gauge opinion and figuring out what we want to learn isn't lost in the debate. -MHSstaff 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it helps when when people see that you're keeping up with the debate and then formulating poll points. If you keep with it, I think people will respect what you're doing here. Writing down the issues as poll points should also help clarify the issue for more casual observers who might get lost in the debate. ~Vsig.png 05:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the debate over the word Hostile, its a valid issue and belongs on the poll in some form. Personally it's really the only piece of the current system that kind of bothers me. I see it as just an antiquated term used to describe a cross section of players that the former wiki architects weren't sure of how to properly classify. Maybe they struggled with it as much as we do today and just settled on Hostile for simplicity's sake. Maybe they didn't put that much thought into it. Or maybe they were wise and saw that it was the correct term to use and no other classification would work. I'd be curious to see what the majority opinion is here. ~Vsig.png 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's get this back to basics. Is the current system broken? And if so, how is it broken? These are the questions we need to answer before we can start proposing solutions. --WanYao 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And I don't consider the existence of a tiny handful of groups who don't fit the current classification system evidence that it's broken. If we had several large-ish and/or influential groups who didn't fit in, that is evidence of a problem. So... again... do we have any real problems that need to be addressed? Some people have pointed out that Dual Nature groups aren't that common. This may or may well not be true... If it is true, then we can list DN groups as DN where they exist and ignore the category where they don't. Simple. --WanYao 02:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The first one is pretty easy to ask; it's basically the first question. The second one is a little trickier, but important to figure out. Hmmm. Let me think about it. And you are right in that at end of the day, it's possible these are illusory problems-MHSstaff 05:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What information do we want to convey?

I am tempted to add this:

Group classification systems can provide a variety of information, from how many groups are in a given suburb to some basic descriptor about that group. The current system tells us:

  • How many groups are in the suburb.
  • What their names are .
  • What type (Zombie, Survivor, and Hostile) that group belongs to.

What information do you want the suburb page to tell you?

  • I think it it is more important to know how many and the names of groups in a suburb.
  • I think it is more important to know what type of groups are in a suburb.
  • Both are equally as important to me.

-MHSstaff 04:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Good qualifier, hasn't been addressed in any other way in the poll yet. As long as people are answering honestly, I don't think having too many questions is a bad thing unless they get redundant. ~Vsig.png 04:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have some questions. Based on whether someone elects to vote for #1 or #2, what impact would that have on way the suburb groups are displayed over the current method? Did you have any ideas to display the information differently based on the results? What I am more curious about would be: Do players want group names to be proceeded by an icon (image) for their group? And, should groups be sub-categorized under organizations/alliances, or displayed individually? My second question relates back to a time when I attempted to organize allied groups under a single group (i.e. DEM, Dulston Alliance, ect) and then indented the member groups under it. In later months I see this method of organization has slowly disappeared so I was curious if this was due to general sentiment that it wasn't necessary or because it wasn't renewed, and therefore was forgotten. --Mobius 13:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I haven't thought about the display too much. Your second questions might be worth asking though. Can you form it into a polling point? -MHSstaff 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Defining Type

It's probably worthwhile to get an idea of what "type" of classifier people would like to see. Do they want groups to be separated by game-class? Do they want groups to be separated by what they do (survivors cade/help/kill zombies, zombies kill survivors, hostile kills whoever, that sorta thing)? Do they want group to be separated by simple existence (Active / Not Active)? -MHSstaff 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Type of Classifier
There are three general types of proposed classifiers:

  • Classifiers that group based on player-classes. In this system, survivor groups are composed of Military, Civilian, and Scientist classes. Zombie groups are composed of the "Corpse" class.A third grouping would be composed of both.
  • Classifiers that group based on play-style. In this system, groups are played on how they play the game. For example, in one system, "Survivor" groups might be ones that actively protect a suburb or survivor-classes. "Zombie" groups might be ones that are actively trying to kill survivor-classes. "Hostile" groups might be ones that are actively trying to impede both "Survivor" and "Zombie" groups, or just one.
  • Classifers that group based on group-status. In this system, groups are either "Active," or "Not Active / Historical."

What type of classifier is important to you? You may select more than one. Classifying groups based on player-class is important to me

Classifying groups based on play-style is important to me

Classifying groups based on their current active/not active status is important to me

Yes? No? Dumb? -MHSstaff 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds smart to me.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know that a character class system was being proposed. That sounds like a horrible idea. "Civilian Group"? "Corpse Group"? Blech. Other than that it sounds good.~Vsig.png 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
How else would you describe a Zombie/Survivor/DN system? It is basically character classes. Zombies groups have corpses. Survivors groups do not. DN groups have both. -MHSstaff 23:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I support classification by play-style (which is as it is defined today) and group status. Of course currently Historical groups only lists those groups that had a significant impact to that suburb, rather than any group that becomes inactive. In general I find no serious flaw in the way I setup the template in the first place. And in case that was a bit too subtle, I should simply say I was the one who created the "Survivor/Zombie/Hostile" template system back when I was still a UD Mod. Back then I was always trying to organize everything. These days I see the problem, especially when it comes to how a group should be classified. IMHO, I think classification should work just like it does for the group wikipages, with the group's leader deciding how their group is classified in any given suburb. If someone disagrees that fine, but there are too many shades of grey to define every type of survivor group. For example, in the case of the Big Coffin Hunters (BCH), they started off as a Hostile group, but eventually they became pro-survivor. Sure they kill members of the Dulston Alliance (DA), so what? They're at war with the DA and historically two survivor groups could be at war with each other without either being considered a PKer group, so long as they restricted their targets to the opposing group and their allies, if said allies were involved in the war. If each group manages under which heading they are listed then this will help resolve the problem I'm seeing, for example on the Dulston wikipage where the D.I.T.P.S and BCH keep messing with each others group listing. --Mobius 15:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So this is all your fault Grr! Argh! *shaking fist*. No all kidding aside I agree with you completely. The system isn't really broke from my point of view. Sure, we can probably redefine "Hostile" but it isn't all that bad of a classification for PKers. I'd be in support for an "Other" category. Just allow people to add themselves to it when they don't think the fit into another category. Allow them to qualify their group on the listing (i.e. Other - Dual Nature - Organization XIII). Warring groups can handle conflicts through established methods without involving the entire community. Your point about warring survivor groups seems the logical conclusion to me but we'll just have to leave that to the arbitors. Perhaps enough precedent will be set that this won't ever be an issue again. ~Vsig.png 17:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well as you can well understand the original idea behind the group category template wasn't to create controversy, but rather to help organize groups active within a suburb into meaningful categories. The purpose of this categorization was to allow both new and nomadic players the ability to assess a suburb and determine threats to them (zombie or survivor), as well as, groups they could join or work with (if only passing through). I really don't have a problem with "Hostile" so long as a chosen group places themselves in that category, with the intention of the category being to define survivor groups that PK, GK, or RK. On the topic of Dual Nature, in the past I would list these groups under both the "Zombie" and "Survivor" headers. I mean, there is no restriction that says a group cannot be listed in more than one category. Sure we could opt for an "Other" category, but as so many groups choose their own rules on how they play UD we may end up finding groups preferring that category without providing survivors new to the suburb the information they need to know without drilling deeper. For me, I felt that if a group was listed under "Survivor" they were pro-survivor and killed zombies. If they were listed under "Zombie" they were pro-zombies and killed survivors. If they were listed under "Hostile" they killed survivors. For further clarification on a group's exact goals a player would then check out the group's wikipage. Wars between survivor groups have going on for ages, and in my opinion the only real confusion begins when the RG becomes involved. Still, I'm always open to change and improvements to the UD Wiki. --Mobius 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As the original creator of the system, can you help us define what we should be asking in terms of 1) evaluating the system now and 2) what your ideal system (if it exists) should consider? -MHSstaff 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm of the opinion that the more things change the more the stay the same. I personally have no issue with "Survivors" and "Zombies", and as I stated earlier Dual Nature groups can simply be listed under both categories. I think what people might want to consider is whether the remaining categories "Hostile" and "Historical" are accurate and worthwhile. Now in my opinion both are fine, more or less, as I see "Hostile" as vague enough to cover various sub-categories of groups. "Historical" is also a worthwhile section, unless we move to simply record historical groups in the suburb history instead, in which case that section could be eliminated. I originally included it during my effort to consolidate all the different suburb wikipage styles and found a few suburbs were including disbanded/retired groups, so in order to retain that information I included it in the template. Let me be honest here, I think the way the categories are setup right now works. I'm against trying to ultra-define every possible group type or try to make every category "PC". So long as the groups decide where they belong the categories will serve as generic guidelines by which players can then dig deeper for themselves.

In summary, I think "Zombie", "Survivor", and "Hostile" are solid headers for groups. "Historical" could potentially be eliminated if the groups were instead recorded in the suburb history. IMHO, Dual Nature doesn't need its own category (as stated above). And those are my thoughts on the matter. If you have any other questions for me, feel free to ask, I'm always willing to help where the UD Wiki is involved. --Mobius 13:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's start wrapping up

I have tried to include things that people have identified as issues we would like to / might need community opinions on. Please read through and if you have suggestions with the phrasing or additional things that should be asked, well, please add them! -MHSstaff 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we should just dump the list of names at end, and not even go there...-MHSstaff 23:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
TM doesn't actually mean what you defined it as. Players engaging in TM tactics do indeed play on both sides, but they fight for one side at all times, hence why their tactics are called TM. In a sense, you could say that anyone who isn't DN is TM, since they are the antithesis of each other. Survivors frequently engage in TM tactics (congregating at revive points being the most obvious example), while zombies do so as well sometimes (suicide jumping might be considered a weak form of one, and death culting most certainly is one). DN and TM basically get at the question of whether or not the player stays in-character or not when they are dead or alive. If they do, they're DN. If they don't, they're TM. There are some more nuances than that, obviously, but in broad strokes those generalizations apply. Aichon 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
And you would change it to.... -MHSstaff 04:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd be in the group that chose option #2, indicating that I like the idea, but think it needs a better name. :) In all seriousness though, the term I used before was multi-mortal, which I just coined. I'm sure we can think of something better, but there's never really been a single catch-all phrase for these types of groups, other than "Other". I don't like mentioning problems without giving a solution to them, but I'm at a loss too of how to label these sorts of groups in a way that works well. Aichon 15:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We'll go with the ultra-creative "Combined Zombie/Survivor Groups" for now I guess. -MHSstaff 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That works. Gets the point across and is simple enough. And sorry for being such a pain. It seems like I've ended up being someone that complains and doesn't offer anything. I'm not out to be "that guy", just so you know, and I definitely am very grateful that you're putting all of this together in such a well thought out manner. I just wish I had more to offer, but I'm at a loss for the terms to use and what ideas need to be discussed. Aichon 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a change to the DN/TM poll point, leaving the last question more open ended. ~Vsig.png 00:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Update Guidelines

Sorry I know this is a bit last minute and it hasn't been discussed a whole lot but perhaps we can update the guidelines a bit to help cut down on the listing disagreements. I've been struggling with the language I would suggest and I'm not sure we need to decide on anything during this poll, but perhaps we should get public opinion on it. The template guidelines should be updated to help decrease the amount of disputes over group listings. I agree or I disagree. Thoughts? ~Vsig.png 15:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is more about instructions /guidance on how to add your groups yes? -MHS
That could be added yes, but I'm thinking more along the lines of language that prevents or at least decreases the need for the kinds of arbitration cases like the one we just saw. The only other Arbies case I found in which there was a major dispute over group listing was Jack's Cold Sweat vs TZH and the arbiter basically said that a groups actions define their classification. If we were to use that as precedent (we shouldn't IMO because the case was considered null and non-binding) then something to the tune of A group's actions define their classification to the guidelines. Again, I'm not sure that we'll be able to come to an agreement on added guidelines before the poll opens, but something like this might be a step towards finding a compromise between those who want a system with better classification and those who want a system with better conflict resolution. ~Vsig.png 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)staff 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
What do the guidelines say now? -MHSstaff 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are the current guidelines:
  1. Each group category is its own list, and each list of groups should be sorted in alphabetical order.
  2. Group names must be links to the wiki pages for those groups. They shouldn't link to other articles (e.g. buildings or other locations), nor should they just be plain text.
  3. When "a", "an", or "the" are at the start of a group name, ignore them for purposes of alphabetization. E.g. "The Burchell Arms Regulars" would come before "Malton Police Department" since "B" comes before "M".
  4. Always include a group icon. If the group currently does not have a group icon, use the [[Image:NoGroupIcon.jpg|25px]] icon instead. It looks like this: NoGroupIcon.jpg
  5. The group icon should always be scaled to 25x25 or smaller. In the case that an image is larger include the |25px]] to scale it down to a reasonable size (its height must still be 25px or less).
  6. If the group name is too long (i.e. wraps below the group icon) consider using an acronym (e.g. "Dunell Hills Police Department" = "DHPD")
  7. Organizations of groups (e.g. DEM, South West Alliance, Dulston Alliance) should not be added to the listing.
Pretty generic. No instructions for which group to pick or why. Good thing? Bad thing? ~Vsig.png 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We can just ask if people are happy with that or if they would like to see examples/guidance on what the categories mean and stuff. -MHSstaff 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If they say yes, I say we should just dump all the work on updating the guidelines/examples on Mobius. To reward thank celebrate his Group organizing efforts. ;-p -MHSstaff 20:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
An open ended question works fine. ~Vsig.png 20:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This was indeed the whole crux of the arbies case. It was all about who decides on which grounds how groups get classified, not about the categories at all. (Except possibly by getting rid of categories, making that question just a moot point rather than actually resolving it.) That's also why I was so silent, since this template discussion didn't really cover what the arbies case was about. -- Spiderzed 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If this poll does not cover all the points, then now is the time to speak up. I opened up a new discussion point below. We can add another poll point based on discussion. I think we can come to some sort of consensus about this subject through the poll and possibly eliminate the need for arbies during conflicts. Or maybe the consensus is that its just always hadled that way. Either way we should get the public opinion. ~Vsig.png 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like we may want to get an answer to some version of the following two questions:
  • Do you the think the current guidelines are clear on how to classify your group?
  • Some version of "How much freedom / leeway / whatever should Groups have on deciding how they are listed?" -MHSstaff 20:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Moar open ended. The template guidelines should be updated. I Agree or I Disagree. Participants can justify their reasons for a change if they agree. ~Vsig.png 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
But...but...but...that makes it harder for me to manipulate the question in order to subtly get my own POV across. Added. -MHSstaff 20:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it over and came to the conclusion that we probably do need a more specific poll point on the subject. We can leave the one about updating guidelines and then add a new one addressing some specific points. I know earlier you said you were going to be gone for a week so if you're ok with it I'll add a new point and open the poll when its time. Just let me know if you're ok with that. ~Vsig.png 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It makes sense and it is worth doing. If you can add the point after getting feedback and start the poll, that would help me out a lot. -MHSstaff 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Last call...

So we do think this is "sorta" heading in a "useful direction"? If, so I will open it tomorrow. If not, well, what polling points are broken and how should we fix them? -MHSstaff 01:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up a couple of the poll point headers for clarity purposes. Mind if I change up the order of some of the poll points to make it flow a bit better?~Vsig.png 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure.-MHSstaff 03:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually the order is fine as it is. I tried a couple of different variations but this way seems best. ~Vsig.png 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Who decides how groups are Classified?

I'm going to open up discussion on this because it is really the crux of so much of the debate. We should make a poll point based on who decides how groups are classified. Currently, the general consesus is that a group's play style dictates how they are classified. Because play style is often subject to different interperutations, it leads to conflicts on listings. Should we as a community shift our thinking as to why and more to the point who dictates group Classification? Do groups have carte blance reign over their own Classification? Would it really make group listings less informative when a group classifies themselves in contrast to another group's interprutation to their play Style? Or should we just elimnate the categories, making the point Moot? The are the question we should be asking. ~Vsig.png 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The groups themselves do. If someone has a problem with the group's self-placement, they can get into an edit war, be taken to arbies, and (if precedent holds) lose. Anything else is bound to be too time-consuming, drama-causing, and counterproductive. Outsiders rarely have anything close to a clear view of how a group operates, simply because they do not know what is going on internally, and are thus unable to make any kind of informed judgment without what would amount to an arbie-like presentation of evidence, or a long-term period of stalking the group in-game. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I happen to agree that groups should be the ones to decide. But either the community is split in that deciscion or it isn't explicit because others are taking it upon themselves to reclassify groups based on their perception of a group's play style. That's why there was a recent arbies case. A third party arbiter is needed to step in and rule in disputes. If you look, there has been only one other arbies case in which classification was being disputed. And precedent wasn't set then because the case was made null. Can we eliminate future arbitration by creating precedent here? Even if we can't, isn't it worth trying? ~Vsig.png 01:35, 6 March 2011
Yep, we should ask it as part of the poll. I'm with DT, personally. The only group capable of classifying a group is the group itself. No one else can be aware of their motivations or actions to the extent that they are aware of them, so no one else is qualified to make the call. After all, we would classify random acts of killing as Hostile, but targeted acts against a warring group as a form of Survivor activity. Same action, different motivation, and only the one engaging in the action can tell us how it's intended. I would suggest requiring that groups only be allowed to list themselves under one heading, but that it is solely up to them to decide under which heading they list themselves. If we coupled this idea with a renaming of "Hostile" to "Other", I think we'd solve virtually every problem currently plaguing the system. Aichon 02:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Polling Open

I added the point from above and opened polling. Please keep discussion on the poll to a minimum, using this discussion page instead whenever possible. The poll will conclude on March 16th. ~Vsig.png 08:46, 6 March 2011

Holy fucking hell. Couldn't you have made it a bit more confusing? -- boxy talkteh rulz 11:48 6 March 2011 (BST)
i agree that took way longer than i expected.-- HEY! HANDS OFF MAH BOOBS!   bitch   COBRA!   אמת 11:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Meh, at least this way something will be done about it and all the issues are being covered. It might have taken longer and been a bit more confusing during discussion but most things worth doing aren't ever easy. ~Vsig.png 17:49, 6 March 2011
It took longer but part of that is figuring out what we wanted to learn from the community. Yeah, we could have just had folks pick between status quo and alternative naming conventions, but we learn a lot more this way. -MHSstaff 00:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hostile" a misnomer?

So it's been raised a few times on the poll and during discussion that the word "Hostile" should be changed to something else. Some just think that "Other" should replace it, and some think that we need to come up with a better word. So IF we are to change the word hostile, what should we change it to? Current suggestions are for "Other" to replace it and "Independent" has been put forward. Are there any other suggestions? We already know that a lot of people just want to do away with categories or this one specifically so this isn't a discussion point about that. Just want to know if there are any other opinions about possible other names. ~Vsig.png 15:10, 11 March 2011

Either are probably fine, and hostile is indeed a bit misleading. If you're not getting enough input by the way, just implement something and see if anyone complains. If not, then it's okay. --  AHLGTG 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Could be remedied by linking the heading to the PKer page, mayhaps? If that is indeed what people want the heading to be for.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Too limiting IMO. That said, since the winds seem to be blowing in the direction of improving the template guidelines, we should probably think about linking the Category Names (Survivor / Zombie/ Hostile) to either examples or more information on what they actually mean in the Template Guidelines. -MHSstaff 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and started the article Play Style that could possibly be used for the purpose of linking from the guidelines. ~Vsig.png 17:00, 13 March 2011
Other and Independent are the only two that come to mind for me. Also, as the Gnome. See how much kickback you get if it is changed.-MHSstaff 19:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
What about PKer groups? Its such a common play style that really it can have its own category. Add other to the list as a catch all for other "hostile" groups. ~Vsig.png 16:19, 13 March 2011
I dearly wish to strangle all of you with your internet cords. Player Killer is what everyone who has ever killed another person in this game is. Zombie killers, "bounty hunters", revenge killers, unprovoked killers, zombies, etc. "Player Killer" is a dumb name that came to this game from some horrible other mmo that nobody plays anymore. PKER is a misnomer and nobody likes it. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 02:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really no. --  AHLGTG 03:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Misnomer or not, that's what this community calls it and I don't think we'll be changing anyone's mind. Not here. Probably never. I personally think "zerg" is a horrible name for multi abusers but well that's what we call it. Other than not being a fan of PKer, do you have any other suggestions for a replacement word for Hostile? ~Vsig.png 04:01, 15 March 2011
Were anyone to label a suburb group as "zerger" I'd tell them to look into "Multi-Abuser".
But alternatives to Hostile and PKer? Yes, yes I do. Greifer Faggot comes to mind. As do the poetic Internet Sociopath and Mouth-Breathing Retard. I suggest you just accept one of these three, and move on before their various shit-sucking White Knights come to defend them, and tell you that Hostile is perfectly fine because human-killers are almost always hostile to everyone (they don't like zombies much either, because zombies don't like them).
Also, gnome, I may be misinterpreting your reply to me above, but if you're telling me that I'm wrong, you're literally as dumb as people who think that murderers are as bad as multi-abusers. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 04:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
PKer is not an improvement over Hostile for the reasons DT points out. -MHSstaff 04:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary Conclusions

So the poll is closing in a couple of days and I thought I'd offer my opinion on where I think we stand. MHSStaff will post his own conclusions on the poll after it closes. Just want to make sure we're sort of on the same page. Keep in mind that these conclusions are not binding and some compromise between the majority and the minority will be implemented.

Nearly half of the poll participants have stated that they do not wish to see the system changed, however most of those participants also stated in the poll that they would like to see some change, minor or otherwise. Therefore it's an acceptable conclusion that some changes take place, although they should remain minimal.

The majority of participants want the guidelines to be updated. From discussion and feedback on the poll, there should be some form of help on how to pick a category for your group. We may also allow organizations to be listed with group names indented below them. The guidelines will also likely be updated to acknowledge that groups have the final say on which category their groups are listed under, as the poll point about who decides groups classification seems to indicate that is how it should be decided.

Many participants don't really care if there are conflicts based on group classification and feel that the current system doesn't need to be updated. An equal number of participants feel that the system should be updated to address both issues. Again, the simplest compromise here is to make minimal changes.

There are two types of changes that the poll seems to indicate that people want to see made. Either eliminate the categories altogether or add "Other" and change the term "Hostile". It is difficult to come to a compromise here since we have to choose one. However, the justification for eliminating the categories seems to be that it will eliminated conflicts and because other measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate conflicts, it should be acceptable to keep the categories and make some minor changes. To reinforce this idea, the poll points following this seem to indicate that both group names and group types are important to most people.

Groups that are not easily classified and DN groups will have "Other" category added for them but they will be able to choose whichever classification they feel best suits their group. Groups choosing the "Other" category would be able to further classify their group by adding a one-or-two word descriptor before their group name.

The community seems to be split as to how this information should be displayed on the template and so we see support for several different classification systems. The list was not complete in fact and a "None of the above" point was added after the poll opened. MHSStaff even considered taking this part of the poll out. So based on all the info above, the most compromising system i can think of is this:

  • Pro-Survivor Groups
  • Pro-Zombie Groups
  • (Some other word for Hostile) Groups
  • Other Groups

Accompanied with updated guidelines that

  1. Outline how groups should be chosen
  2. Indicate that groups are ultimately responsible for classifying their own group

Does that about sum it all up for everyone? ~Vsig.png 16:41, 14 March 2011

Just commenting on the bold part, perhaps PKer Groups (or Player Killer) makes the most sense, but it isn't much perdy methinks. --  AHLGTG 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. That's the word I would use. ~Vsig.png 22:28, 14 March 2011

I've closed the poll. I'll write up a summary of the results later today. -MHSstaff 00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think your summary is pretty solid. We should just use that. -MHSstaff 03:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Fun fact - more people voted that they didn't want to see it changed, and that they were against changing the system at all than those that were in favor of actually changing it. None of this "nearly half" of them, it's over half of them. 17-16. Dealwithit.gif --DTPraise KnowledgePK 04:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you may have overlooked the point. This isn't a vote. Yes, about half of the people said they don't want change or they don't care, but the other half said they do. Clearly there needs to be compromise to reach some form of consensus. Nobody will be totally satisfied yet nobody should be totally dissatisfied. If you see a better compromises, then out with it, man. ~Vsig.png 04:36, 16 March 2011
I think updating the guidelines is a no-brainer. The only other thing that could be supported from this poll -- and it would carry some controversy -- would be adding "Other," especially since one of the respondents in the "Don't change" category was actually ok with adding "Other." Actually, a lot of people in the don't change category are ok with adding other. The other thing that is important is getting across the idea that groups, and groups alone, dictate where they are placed. -MHSstaff 04:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The guidelines should in very clear terms state that groups are the responsible for classifying themselves. That's how we get the point across. And yes "Other" is a definite. And if we can't come up with a better word for Hostile and PKer doesn't cut it, then just leave it until someone has an epiphany of some sort. ~Vsig.png 05:05, 16 March 2011
I'd reword the part that DT is talking about to "community opinion is split" because that is really what it is. -MHSstaff 04:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that's fine. However you want to word it. The above was mostly just stream of conscience calling it how I saw it and asking if other agreed. You may have a slightly different interpretation of the poll or would word things differently. ~Vsig.png 05:05, 16 March 2011

So I wrote in a quick and detailed summary based on how I would interpret the poll, and Vapor's points. Can someone please go through it and see if it makes sense?-MHSstaff 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. I like how you gave a summary and a detailed conclusion. And putting in a trial period makes sense as a compromise. I wish we had nailed down the hostile issue but perhaps that just means hostile is already the best phrase given the current system. ~Vsig.png 22:25, 16 March 2011
If no one else has an objections, I'll declare the results and poll closed sometime tomorrow. -MHSstaff 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems like this has reached a nice, fun happy place. -
MHSstaff 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A rather pointless observation...

This poll makes me wonder why this wiki doesn't have that poll wikicode I see ever so often on a Wikia wiki... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Our wiki software is rather shitty. ~Vsig.png 00:22, 16 March 2011
Personal tools