User talk:Pesatyel

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Regarding your vote here, Keep/Change votes are perfectly reasonable. It means that they're willing to accept the suggestion as it is, but would prefer it to be implemented in a slightly different way. Essentially, it's making a small prayer to Kevan, saying "Would you please consider making it this way if this gets implemented?". --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:36, 9 August 2008 (BST)

I'm not the first to point out that "change" is not a valid vote. It just hasn't cropped up in a long time. There was a LOT of dicussion about it, maybe a year ago (or a few months, I'm not sure) about it. Everything is hard to find now, but I recall a lot of people saying what I said. Just the fact that it hasn't been necessary in a long time, nobody cares. I can do research, if you want, to find the discussions and/or suggestions. Kevan does what HE wants. The suggestions are a consensus of what we think we want to see and the way we want to see it. I think it would make for a stronger showing if all the keep votes were unanimous.--Pesatyel 05:47, 10 August 2008 (BST)
It's a simple fact that very few suggestions make it to Peer Reviewed. If everyone who disagreed even with the slightest of details voted Kill, it would be practically impossible to get to Peer Reviewed. It's much better that they voice their minor concerns as a Keep/Change. And they should voice their concerns. It's also a simple fact that Kevan implements very few suggestions as they were suggested. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:47, 10 August 2008 (BST)
True, I suppose it IS moot, but I COULD look up the discussion if you want. I just don't have the inclination to since I have some personal shit going on right now.--Pesatyel 05:57, 13 August 2008 (BST)


I thought you should know, [1], Undecided is a vote result, it means that there wasn't 2/3rds majority of keeps or kills, if a suggestion is filed as undecided it is valid for duping purposes and underwent a full two weeks vote.--Karekmaps?! 12:44, 4 August 2008 (BST)

All We are saying... is give Templates a Chance

Peaceatyale.jpg Play on Names
This user received a template with his likeness. Get it? Let me break it down.
P.E.A.C.E. At Yale.
Peace At Yale.
Educated and "above the hoi poloi" peaceful. Much more so than those Harvard chaps.

Making lots and lots of templates for all the good active wiki peoples out there.
“Virtuous people often revenge themselves for the constraints to which they submit by the boredom which they inspire.” - Confucious
How do I read this?
I'm bored, so it has inspired me to make virtual templates. Submit!
Enjoy the template --Tselita 18:54, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Nail gun suggestion

Hi Pesatyel. I just put my nail gun suggestion up for a vote, and I'm thinking that with that, I probably shouldn't also put the M-11 pistol up for a vote for a couple of reasons - 1) I think that any sort of changing of the armory pistol clip rates will get it spammed to death, 2) Basically the nail gun -does- do everything the M-11 does, and it makes more sense that it would bypass a flak than an M-11 bullet would, 3) It's probably more in the flavor of a zombie movie/game genre, where survivors would be grabbing improvised weapons. What do you think? --Tselita 21:20, 5 May 2008 (BST)

The NT Update suggestion

Pesatyel, I'm a bit confused. I thought you liked the suggestion - you said "It makes sense to me. I think Memories of Life needs to be improved anyway. I mean it's called Memories of Life, not Memories of Doorknobs" ... I'm not really understanding why you voted kill if you liked the idea and felt that MoL needs to be improved. --Tselita 07:12, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I just feel this would hurt players in a way. I do believe MoL needs improvement, I just don't think THIS particular way works well for that, based on all the reading and discussion. I'm not sure I can explain at the momemt (I"ve got a bad headache and need to get some sleep since I've only been getting like 4 hours a night and I have to be up early). But one thing that came to mind was that zombies are "getting smarter" and this would make low levels "dumb" if they managed to get revived and obtain NT Employment before MoL. I just feel it would be best if it was a "starting effect" rather than something that suddenly pops up 2 years after the quarantine started. My comment about MALTON was that I believe Monroeville should be "restarted" as there are a lot of suggestions that get killed because they don't "fit" as suddenly appearing in Malton so long into the quarantine. The kinds of suggestions that would actually work if the game started fresh. This seems like one of them. Not sure that makes any sense. Maybe I'll rethink things over the weekend, once I get a good night's sleep.--Pesatyel 07:26, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Striking Votes

Do not strike Dupe votes, dupe votes will be considered for validity after the fact, when things are being counted up. Only strike unsigned votes or non author res. A Dupe vote does not need a link because it is asking for someone else to provide a link to a dupe, if that link is never provided the sysop or user who tallys the final vote is meant to disregard the dupe. You can shuffle through my talk page if you want to see precedent for this, but that is the way it's been done for a very very long time.--Karekmaps?! 02:56, 11 September 2007 (BST)


Don't forget to define your vote. right now you only list your reasons not the actual vote. Vote Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. that way it is easier to see how correct your vote is. Especially in the Dupe/Spam column, were multiple choices aply.--Vista 09:23, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Personally I'm a huge fan of just giving critiques instead of keep/kill. Problem is that duping a suggestion needs only one link, but 3 votes. If I recall correctly yesterday you voted spam on a suggestion, but Funt and I voted dupe with him providing a link. At that point your vote definition does matter if only to prevent discussions if the suggestion is removed. I do want to stress that this all wasn't meant as a rebuke or something. But merely to aviod confussion.
that said. Spam and dupe seem mostly irrelevant these days. I've gone through the archives but the last few months almost none of the suggestions were removed on one of those grounds. Perhaps a system change recognizing that might won't hurt.--Vista 09:02, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Say Hello

Thanks a lot for your opinions on my suggestion. I was too impolite while replying the posts. Sorry for that. However, I do believe that some protection on the protable generators and radio transmitters are needed, just got to have a better way than I suggested. Do you like to have some discussion with me so that we can have a better solutions on this ? -- Smore 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Psychic Zombies

The precedence, as stated in the body of the suggestion, is from existing zombie films, particularly "The Land of the Dead", where the zombies are better organized. Zizanie13 22:12, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Actually "Land" is the ONLY movie of that type and it was only because of one single "leader" type zombie. But you DID provide the information I wanted., what was the suggestion again?--Pesatyel 06:59, 5 June 2006 (BST)
It got vandalized for whatever reason, but the idea boiled down to let high level zombies be able to comminucate telepathicly to other high level zombies nearby. Zizanie13 15:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)
LOL! you're FOR zombies with psychic powers, but AGAINST suvivors having them? RICH!--Squid Boy 13:54, 24 August 2007 (BST)


I invite your comments regarding Passive Defenses here. --Reverend Loki 23:12, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Re: Add Major Tactical Resource Point

Thank you for clarifying where it [Add Major Tactical Resource Point] should go. (I didn't know, haven't done much more than agreed with really good suggestions or voted spam on bad ones. I try to stay away from the suggestions page.) Hopefully Dan will move it to the talk page now. –Xoid STFU! 03:34, 15 May 2006 (BST)

A request

You commented on This suggestion, however I get the feeling you didn't read the whole thing. You said that the zombie seeing the person looking at them wouldn't help them at all because the person can freerun to another building dispite the fact that a zombie with Scent trail would know if they were still there or where they went if they aren't. How is an even exchange of information not balanced? --Teksura 06:30, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Fix it. Quick.

You placed that comment on his user page. –Xoid STFU! 05:54, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Shouldn't I have? How else do I respond?--Pesatyel 06:28, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Comments go on the talk page. User page editing is considered vandalism by most users. (Rare exceptions exist where it's good faith, but they are exceptions.) –Xoid STFU! 06:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Oh, my bad. I don't normally deal with people's personal pages on the wiki, so thanks for the clarification. I realized my mistake (not clicking on the "discussion" link at the top of his page). I didn't realize there was a difference.--Pesatyel 06:45, 5 June 2006 (BST)
N/P. I didn't think this was a case of actual vandalism since you seemed to be replying to him. –Xoid STFU! 06:51, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Nah, I just couldn't find WHERE to reply to him. I'll be more careful.--Pesatyel 06:54, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Suggestion's Page

Hey, you're one of the only users on, and i'm having a little trouble. You can see the 3rd, 4th and 5th votes on the Virus Resistance Shots suggestion? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 05:43, 12 July 2006 (BST)

Nevermind, it's fixed =D --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 05:53, 12 July 2006 (BST)
It was my sig: It uses characters such as "|", that the wiki uses when building tables. Looks like that made conflict with the suggestion's template. Nothing a few <nowiki> tags can't solve XD --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:00, 12 July 2006 (BST)

Barricade Suggestion

Hey there, I posted a suggestion on the talk page a while ago and got the impression you'd be willing to vote keep for it, and it's on the main suggestion page now and I'd appreciate as many keeps as I can get before it gets spammed. Hope it's satisfactory to your wishes!--Burgan 20:05, 28 July 2006 (BST)

User page

You should get a user page, man. Your name is all red. It makes you look newbie-ish. ;) –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 02:53, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I agree with Bob, get a user page please. The Red makes you look new.--Canuhearmenow 19:27, 19 August 2006 (BST)

Lie In Wait

There isn't any free action... Playing dead isn't actually being dead (and having the associated cost to stand up), rather it is a status effect like an infection. To remove that status effect either the zombie has to spend 1 AP, or a harman has to spend enough AP to hit them with an axe, etc. I do agree that "playing dead" creates too much confusion with the actual "dead" status & I've revised the suggestion accordingly. Thank you, Rheingold 07:48, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Promotion Bid

I don't know if you know, but I'm running for sysop status, and I'm getting very little feedback. Because of that, may I ask you to check the bid and, if you wish, cast a vote? Even if it's a negative one, it will help a lot. If you want a shortcut, there's a link to the bid on my signature. Thanks in advance Pesatyel! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 06:35, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Militia Suggestion

Hi, I posted a suggestion on the talk page a while ago and got the impression you'd be willing to vote keep for it, and it's on the main suggestion page now and I'd appreciate as many keeps as I can get before it gets spammed / killed. (Of course, you may not like it anymore.) --Funt Solo 12:16, 22 September 2006 (BST)

Wake the dead

I've put up a new version of wake the dead, with a few revisions. It's under 26th of october, if you want to vote on it. The Mad Axeman 10:13, 27 October 2006 (BST)

Revive Cost

I don't think it's that cheap. 21 AP is still a pretty heft chunk of your day's actions. This just gets rid of a benefit designed to help zombies if you're not a zombie. I think it's outrageous that every tactical consideration makes playing a zombie the bad choice if you want zombies to win! --Jon Pyre 09:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't think they should have a time limit since that defeats the point. You want the longest dead players to show up first so they can finally have their wait end. I mean I know this is a war but it's also a game. Not having to wait longer for a revive than everyone else makes things a bit more fun. It can be a bit frustrating after day three or four when you see plenty of reviving bodies around you.

And this doesn't violate zombie anonymity. You can't pick members out of a horde unless you have them in your contacts. This just allows people to give you their profile links. I don't think that's overpowered since survivors can already scan for profile links and zombies can already mrh to give links. This just prevents any one person from waiting too long. --Jon Pyre 07:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's really a limited amount of things a mrh cow can do besides wait at a revive point. As for difficulty, don't get me wrong. Reviving shouldn't be too easy. But this doesn't make reviving easier. If zombies are winning in that neighborhood this won't make any more of the living. It just prevents frustration from setting in. I view the game as a game and figure it should be fun. Dying shouldn't be easy to get out of but if you've been waiting long enough that you're at the upper end of this list I think fun takes precedence over "screw you for dying! wait another week!" --Jon Pyre 08:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Law Enforcement

The thing about PKing is it does require some kind of counter that does not require the presence of survivors. Barricades protect survivors while they're logged off thus negating the need for autodefense. To fairly balance PKing either their needs to be a limited automatic defense (which in this case doesn't really violate the purpose of the rule in Dos and Donts) or the ability to build something to protect yourself, like barricades, would be necessary. Since I doubt indoor anti-PK barricades would work well this is the only way. --Jon Pyre 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Every suggestion that lowered the attack % of one survivor attacking another has been voted down on the basis of it making it too hard for Bounty Hunters to kill PKers they find. This suggestion affects Bounty Hunters but allows them to explain their way out of the situation. I think it's very reasonable. Someone gets in the way after seeing you commit a crime, you can either fight your way out or talk your way out. I don't think this is an autodefense any more than Ransack is. Ransack prevents you from repairing it a building if zombies are present. This prevents you from escaping if a police is present. Both are negations of actions caused by what those characters would logically be doing. Zombies, even though their players are logged off, would attack you and prevent you from rebuilding. Survivors, even logged off, would try to stop you from leaving after witnessing a crime. --Jon Pyre 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It'd just be a token, and it seems that if you're actively spending AP you should get a greater benefit than just forcing yourself as a target. After all, ransack doesn't have a AP cost either. Your presence is all that's required. --Jon Pyre 05:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably just let it rest if it fails. It's not worth my time to argue eternally with a bunch of people trying to protect their own exploit. --Jon Pyre 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Backhand/Whatever It appears you misunderstood the suggestion... this would add 10% onto your melee accuracy, but any hits scored because of this 10% only deal 1 damage. So a baseball bat would be 25% chance of 2 damage, 10% chance of 1 damage and 65% chance of a clear miss. (My home net in banjaxed, can't access certain parts of the wiki in work. Is why I am replying here. Feel free to link to or copy and paste this response into the suggestion area) --Gene Splicer 11:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vote

This is old news, but I haven't been too active lately: Is it that hard to believe that for once a survivor isn't complaining about free-running?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 05:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember my suggestion that doctors should be civilians? Yeah, that one.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 00:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Who said it would be better? It was mostly because I didn't get how doctors are civilians. I still don't.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 06:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It's more like why, not how. I think of civilians as people that lived in Malton pre-outbreak, who weren't a part of the cause, just got caught up in the mess of things.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I probably should have been clearer.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You know there's a handy template you can use to change color without messy code that can backfire spectacularly. Said template--> {{c}} I would edit it myself, but the last thing I need is a mod after me for editing a public page again.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you deleted the text that prevented the entire page from being turned red? Again, I would fix it, but you know, mods will be mods. You would probably have something that could be seen as a valid reason for the edit, just copy/paste "</font color>" after "while a zombie is present." on Jon Pyre's Fortifications suggestion.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 04:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unload Weapons.

Thanks for your help, so far! I submitted the version we did last, but it wasn't going anywhere fast. In fact, it was definitely not going anywhere. Most of them didn't like the fact that the clip loader was an item. I revised it in the discussion page, and changed it so that clicking on a partially-full pistol creates a partial clip, which acts exactly as the clip loader did, except that it disappears when empty, and you don't find it. Do you think this should be able to be loaded back into a pistol, or not? -Mark 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's renamed to "Remove Shell/Clips" as that's more appropriate. I removed the questions section, leaving a clarification against Redistribute Ammo, and moved the example to its own page, with a link. Give it a look and I'll see about submitting it. -Mark 01:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mournful Moan

That's the risk any zombie takes in attacking the barricades of a building. That's why a feeding groan would be prerrable. Feeding Groan means "dinner is served". Mournful Moan means "a zombie did some work, will you finish the job?" There's no certainty for the zombie, but this certainly improves their odds of breaking into a building in the absence of a recent feeding groan. I don't see how there's a potential for griefing.--Jon Pyre 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

True, it could be used to lure zombies to a false target but you'd have to spend 25AP to do it and there's no guarantee another zombie won't undo your lure by attacking another building 5 seconds after you do. It'd would be very hard to grief. The only real threat is that the zombie might have made a bad guess and the building will be empty. But zombies already have to put up with that. This is a lot better than starting from scratch. Also, empty buildings are barricaded less frequently so it isn't likely an empty building would divert more than one zombie before the cades went down and moans from another building quickly replaced the current one. --Jon Pyre 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually the help zombies get the the benefit. The first player uses all their AP to weaken the barricades. The help zombie should be able to break in, groan, and get a few hits in. Then everyone else is attracted by the groan. --Jon Pyre 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Would you PLEASE lay OFF the CAPS LOCK BUTTON?--Gage 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better way of emphasizing something, let me know.--05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
How about italics? How about you just let your words speak for themselves? That always works too. Caps lock just makes you look like a 12 year old.--Gage 05:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Competing Grasp

There's no xp benefit for the other zombies but having more survivors die benefits every zombie. --Jon Pyre 14:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true in any case. What benefit xp benefit does a zombie get for using Feeding Groan? What xp benefit is there to attacking barricades at EH since there's no chance you'll get in? The overall goal of zombies is to kill survivors. The overall goal of survivors is to live. XP is way of earning skills that further you towards that goal but xp itself is not the goal. Anything that works towards your goal is beneficial, and after a certain point how much xp you have is unimportant. --Jon Pyre 05:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

free run

thanks for the vote... seems no one else likes a fair(ish) playing feild but hey, what did i expect... --Honestmistake 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

your current vote on cade level notice

Contradicts what you said previously on a Suggestion:Talk item (Talk:Suggestions/archive20#Advanced_Construction ) in which you even provided a Peer Rejected Dupe link. --SporeSore 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I think you may have misread. This doesn't work if the building is ransacked. The requirements are that it be unbarricaded AND unransacked as well as free of all other players. Then they just get about five searches before it needs to be barricaded up to heavy. So if it is ransacked then yes, they would have to repair the building. Then they could search about four or five terms before they cade up. --Jon Pyre 23:01, 8 April 2007 (BST)

Hi. russian?

I've only just noticed that your nickname is a meaningfull russian word. Do you speak russian? --~~~~T''' 08:38, 22 August 2007 (BST)

Regarding My Suggestion

On my suggestion Suggestion:20071020_Barricade_Text_Change_v2.0, you voted Kill because you thought that it was incomplete. What I meant by "OR" is that either one will appear; it is determined randomly. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks! --VkkhamulTalk U D E A D 04:10, 21 October 2007 (BST)


I've clarified the issue of multiple trails. I'd appreciate if you would reconsider your vote. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, limited by the map? If you mean what Jon Pyre said below you, then read my reply to him. If you mean something else, please explain. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 07:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you forgot the range. Secondly, since this is detecting ANY survivor, how does it work relative to another survivor nearby? A survivor enters your square, then moves 3 north. You scent him and move 1 north and discover a survivor 1 NE from your new position (not the same guy that crossed your path). Does the trail automatically fail since the point of it is to detect only the meat and not the specific meat? Or would it say there is a trail leading north still even though there is another viable target to the NE? Seems to me the only way this would work is if you follow the trail and no other survivors show up on the peripherals to the trail.--Pesatyel 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will help.--Karekmaps?! 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The length of the trail is only limited by the time limit (1 hour) the scents stay "active". Nearby survivors don't effect the trail unless they cross it (but if they're close enough for you to see them, there's nothing stopping you from eating them). If the discussion on karek's talkpage doesn't explain enough, please ask for more info. Also, next time please read the instructions (in red text) on my talk page before posting. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the instructions till after I had set the edit. I think I understand what Karek was getting at. A survivor cross your path and heads north. Two north, another survivor cross the path heading west. So you head two west and get turned east by a third survivor. Heading east you get turned north by a 4th survivor. And you have yet to actually FIND any of them. Where as the first guy that went north in the beginning was just 2 more north of where the first cross happened.--Pesatyel 07:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The timing would have to go just right for those kind of situations to happen with the first scent still being very strong (worth following) and the zombie not getting a glimpse of any of the survivors. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but very unlikely. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is though you still didn't say anything about the range. Waht's to stop a zombie from trailing a survivor all the way across the city (barring going inside and AP)? Even the other tracking type skills have range limitations. That combined with my example could be bad. The zombie is trailing someone north who is 5 squares ahead. But 3 squares ahead the path is crossed going east. Now it's possible the north trail is fresher, but if it WAS there wouldn't BE an east trail at all. Therefore the trail would turn east. Now there is a good chance of finding the survivor traveling east, but what if they are too far away (ie you don't see them on the map)? There is the possibiliy of the trail getting crossed again. Basically, the longer the range, the greater the chance of getting lead astray for nothing.--Pesatyel 06:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Common sense and boredom is what's going to stop a zombie from trailing a survivor all the way across the city. You follow the trail one block at a time and thus can stop anytime. If there's someone 5 squares ahead and someone crosses the path 3 squares ahead, you've just jumped two squares closer to a survivor. If you're 3 squares behind a survivor, another survivor can cross the path only at 3 or 2 squares ahead without the zombie seeing it. If that's at three squares, it means the two survivors are in the same block and the trail will lead to the one who leaves last. If that's at 2, then you're one square closer to a survivor than you were. This is what I meant when I said "every time survivors' paths cross, it is in the zombie's advantage" on karek's talkpage. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, that pretty much makes the skill useless because there is no guarantee of anything and a pretty decent chance you'll waste all your AP for nothing.--Karekmaps?! 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking too. At least with a range limit a zombie wouldn't keep thinking "one more square" (I see that happening often, possibly). Of course on the other hand, a survivor would possibly just get out of range (but then they can do that anyway, what with entering buildings or they way they can with the other scent skills). I don't think the idea is bad, just needs more restraints.--Pesatyel 02:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather have it unlimited. First, I don't like limiting things when there is no real need or reason for it, second, people should be able to limit themselves and third, it would complicate the implementation. Though I understand your point, I have trouble fitting in my head that a feature would be more useful if it was more limited :). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the simple thing would just be a limitation of 10 squares like Scent Trail. Even trained hunting/search animals lose trails over time, ESPECIALLY in a city setting. Besides, from the way you describe it there are inherent limitations to begin with since the scope of the suggestion is so much more generalized the Scent Trail.--Pesatyel 10:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It already has a limitation: time. Besides, this discussion is starting to get a little academic, seeing how the voting will close today or tomorrow :). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


It never ceases to amaze me what people think are humourous. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:34, 30 May 2008 (BST)


Please don't remove comments form others, the page is not under your ownership, you cannot remove comments from others. Doing so is vandalism. This is an unofficial warning, take him to arbies or A/VB if you feel.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:18, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Well darn, you said more while I was trying to Roll back and replace the comments you removed. Sorry for removing your comment. Add yours and Zombie Lords back in please?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:22, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Suggestion:20090621 Outside Barricades Notifications

You can already see when a zombie outside breaks down the barricades, if that's what you were implying in your vote. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I found you an owl!

He'll lead you to a prize, but don't be fooled!

                 | 0  0 |
   Whoo!!        |  \/  |
                 /       \
     Whoo!!     |     |;;;|
                |     |;;;|          \   \
                |      \;;|           \\//
                 \       \|           / /
------------------(((--(((------------\ \----------,
 --  ___  ----  __ ---   ____   ---- _____ -- __ - \
 __ --   __ -- _____ --- __  ----  ___  ---- __ -- /
---------------/ /---------------\  \--------------`
               \ \               / /
                //\             //
                \               \\

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lelouch (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.


Suggestion:20070704 Barricade Alerts -- boxy talkteh rulz 20:58 24 August 2009 (BST)

Well darn. I mean, yay! *stumbles off* --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 21:32, 24 August 2009 (BST)
I'm not sure if he's trying to suggest that is a dupe because the suggestion is from Undecided.--Pesatyel 04:43, 25 August 2009 (BST)
Ah, sorry - didn't know about the Undecided list. What does that mean, exactly? Kevan or some group will look at it and make a final decision? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmadsen (talkcontribs) 04:10, August 25, 2009.
Voting here is only a way of organising and improving suggestions. Kevan is the one that makes the final decision on what to put into the game. Being peer reviewed/undecided only makes it more likely that he'll notice it -- boxy talkteh rulz 10:10 25 August 2009 (BST)
Undecided basically means a suggestion didn't quite get enough keep votes to make Peer Review. The original idea, as I understand it, was that the "almost made it to PR" type of suggestions went to Undecided so that, later, they could be resurrected and discussed again and/or tinkered with (especially if some significant game change occured). The problem, now, is that suggestion never GO to Undecided anymore. Either they are easily kept or quickly spammed. Or worse, given the ambiguous "dupe" vote (in which if the same word appears in both ideas it is automatically considered a dupe). The reason I even brought it up is that there are people that would say it WAS a dupe, even though it was in Undecided.--Pesatyel 05:42, 25 August 2009 (BST)
Undecided suggestions are eligible for duping, they're workable suggestions that simply didn't get a clear majority (PR) -- boxy talkteh rulz 09:58 25 August 2009 (BST)
Then all those suggestion should be moved to Peer Rejected, should they not? How does that work exactly that they are considered "dupeable"?--Pesatyel 07:18, 26 August 2009 (BST)

I moved the above from DS, because that suggestion was scheduled for removal soon.
I don't see your point. All suggestions that have gone through voting can be used to dupe new suggestions that are the same. Peer reviewed, undecided, peer rejected and spamminated... why should undecided by any different, it's just the place that suggestions that got between 50% and 66% of the vote, go -- boxy talkteh rulz 10:40 30 August 2009 (BST)

Your user page.

I don't believe that there isn't anything to see there, and refuse to move along. Do I win a prize?

Also, trolls are their own worst enemy; left alone, they will eventually destroy themselves. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Horse shit, I'm still here.-- SA 02:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You're a troll SA? I thought you were just a large gnome with opinions and a bridge complex... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ladders Suggestion

Hi, you forgot to sign your vote on Suggestion:20100206 Ladders. Once you go ahead and sign it, you can delete my cross-out and stuff, but you probably know that already. --ZsL 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools