User talk:Zeug

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Add your comment

Gerbil.gif Here, have a Gerbil!
Dr'Brainz has given Zeug a gerbil for helping out with Extinction!

ZEUGYYYYYYYYYYY Nice going in Shearbank. Also, god damn you for killing me.

Regarding wiki alt warnings and proxy IP's

Stop hand.png
Please do not create alternate accounts on this wiki. Continuing this behaviour may lead to your editing privileges being revoked.-- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:37, 29 April 2007 (BST)

I absolutely reject this warning due to the fact it was given to me, and my friend O'Shea 2 was banned without warning, because we share the same ISP transparent proxy IP. I've explained and demonstrated the problem to the mods on this wiki but they either failed to understand it or ... whatever.

A note to all Australian wiki members: The vast majority of Australian internet users, whether they know it or not, are sent through a transparent proxy by their ISP. This is done to keep the international traffic (mostly to US sites like this wiki) to a minimum. Web caches lower traffic across the Pacific line and thus lower bandwidth costs in a very competitive market. What this means is that everyone from your locale using the same ISP may be identified by the same IP address.

If you'd like to check if you're behind a transparent proxy then go here.

What the wiki (and UD!) sees is your proxy IP which you may be sharing with friends in your location if they're using the same ISP to connect to the internet. My ISP has TWO proxy IP's in Perth, a city of over one million people! If you're behind a proxy and experiencing weird IP limits in UD, or triggering UD countermeasures by coordinating with friends, or getting flamed and libeled here on the wiki for "zerging", then you might want to make a simple change to another of your ISP's proxy servers. This is completely legal, both in terms of your paid internet connect and for accessing this wiki and UD itself. Most especially if you've already donated to UD in good faith.

All you need do is:

  1. Identify your proxy IP.
  2. Google your proxy IP along with your ISP's company name and the term "proxy" to find a list of other possible proxies.
  3. Then change your internet settings to use the new, completely legal proxy.
    1. In Firefox go to Preferences>Advanced>Network>Settings and add the new proxy IP.
    2. To simplify the process you can download the FF extension FoxyProxy.

There is a workaround available so that this wiki sees your real IP address that gets forwarded by your registered ISP, the sysadmin can edit LocalSettings.php and add $wgUseSquid = true; and I'm corresponding with the wiki owner Kevan to see if this can be done.

There are problems however with doing this for the UD game itself as it opens up the possibility for dedicated zergers to fake a forwarded address and bypass the server countermeasures and IP limit. Given that most US and I think EU users have direct connections and aren't affected by the proxy problem I very much doubt it can be fixed without extensive coding to check for legal proxy forwarded IP's and those that are forwarded by private firewalls or faked http headers.

I hope this information helps those who may be experiencing proxy problems here and in-game, feel free to leave comments and tell me how you go. --Zeug 11:00, 11 May 2007 (BST)

LUE UD Browser

Hey, I saw you posted an urbandead browser thingy on the LUE talk page and I was wondering, do you make these things, or can they be generated sort of thing, because I waswondering if it'd be possible to get one for my group The Grove. Anyway thanks x --MarieThe Grove on Tour 15:55, 25 June 2007 (BST)

Hi Marie, the UZM thingy is "United Zombies of Malton" and yes it's a simple php template that takes about 5 minutes to set up but unfortunately it's for Zombie or Zombie friendly groups only. Seeing as you're Grove and a resident of Judgewood next door to three Extinction Zones I can't offer it to you unless you can guarantee the Grove is going undead ... which would be freakin awesome :) --Zeug 20:07, 25 June 2007 (BST)

Oh well, thanks anyway. I think The Grove prefers living but at your rate we won't be for much longer ;) Are you guys planning to eat the whole suburb or just the resource buildings now? --MarieThe Grove on Tour 21:41, 26 June 2007 (BST)

The whole suburb down to the last barricaded brain, and then keep it that way. That's the game plan anyways, the total suppression of revival ergo "Extinction". Be interesting to see how it goes with two malls in neighboring suburbs. You sure The Grove wouldn't be interested in forming a zombie squad? Could be a nice change of pace while Extinction's in town :) --Zeug 21:54, 26 June 2007 (BST)

Now where would you find the fun it that- if we all became zombies you'd have no brains to eat and then you'd be bored, and anyway being alve is so much better for your health... --MarieThe Grove on Tour 15:51, 27 June 2007 (BST)

Well if we ever attain the ultimate abstract gameplay concept of total extinction I'll be sure tell you if it was fun or not :) ... Extinction is taking a basic mil sim approach to the game, squad based assaults against strategic resources followed by active defence and suppression of resistance. Pretty much any military offensive is an "extinction" attack in that the end goal is the total suppression of the enemies capabilities. Nothing to worry about, we're just out to annihilate your fundamental offensive potential which is the ability to revive and supply fresh troops. Absolutely nothing personal of course, it's just one way to play the game. --Zeug 21:56, 27 June 2007 (BST)

Well the zombie game would be pretty boring without zombies... The Grove has a kind of more lazy attitude to the game and will do whatever if we can be bothered. Thats why we're on tour, to keep things interesting. Bad news for you is we can't be bothered to return to Judgewood to get rid of you guys so you'll have less brains to eat. There are of course members of The Grove in the suburb but you'll have to hunt hard if you wanna eat my brain, though that would be pretty interesting if it did happen to be you... --MarieThe Grove on Tour 17:18, 28 June 2007 (BST)

Combat Revives

Please inform me, are Extinction members being combat revived by members of the Urban Guerillas? It's a cheap tactic, not fun for the zombie victim, and with the consequence of raising the ammount of spies and vandalism. You say you are victims of combat revives, please elaborate.

Also, on a second note, I don't understand how you would want to associate yourself with the IWM. Their views are openly fascist, which you seem to be against. -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 22:17, 2 July 2007 (BST)

Combat Revives ... well I look forward to them myself and if anything UG don't share their needles enough! But they still happen although very irregularly, I think Crimson Clan were a bit freer when they were trying to defend Pask NT in Dakerstown. Extinction welcomes CR's by the way and we encourage all survivors to waste as many revives as possible in last ditch defenses of OUR NT's.
As for the IWM being fascist ... well I guess if you equate Imperialism with fascism then they fit the bill but then so too the global British maritime empire of the 19th century and todays 'Pax Americana'. Extinction is an egalitarian group however and as militarists there are no fascists/marxists etc., only the pragmatic concerns of attaining and expanding our power base. IWM ClawSquad are useful Allies whereas UG get in our way, and besides, historically speaking Marxism/Communism once it attains power has never been that far from fascist order anyway. --Zeug 10:48, 4 July 2007 (BST)


Nice work on the News updates. Satire will never die. 'arm. 12:15, 30 July 2007 (BST)


I noticed your news update on Dakerstown. Mainly for aesthetics but also because it seems like it would make sense with Extinction everywhere and all the surrounding suburbs in zed control, do you think suburb #1 should be red?--Insomniac By Choice 20:59, 4 August 2007 (BST)

It should be soon. But at the moment, of the few survivors that are actually present in Dakerston most do manage to survive the night. And chronologically, Roywood would be before Dakerstown, since we smashed that place before we got to Dakerstown. And it was really fun doing so. 'arm. 01:54, 5 August 2007 (BST)
Yeah, I just meant it's Suburb number 1 out of 100. But thanks for answering my question. Just be sure to turn it red ASAP. Got a little OCD thing about the suburb map.--Insomniac By Choice 02:18, 5 August 2007 (BST)

Lord Pitman

Yes I think you're idea is a good one, I must admit SG has a gall removing my news item considering it is relevant to the area. I shall move myself tomorrow to the NW section of the mall where I shall begin my seige if it is barricaded.

-- Lord Pitman 22:18, 16 August 2007 (BST)

New Group

Hi Zerg, yes a group to retain the suburb would be great, personally i'd like to see the whole map red, plus I have some powerful enemies who are gagging for a battle. You may have heard of The Fortress? A new group name is required, I was thinking 'Cult of Pitman' or something similar (Have joked about a name like 'The Cult of Pitman / Including Pitman' - (TCP/IP) and then do DOS attacks lol.

Joining up with you guys can also help further my meta story, The Fortress and myself have collaborated on stories that just make the game more interesting.

-- Lord Pitman 19:00, 17 August 2007 (BST)

West Becktown

I saw you update the West Becktown danger level to Dangerous yesterday. Any reason why it shouldn't be very dangerous? I haven't been there myself, but it seems every building within ten blocks of Caiger Mall has been wiped out by zombies.--Insomniac By Choice 01:46, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Alright, I may update it just so the Great Red Northwest is more complete. As for the UZM, I know it's informal and the RRF and MOB have strained relations with Extinction but if the DEM can boast 450 members, a zombie group ought to be able to claim near 1000.--Insomniac By Choice 17:56, 19 August 2007 (BST)


You may be please to not that outsiders are taking note of your work. The 08/23/2007 News entry links to your 'Operation Malton' order that you mocked up! 'arm. 03:25, 23 August 2007 (BST)

Re: A few things

The activities of zombies and NecroTech Junkies is actually not that big of a deal. The fact that they coordinate completely with Extinction is wrong, but realistically the effect is small. The larger issue is the arguments being made by some of your members that justify such things as a person having as many members in Extinction as he can buy so long as they're 10 suburbs apart because it's not explicitly stated this is wrong. That's a big problem. Is Jorm heavy-handed at times? Sure. He could be more diplomatic and probably more effective. But he's not wrong on this issue. This is a free text based MMORPG. Some users like swiers have a half dozen or more characters they use, and that's fine. Because he doesn't play them as a single unit. It is leagues easier to coordinate your own characters than convincing someone else's to do something.

One of our members had to be away for a few days, he asked if I could keep his zombie up with the rest of the horde until he got back. I agreed, originally intending to just keep him within ten blocks so my own RNG wouldn't be affected. Then I convinced myself he could use the XP and besides, it wasn't really a bad thing since he's a real character and it would be temporary. It would just be like he was able to log on and play. Having 100 AP at your disposal is a huge difference in the same place, and it's very obviously wrong ("but Kevan never said you couldn't have characters within 10 blocks if you used proxies!" I can hear 'arm saying). When LUE split up, I sent his character with the other group as ours moved in the opposite direction, and here I found it's even more important, not less. Forget the added AP at your disposal, that's almost inconsequential. Being able to see something with your own eyes and not having to rely on someone else's reports is a huge advantage and you're going to use that combined knowledge to benefit your group regardless of what you might try to do. You, as a leader, have a better understanding of the situation and what to do. There is no separate existence when you're using multiple characters within the same organization. There's no waiting for your scout to log in, you can look at it yourself and formulate a plan. Of course it's preferred for you, but is it within the rules? Only if make a fallacious rhetorical argument to defend something you know is wrong and essentially cheating.

It is not hypocritical for barhah zombies to work together although some of these things still apply. Murray J has a zombie in the MOB. He doesn't lead the MOB. He sees things with his alt that he remembers as Murray the RRF Papa, but how often do you think he's going to send an Uncle or Aunt to meet the MOB based on that information? If he tells Jorm what his zombie saw, Jorm will make a decision on it. The CRF has many RRF alts and Sonny is also a member of the RRF. The CRF is not a stand in for the RRF. They have a different structure, different priorities, and different way of operating. Sonny can ask the RRF to come to Darvall Heights, but he can't send them.

Intergroup coordination is still difficult because each group has its own identity, specific goals, and needs. LUE and the RRF can't always work together. I like to keep in touch with different members and leaders to see if we can cooperate or assist, I'm sure they do as well, but I can't tell the MOB to go somewhere and Jorm can't order LUE to be at a mall. He might ask Vito, but that is a very important difference. They're peers as leaders, one is not a subordinate of the other. Intragroup coordination is relatively easy because interests are much more rarely in conflict, and not at all when it's the same characters.

I think Extinction has accomplished something very impressive and I believe most of it has been done legitimately. But because a few of your members not only use steroids but argue that take horse steroids would be all right, all of your accomplishments will furthermore be viewed with suspicion. As I said in the barhah topic, who respects the PTT? They probably had a lot of legitimate players and were formidable regardless of their zerging and botting, but that's what they're remembered for. If Extinction continues down this line, they won't be remembered as "winners", they'll just be called cheaters. And no one, zombie, human, or PKer, will mourn their passing.

I like Brainz, I like a lot of your members, but you came to a fork in the road and picked the wrong one. That's what happened in that topic more than dictatorial policies of a moderator.--Insomniac By Choice 01:02, 25 August 2007 (BST)

No one, and I mean no one, outside of Extinction favored you more than I did until a few days ago. I defended you, I got in contact with members of your group to let them know when we were coming and ask for help, and suggested every zombie player have an alt in the group. Then in just a few hours I heard your group's explanation and justification for your behavior and was turned off forever. Say it's hypocrisy or elitism or whatever. I've never been a part of any of the groups on the barhah forum and never taken orders form any of them. You don't think you can win without using multiple characters to do it. That's all. And that's what everyone will think as well which is why your group's legacy will ultimately be a poor one.--Insomniac By Choice 19:41, 25 August 2007 (BST)
Funny how your tone has change from the discussion on zerging to what it is now. Before it was "show us the evidence", now that people in your group have admitted it and justified going even further, it's "you're all boyscouts" (i.e. scrubs). Brainz told me that you had NecroTech Junkies that never interacted with their zombie alts. I can find a guy on your forum who lists two zombies in Extinction, and obviously Brainz knew that when he talked to me about it. Your group makes a coordinated effort to wipe out every NT in the NW block by block, suburb by suburb. Very good. However, all members are a part of a detailed long term strategy, not a vague philosophy. Your members moved their alts from three corners into one because you weren't having enough success with each one fighting his own battle. Don't get on to me about "taking the moral high ground" when you and yours do the same thing, appealing to have seen the light of "true competition" rather than ethics.--Insomniac By Choice 00:59, 26 August 2007 (BST)
I didn't say it was zerging on that page, I said there was a potential for charges of multi-abuse and needed to be clarified. You said you have lots of members, suggesting strongly all characters you had were a separate person. As with Brainz's response to my question, I found this quite dishonest in light of your actual policies. As for patronizing, I do believe Extinction has some of the most patronizing members in the UD community because if you don't think using multiple members as part of the same group is a valid tactic you're a boy-scout/scrub/hypocrite. Members of Extinction think all groups should play with multiple alts because that would make the game better by making it more competitive which is no different from other people saying Extinction shouldn't because it's essentially cheating. And most importantly, if the RRF was operating in Darvall Heights while the CRF chomped on Chudleyton and MOB attacked West Becktown and you had a character in all of them, I would have a very big problem with that. But if you notice, they don't do that and apparently, you wouldn't have a problem, either. What you as a group *are* is less of a problem than what you'd like to be or are okay with being, and your logical skills are unimportant when you quite obviously interpret " completely separate existence" as unreasonably as humanly possible.
If you'd really like to settle it and make everyone shut up for good, go post on Kevan's talk page the question of whether there's a problem with a group like Extinction having multi characters in the same group as long as they stay 10 blocks or more away from one another at all times. Bring yourselves up specifically, point out the DEM and FU and Barhah as hypocritical, but clarify it for everyone, vindicate yourselves in everyone's eyes, and rub it in their noses after, if you like. This way, you make it obvious you have nothing to hide and it won't be seen as someone whining about you. You're completely within UD's rules; make it official and you'll have something to refer back to without ever wasting breath on argument again.--Insomniac By Choice 09:39, 26 August 2007 (BST)
Go for it. Although you have to remember the Gore Corps doesn't have RRF alts, so people would have to choose one or the other as far as Extinction zombie or NecoTech Junkie. And there's no overarching strategy for barhah so each sub-group of Extinction would actually have to have complete autonomy. That means all the leaders can meet and discuss policy, but if one disagrees, it can't be contradicted by someone else. The old Ministry of the Dead planned together in conference, but there was no voting or whatever. Each leader represented an independent group with its own needs. Drawing everyone back to the NW and expanding suburb by suburb was in no way the action of independent groups. If you made it a legitimate break up that remained closely allied as opposed to outright parody or farce, you'll still have problems chasing you (as the remnants of Extinction in the SW are being suspected of bot use to hold NTs), and Jorm will never like you, but it would go a long way as a sign of good faith.--Insomniac By Choice 22:33, 27 August 2007 (BST)

That Old Zombie Wit

There was some very clumsy vandalism on the Molebank page by something called Saromu that there were no living groups operating in Molebank. I have addressed the issue, but wanted to make sure you were aware. I made an entry on the discussion page for Molebank.

A Return

I do intend to return very soon, but I'm still struggling to find the time at the moment. Glad to know you're back, I'll check out all the new changes and updates when I do return properly. 'arm. 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap it's Armareum, I thought you'd left us for good.--Karekmaps?! 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, he's been hitting recent changes every 5 minutes, eh arm? --  AHLGTG 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


A little weak don't you think? Still think you will be a member 2 years from now?--Airborne88Zzz1.JPGT|Z.Quiz|PSS 07:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Danger Levels

Fine by me. --Private Mark 21:27, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Don't Bother

Don't bother calling for an arbitration on the whole impersonation thing. If you look at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration_Guidelines#How_to_arbitrate, specifically the last bullet for Step 3: "If no arbitrator is agreed upon, one will be chosen by the administration team." All they would need to do to win is refuse any arbitrator we propose, then they would get to hand pick any arbitrator they want that would then hand them the victory. What a wonderfully fair community wiki this is. --Kid sinister 03:26, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Actually we have never stepped in in such a manner and there is a significant group against just that kind of actions(I happen to be part of that). But, still, it's best to avoid arbitration as much as possible, it's been used in the past to get absurd limitations on users that the "arbitrator" doesn't like and I seriously doubt you guys will be able to get a truly fair shot at it. --Karekmaps?! 04:13, 22 April 2008 (BST)
We wouldn't be taking The man to arbitration, Karek.
Also, how did those arbitrators that "doesn't like" the user get appointed? --Kid sinister 20:20, 22 April 2008 (BST)
Unfortunately somewhere along the line, I think back in 2006, arbitration changed from a Moderator only matter to any user can sign up to arbitrate, there's no appointment anyone can arbitrate, which means you have to be extremely careful choosing and arbitrator.--Karekmaps?! 20:36, 22 April 2008 (BST)
What would we have to lose? It's not like we could be prohibited from commenting on our own group's talk page or from defending ourselves in Vandal Bannings. --Kid sinister 20:55, 22 April 2008 (BST)
Karek, It's actually always been an user based volunteer thing, sysops just volunteerd a lot. Kid sinister, if you think arbitration is a good idea go for it. It'll be more structered way to solve this then the mess on the talk page so I'll certainly participate. Karek will be a more then acceptable arbitrator to me, if you want somebody else I'm sure we can figure something out.-- Vista  +1  15:43, 24 April 2008 (BST)
Strange, it doesn't seem that way in the really old archives.--Karekmaps?! 22:39, 24 April 2008 (BST)
Guidelines doesn't always equal rule (noted at the top). Someone tried making that into something official, but it didn't work. --  AHLGTG 04:18, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Alright, if Vista doesn't show up by Thursday, let's go to arbitration. That would give him a full week to show up again. --Kid sinister 19:04, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Vista is pulling his "no internets" excuse again, so we'll have to wait until he finds his way out of his cootie bunker before we can go to Arby's. --Kid sinister 05:59, 4 May 2008 (BST)


You are being warned for creating a page solely for the purpose of circumventing an administrative page protection in order to perpetuate a stupid little edit war with other users of this wiki. Such an act is not on and is a deliberate bad faith attempt to undermine the running of this wiki. This is your second warning. Any further such acts and you will be banned. --The Grimch U! E! 01:19, 23 September 2008 (BST)


We are ready to roll. Jorm's up first so wait till he's made his statement. -- Cheese 10:56, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Right. Your turn to post now. -- Cheese 21:04, 24 September 2008 (BST)

et tu?

First of all I don't have much say in how the DHPD is run anymore... I've turned that over to more "energetic" folks some while back. Second, I evaluate each project up for deletion on its own merits. Where you crossed the line was including groups that didn't want to be included...on the Wiki. And third you assume we don't already have one ;) Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 11:03, 23 September 2008 (BST)

They can't make you delete the tool. Only the Wiki page for it. Now if you had done the same thing as a subpage off of your "namespace"... Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 11:52, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Me and Jorm together at last

I'm keeping this one for posterity, twas beautiful indeed - UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Jorm_and_the_MOB_vs_Zeug_and_Extinction.


Well, if you ever feel like it, give your PKer bretheren at the Browncoats a shout. I previously fought against Extinction in my TNR days; it was great fun. Hopefully we can work together to completely trash the NE corner. --Blanemcc 18:40, 4 October 2008 (BST)

Sounds good to me --Blanemcc 20:54, 4 October 2008 (BST)

On the RRF and Salt the Land

Given the fact that RRF was the group responsible for creating the first somewhat-permanently red suburb, and that one of their goals is to create a permanent "zombie heartland"...why are you accusing them of being opposed to various Salt-the-Land variety strategies, and not making a permanent or long-term effect on the city? It's antithetical to MOB-style gameplay, but not RRF-style gameplay. There's a reason Riddleybank is notorious, and it's because the RRF embraces a permanent-residence style of gameplay there. And they've succeeded in doing so in a highly-populated, central section of the map, to boot. --Jen 17:48, 6 October 2008 (BST)

RE: Extinction

He is permanently banned right now. You might need to contact him some other way. --  AHLGTG 21:51, 20 October 2008 (BST)

New Recruitment page

Try this new recruitment page Suburb Recruitment.--Gamerman191 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: The Big Prick

Thanks for the kind words. Don't worry about sending the main horde -- we're much too small to deal with. The main reasons we went to Dakers were (1) we though Extinction was busy elsewhere, (2) we have members that hail from the NW, and (3) we didn't run into anybody when we did Judgewood. Such is the game, I guess. Asheets 16:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Musical barricades

I don't know if you remember that you called 404ers "Adventure Tourists," but you inspired a template:

Warzone.jpg Adventure Tourist
This user goes on holiday
in ruined suburbs.

--Emerald Green 07:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Is this user a part of your group, was this just a mistake, or was it vandalism? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:48, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Thanks. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:51, 12 August 2009 (BST)


This will clear it up.-- SA 06:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

It wasn't my intention to be a dick, so I thought I'd come by and briefly (I suck at brevity, it seems) explain my reasoning. I also have no intention of getting into an edit war over something trivial like this, so I won't be changing it until the situation changes in Judgewood (which will likely be soon, given the RRF horde on the way).

Anyway, to explain, I don't doubt that Extinction has 32 active, and could very well have 32 active in Judgewood right now. What I do doubt is that they have any groups larger than 10, where "groups" refers to an actual grouping in-game of zombies that are physically at the same location (see the description for a ghost town, where they make clear the distinction between zombies in the suburb and "groups" in the suburb). Extinction, from what I've seen, appears to be spread out a bit, and isn't amassing outside of the Perceval Building. Hence my comment that, "Extinction members aren't grouped above 10. 2-3 or less, mostly." It wasn't meant as a slam against you, rather, just a statement of what I've seen, since you guys operate more on the principle of strike operations (or death culting, as I've personally seen you do very effectively in the last few weeks :P), and less on just pounding randomly on barricades until you get in.

As for the break-ins, even if Perceval is being broken into regularly (less than once a day, from what I've seen, though I may be mistaken), it's one building among forty-eight in the suburb. So, if we say that it's being broken into daily, only about 2% of the buildings in the suburb would be getting breached on a daily basis. Between the fact that it's the only one being breached with any regularity, and it's not being breached heavily or multiple times a day (again, from what I've seen), I would consider that "break-ins rare."

Again though, I don't intend to quibble over it with an edit war, so it'll stay as it is. I just wanted to explain my reasoning so that you didn't think I was trying to slam Extinction in the comments, because that was not my intention at all. Looking forward to seeing you in-game. Aichon 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools
project wonderful