Suggestion talk:20090409 NT Ruins Ruin Rotter Revives

Discussion Moved From Voting Section

Not this shit again, combat reviving is a viable way of disposing of zombies.--Thadeous Oakley 20:23, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Besides, we already have to kill rotters normally in any other building. The NT is and should be the exclusive difference.--Thadeous Oakley 20:31, 9 April 2009 (BST)

The suggestion is that rotters (who don't want to be revived) inside ruined NT Buildings would be the exception to that rule. --Stepdown 20:36, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Let's assume maxed out survivors and zombies. The survivor can, on average, dispose of a zombie using 13AP, while the zombie requires an average of 35AP. So you're here, complaining that your guaranteed 10AP backdoor will no longer work after the zombies have gone to all that effort of ruining an NT building. Your character in UD needs to grow a pair. --Roorgh 07:50, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Ah, the only-using-fully-loaded-shotguns argument. With an inventory full of that, you can only manage a little short of three kills (assuming maxed zombies) before running out of ammo. You do realize how long it takes to restock after that? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:20, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Hey dumbass, it makes it harder, not easier. ;). Well, depending on which side you're looking at if from, but you don't explicitly state that. :P --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:09, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Hey smartass, by looking at the context you can pretty much determine from which side I'm speaking >.< --Thadeous Oakley 20:20, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, it says "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote." (Right below) "As above" is a pretty slick deal, though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:04, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Number five of the "Advice to Voters" section: "It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion." It's a common contradiction in the guidelines, which is one reason why I rarely justify my votes. I've been here for quite some time now, I know a few ways around this system. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:11, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Advice to voters, i.e. individual users, does not override the basic rules of the process. Quoting from the voting rules template to the right of your vote: "Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped." Keyword: must, as in required. You may feel free to view justification as a voluntary process, and any user may chose not to provide one, but the operative line in the voting rules template will still apply: "Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user." -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:28, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I see the word extinction being thrown about in the kill votes. There are 211 NT buildings in the game so claiming extinction is a tad melodramatic. The organisation required would be colossal! I also take issue of the word griefing being thrown in there too. Salt_the_land is hardly griefing. It's a tactic for zombies to play if they wish, just like having revive policies or barricading policies. --Roorgh 10:43, 10 April 2009 (BST)

You do understand Extinction is a group, not a game scenario, right? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 10:56, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well I do now. I'll happily admit I don't know all the groups or a lot of the history here, but isn't that why we can link to stuff? Extinction seem to be inactive anyway :-) What's the correct procedure at this point? Do I strike part of my comment out (it simply isn't correct) or do I delete it? --Roorgh 11:19, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Lol neither. It's a talk page, its only purpose is talking, correctly or not. And Extinction are the 36th largest group in the game at the moment. [1] D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 11:34, 10 April 2009 (BST)