Talk:Ketchelbank/Archive

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< Talk:Ketchelbank
Revision as of 13:08, 20 May 2011 by Thegeneralbot (talk | contribs) (Robot: Substituting template: Wikipedia)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Removed News

October 19th

There are zombies everywhere. Biggest group of zeds I saw was around 25. Many buildings either ruined or left wide open. Didn't find any survivors in any of the ruined buildings. Upgraded danger level to Very Dangerous.--Omega360 13:58, 19 October 2008 (BST)

November 2007

Can someone please add Masters of Malton to the hostile groups list? those asshats are getting annoying. 10:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)--User:Toastergargletop

May 8th

This is Fred Caine of the TMZ saying! Im bored nothing to do here :\, revive points are at 110% efficiency, all buildings are caded. And zombie populations are at an all time low. Im Running Away!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred caine (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

November 2007

PubCrawlHost.gif --Talunex 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Barricade Plan

As you probably have seen, I worked on a barricade plan for Ketchelbank. Any advice is welcome. Feel free to cut it to pieces! Cruzz 20:41, 14 September 2007 (BST)

It looks fine except for two locations: the Aquarium and the Reptile House within the Zoo Grounds have been designated as Safe Places for our zombie Zookeepers and visitors. They need to remain open and unbarricaded at all times. Otherwise, it looks great! --Lo Meng 00:23, 15 September 2007 (BST)

August 22 report

TRPs;

-Three in Survivor Hands. One Heavily Barricaded, One VHB, and one Very Strongly Barricaded. One of the TRPs was an empty Necrotech. There were nine survivors between the other two less important TRPs.
-Five ruined and in Zombie hands, including the other two NTs in Ketchelbank. A total of ten zombies were on the inside of the Five TRPs.

The Malton Zoo;

-Three areas of the Zoo were in survivor hands. All three were Extremely Heavily Barricaded. There were a total of 7 survivors in the Zoo.
-Three areas of the Zoo were in Zombie hands, without barricades. Two constantly without barricades, to be noted, as a Zookeeper policy. There were two zeds inside the zoo.

Non-TRPs;

-Nine buildings of less import were in survivor hands. One was only Quite Strongly Barricaded, four were Very Strongly Barricaded, and four were HB+. There were 15 survivors living in non-TRP buildings.
-Nine buildings of less import were in zombie hands and ruined. There were four zombies still mulling on the inside of these buildings.

Outside;

-No Survivors spotted outside.
-At the very least 50 feral zombies were mulling about. The suburb is quite littered with them, actually - I expect there to be more than 50, but I could not do a Necroscan because there are no powered NT buildings in Ketchelbank. The only non-ruined NT building is unpowered, suggesting that it is contested and often in zombie hands.

Total;

-Fifteen buildings in survivor hands. 31 total survivors in Ketchelbank, averaging just around 2 survivors per building held. The most survivors in any one building were 5, in a non-TRP. This suggests barricade strafing. Survivors hold one out of three NT buildings, but it was empty and unpowered (suggesting zombies often hold the building.)
-Seventeen buildings ruined and in Zombie hands. 16 total zombies on the inside of buildings, with at least 50 (probably closer to 70+) on the outside.
-Zombie-to-Survivor Ratio is at least 2:1, most likely closer to 3:1. Without a working NT building, it is suffices to say that it is between these two ratios.
-Zombies control slightly over half of the buildings in Ketchelbank, but control 75% of the TRPs in the suburb, rendering the survivors short-handed. See following:
-The two key revive points used by survivors in Ketchelbank both had over 20 zombies in queue. I moved a zombie into one of them four days ago, and have yet to be revived - meaning that you are unlikely to get a revive any time soon in Ketchelbank.

Resolution;

-The zombies have an incredible upper-hand in Ketchelbank. Survivors lack supplies to revive and the zombie population so far outnumbers the tiny survivor population that Ketchelbank is closer to a ghost suburb than a "Dangerous" suburb. Most suburbs have single buildings with far more survivors than Ketchelbank has in its entire proper. Ketchelbank is Very Danger, and most likely has been prior to this. It meets the criteria, and it would be false to claim that its danger level is anything better than Very Dangerous.Donathin 22:41, 22 August 2007 (BST)
it should be noted however that one of the revive points mentioned above, is not located in ketchelbank. as such it has nothing to do with ketchelbank dangerlevels. the other info about building control levels are more of less truthful. as WanYao says below "it's borderline".--'BPTmz 02:12, 23 August 2007 (BST)
As a whole, I believe most of the "fine" details of what makes a suburb a certain safety level a bit of a joke. I don't intend to get into a pissing contest about the 'burb, but I must mention the fact I have been in a location south of the zoo that has had more than 5 survivors for the last several days and currently has 13 in it. So, when we look at these "impartial" reports filed by career zombies who themsleves have attacked Ketchelbank, we must all remember to read them with a grain of salt.....--'KeetTMZ 03:21, 23 August 2007 (BST)
Semi-rhetorical question: what about "impartial" reports by career survivors, huh? In the discipline of rhetoric (and in journalism, in scholarship, in all fields involving critical inquiry and reportage, in fact) one goes further than taking ad hominem arguments with a "grain of salt": one is encouraged to dismiss them pretty much out of hand. So c'mon, already, get off the friggin' ad hominem wagon, sheesh... You do yourself and your group NO credit with those kinds of statements. --WanYao 04:39, 23 August 2007 (BST)
Maybe we should all just fess up that there is really no such thing as an "impartial" report, here, eh? This pissing contest is old and annoying. I agree, the suburb is Very Dangerous at the moment, but we're working on rebuilding it. I've been in the area for four days solid now, and haven't been attacked once. The timing of the MoB attack was great for them and terrible for us - thanks to the game changes, they managed to utterly destroy most of Ketchelbank before even one Zookeeper could find a toolbox. They've certainly put us in a rough spot, and it'll be difficult to rebuild, but rebuild we will. It doesn't take a braaaainz surgeon to realize that Donathin and company have a bit of a vendetta, or to realize that 'Keet has an agenda as well. Maybe we could all realize that this is just a game? --Lo Meng 05:24, 23 August 2007 (BST)
I hold no personal stakes in Ketchelbank. I'm currently fighting the YRC and the populace of Yagoton, several suburbs over. I spent around an hour putting my statistics together, however, and posting it up to be informative on the wiki. I did this, partially because I feel that the Ketchelbank page, in particular, does not accurately represent the given state of the sburb - and partially, I did it because I wanted to attempt a full, detailed report on a suburb. When I first began, I had tried to use iwitness, and let the pictures themselves speak. When I could not get iwitness to work, I figured out what information would be purely statistical, without bias, and useful to anyone wandering onto the page. It does not surprise me that someone personally attacked me (again) from The Zoo - however, I've really not made any comments beyond just printing cold, hard facts about the suburb. Let's avoid the personal from here on out - I'll let it slide. The suburb is Very Dangerous at the current time. I'll check back in sometime and see how you Zookeepers are fairing. 'Night. --Donathin 05:28, 23 August 2007 (BST)
Give me a break, Donathin. Saying you've got a bit of a vendetta for Ketchelbank is hardly a personal attack. If anyone wants evidence to that effect, they've only got to scroll down a bit to the section entitled "Holy Crap", where your friend admits that Ketchelbank is "special" to your group. And for the record, your cold hard facts are off - two Zoo areas are meant to be barricade free zombie areas at all times, not just one. --Lo Meng 05:38, 23 August 2007 (BST)
oh come on, donathin. the only reason you're even in ketchelbank now is because you think i "bullied" you around before. if you want to "accurately represent the given state of the sburb" take a look at the Ridleybank. that page has nothing but zombie writen stuff.--'BPTmz 05:43, 23 August 2007 (BST)
I'm not familiar with Riddleybank enough to care about scouting it out. Ketchelbank is one of the suburbs I am familiar with, though. This isn't a vendetta - when I saw that there was a spot of Orange amidst the Red suburbs, and that it was Ketchelbank, I wanted to check it out. What I found is that it should have been red, per the report above. I was mistaken on the Zoo policy of two open cages, and I've corrected it. It doesn't change the fact that the suburb is Very Dangerous. None of this does. Let's stick to that subject, not who-hates-who or who-has-what-vendetta. --Donathin 05:51, 23 August 2007 (BST)
If you say so. I really don't feel like arguing. The suburb has clearly seen better days, and we're working on it. By the way Donathin, I removed some POV elements from your report summary on the front page. I hope you'll see that I left the substance of your report untouched - I certainly can't disagree with your numbers, but I don't feel that the editorializing was really necessary or helpful. --Lo Meng 06:01, 23 August 2007 (BST)


Incorrect. Editorializing the news section is an accepted wiki standard here. For me to say that my zombie has waited for over 4 days in a revive line without a revive is incredibly useful to survivors travelling through. I've kept any strong POV out, and I've attempted to be useful. Let's not argue. I've changed it back - I've allowed most of my hard work to be moved to a separate page already. Any more attempts to mess with a detailed, helpful, important, and very well thought-out report will cause me report you for Vandalism. If people didn't want to argue, then they wouldn't have responded so incredibly negatively to a simple and 'accurate' report on the status of Ketchelbank. Thank you. --Donathin 06:10, 23 August 2007 (BST)
Jesus. I'm not "messing" with your hard work, I disagree with your conclusions. As I said to you in the past, we have untraditional tactics and views on TRPs here in Ketchelbank, because we have so few of them around or within walking distance. In my experience, a few abandoned NTs doesn't leave the survivors "short handed" nor does it imply that the zombies are in solid control of the area. But hey, sorry for pissing in your sandbox, I guess. I promise I won't edit content intended to be edited by anyone again! --Lo Meng 06:21, 23 August 2007 (BST)


Don't take it personally. I agree with and even appreciate the non-standard Zookeeper tactics. But right now, revive lines aren't going down because not enough needles can be made. This is, whether or not necessary due to the Zookeeper's policies on NTs, because there are no powered NTs in the suburb. Let me give you a bit of friendly advice (because I don't think you're a jerk or have jerk-like intentions here)... you may want to rethink your tactics now that retaking an NT building after it gets ruined is a lot, lot harder than retaking a ransacked building. To go from ruined-to-powered is now a feat. That is why your revive lines are obscene right now, and that is why my conclusions are accurate. The only reason I'm wound tightly about my additions being "messed with" is because I've had an unholy number of news/danger reports modified and deleted in Ketchelbank - a gesture which I've never experienced in any of the other suburbs or pages I frequent. I'm experienced enough now to know that I don't have to put up with vandalism, whether intended or no. --Donathin 06:34, 23 August 2007 (BST)
to be fair however, you use the word "I", in your report. that means you are talking about yourself. meaning it's POV. at least that mention. i suggest you remove or reword it, to NPOV.--'BPTmz 06:47, 23 August 2007 (BST)
I'm not taking it personally. I find this immensely tiresome. I find it difficult to believe you really think any changes I made to your summary (and not your actual report) had an effect on the overal tone. This is more your playground than mine, so I'm going to leave it alone, but I still find your conclusions to be terribly inaccurate. Going from Ruined to Powered is only one AP more than it used to be - not really that much of a feat. With all due respect to your advice, we've survived and rebounded from every major horde in the game in the last year - our tactics are holding fine. You're wrong about the revive lines, by the way - have a look in St. Matthias. The queue was cut in half today. I imagine it'll be empty in a day or two, tops. And 20 is hardly "obscene" - the last time we had a visit from the Big Bash, they were in excess of 50 each. --Lo Meng 06:50, 23 August 2007 (BST)

"It does not surprise me that someone personally attacked me (again) from The Zoo" Donathin, my comment was not a personal attack on you as you are not the only zombie to leave a report on the page. Where is the part where I made it a personal attack against you?

WanYao - Now, your comments can taken as a personal attack on myself. Wow. "Semi-rhetorical question: what about "impartial" reports by career survivors, huh?" Your right buddy! There's been some of that too on this page, I won't deny that. "In the discipline of rhetoric (and in journalism, in scholarship, in all fields involving critical inquiry and reportage, in fact) one goes further than taking ad hominem arguments with a "grain of salt": one is encouraged to dismiss them pretty much out of hand. So c'mon, already, get off the friggin' ad hominem wagon, sheesh." Hmm, that does sound a bit personel there pal. However, you're reading WAY too much into a simple statement. "Grain of salt" in plain old english means very simply, skepticism or reservation.

"You do yourself and your group NO credit with those kinds of statements" That without a doubt is a personal attack. Discredit to The Zookeepers? Hardly. In fact I feel I exemplify something that really is at the heart what most Zookeepers believe, KISS[1]

This is a game. This is a page to say what's happening in a suburb in the game. Statements should be simple to avoid getting into the conflicts we've all witnessed. They should kept with the idea of fun rivalries in mind. Why don't we all give it a try? We're always going to disagree about the condition of the 'burb, so let's try for the example below. It's what the game is really about, having fun with each other. Can we agree on that? --'KeetTMZ 03:33, 24 August 2007 (BST)

June 8 2007 The Malton Zookeepers were thrilled by the Drama Club performance. After becoming bored with so little to do in the Ketchelbank area the group is glad to have break in the routine! Speaking of the attack, Angry Parakeet was quoted as saying, "The Veterinary Services department has been getting a bit rusty, the "Mmm Azzbarghahs" performance was a perfect opportunity to practice our revive skills and earn extra AP. We look forward to the ===Mmm Braanz Tahr=== tour, it'll be fun! Isn't that what UD is all about?"

Asked what his thoughts were regarding the arrival of the Drama Club, Maintenance Director Smasho replied, "It's about damn time something is happening around here. I've cleaned out the Elephant House a dozen times and there hasn’t been anything in there except for a few mysterious bird droppings. Now I can get some real work done around here."

Security directors Nick Magnum and Peregrin Y could not be reached for comments. According to the Aquarium Receptionist they were oiling the staff's pistols and shotguns for their own rendition of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries". --'KeetTMZ 02:51, 8 June 2007 (BST)

June 7, 2007 Drama Club staged a performance of "Apocalypse Now" in the The Bear Pit of the City Zoo for the 11 survivors there as part of their ===Outward Spiral Tour=== of Malton. The group plans to travel in a counter-clockwise expanding spiral from the center of the town to the outer edges. See their group page for performing groups and schedules.

On a similar note, a zombie hoard of about 20 staged a performance of "Mmm Azzbarghahs" at the Horder Motel for the dozen or so survivors there as part of their ===Mmm Braanz Tahr=== of Malton. The group plans to travel around Ketchelbank in a random expanding zig-zag from the north of the suburb. This is in an effort to quell The Malton Zookeepers delusions of safety. Donathin


I think that your tone accused my report of being invalid because I was not bias. I felt that this was a bit of a personal attack. Also, I agree with the spirit of what a wiki should be. The above example is great, and this is how my interactions with other suburbs are. The reason Ketchelbank is different is because BP would delete and edit comments I would write and add, and was fiercely territorial when it comes to the suburb danger level. This may make me overly sensitive to the way in which I'm treated in Ketchelbank, but rightfully so. As it stands, I don't think we need to argue anymore. I personally revived four people tonight, knocking down one of the revive queues. I'm not only a career zombie, and I don't have a vendetta. I just want the truth to be told on a wikipedia page... I think that's not too much to ask for. --Donathin 06:38, 24 August 2007 (BST)
Great Donathin, thank you for the help at the RP. Please understand too, Ketchelbank is our home and we love it dearly. While you reports may seem appropriate from your point of view, it dosen't seem as bad to us since we're still tramping around the 'burb. I guess we can agree to disagree, eh? How about this, I'll make sure no Zookeeper edits your reports if you agree to tone down, just a bit, the "end of the world" reports on the 'burb. Sound like a plan?
Some time in the future, I'd like to invite you and your zombie friends to the Aquarium for a shing-ding. We have a blast doing all the things survivors and zombies should never do together! Let's do what Kevan made the game for, have fun!! It would be a day to remember! (No killing though!) --'KeetTMZ 01:50, 25 August 2007 (BST)

1/9/2011 The MOB has attacked the Zookeepers and driven us out (I think). The revive points are down. Any assistance would be appreciated. -Spinal Taper-junior Zookeeper.

Holy Crap

In the past twoish days, K-town went from a nice relaxing harman playground, losing maybe a building or two here or there, usually the NTs every other day or so, to a total blasted wasteland of corpses and the maurading dead. Jorm, you guys have shown us just what can be accomplished when a large bunch of like minded zombies set out to do it (sure those LUE guys are too, but Ketchelbank's special to us). On behalf of the Tahr, Don and I want to thank you for your constant support during the unpleasantness a while back, and for this, this glorious feat of demolishing an entire suburb in a few days. I hope those tigers give you nothing but happyness, guys. Thanks again.--Oliver Donahue 06:37, 17 August 2007 (BST)

Hm. Odd that every suburb surrounding Ketchelbank is marked as Very Dangerous, and Ketchelbank marked as simply Dangerous. I'll have to make a special trip back to report on the accuracy of the status of the suburb. I have a character not involved in any Mall sieges that I think can make the run tonight. --Donathin 01:19, 21 August 2007 (BST)
Lot's of times one suburb has a different dangerlevel then those around them. this can be for many reasons, lack of players giving updates in surrounding suburbs, zombies focusing on those suburbs, and many more.--'BPTmz 23:34, 21 August 2007 (BST)
Hmmmmmm... I was bored, so I took my zombie for a small tour of the west of Ketchelbank and took some "pictures"... You can search Iwitness by suburb to find them. But to summarise: in the NW, it's a mess, everything is ruined, suvivor deathtrap... I didn't bother going inside the zoo, because I expect the same. But as you go into the SW, most buildings are caded -- though admitedly many of them at what are levels suspicious of strafing, VSB and HB, mostly. There are zombies everywhere, in almost every block with a building, but no mobs of more 5 or 6... Now, depending on the status of the west, the hospital and NTs and surrounding safehouses... if most of those are out of zombie hands, and if there is a notable survivor presense inside... then the Dangerous rating might not be unjustified. More data needed... --WanYao 22:47, 22 August 2007 (BST)
Donathin posted his latest News report just as I was typing that... Having read it, and assuming good faith on Donathin's part (and I have NO reason not to assume such)... I'd have to back him up that Ketchelbank is Very Dangerous, though it's borderline... Screenshots would have been VERY helpful, though, Donathin... Anyway, that's my 2 bits worth, I'll leave this to others to deal with now, cheers. --WanYao 23:03, 22 August 2007 (BST)

Hi there!

Boy, what a show this has become. Donathin, something that BP has never really made clear (almost certainly for strategic purposes) is that we Zookeepers have a different method for dealing with our resource facilities than basically every other survivor group in the city; we don't spend a lot of time defending them. Without tipping our hand too far, I'll just say that we've developed strategies which allow us to stock up on important items such as syringes and FAKs without requiring the staff to participate in any prolonged seige situation. We created these strategies out of necessity, and they've worked well for us in the past.

Now, I don't mean to denegrate the work of your group - the Zoo and Ketchelbank as a whole have certainly been dicier than usual of late. But I can't agree with calling them "very dangerous", because there are still survivor strongholds and there are still many of us who live and work in the area for days, even weeks at a time without dying - we just don't hang out where you'd expect to find us, or for that matter, in any one place for any long periods of time, again due to the strategies we've developed for the long term survival of the group.

As BP has shown, it is not accurate to say that "all" or even "most" of the buildings in Ketchelbank are ransacked, and as of my last count, it is not accurate to say that the zombies double the humans at this time either. As I'm posting this, our local hospital and one of our local NT facilities are both operational, and both of our revive queues are empty. None of that says "very dangerous" to me, personally.

If you'd like to discuss the issue with us, I'd really appreciate you checking us out at our forum, since most of the Zoo management staff quite honestly doesn't pay a lot of attention to the wiki. --Lo Meng 03:37, 21 July 2007 (BST)

just an addition, having carefully read the whole argument...the crux of most people's contention that Ketchelbank is at least "Dangerous" seems to be the lack of barricaded and occupied resource buildings. I understand that perspective, as it's part of the traditional survivor thinking, but constantly maintaining resource buildings in a suburb with no police stations or malls is tricky and impractical, and something we abandoned some time ago in favor of our current strategies, which have worked quite well for us. Ketchelbank, as defended by the Zookeepers, is a sort of anomaly in the survivor vs. zombie paradigm, and we've reached understandings to that effect with a number of survivor AND zombie groups. We've been a self regulating system for over a year now. I do understand, however, that to the outsider who is familiar with the standard operations of survivor groups in other suburbs, our way of life probably seems crazy and dangerous. Since that's the case, I'm willing to write a short piece for the Ketchelbank wiki that will attempt to explain our philosophy regarding the resource buildings without exposing the details of our strategies. If that's something the community wants, just let me know, and I'll take care of it. --Lo Meng 02:29, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Just as a retro-active note; the crux of the argument also included the ratio of survivors-to-zombies (zombies outnumbering the survivors since the Tahr, Zookeepers sleeping in other suburbs to stay safe, the ratio sometimes as great as 3:1) and the amount of deaths-per-day in the suburb. I have read up on and 100% understand your unorthodox methods, but the entire suburb is dangerous and at times should have been flagged VeryDangerous. I'm sure you will rebound now - we will see how Richmond Falls does next for the Tahr. G'luck. --Donathin 23:28, 24 July 2007 (BST)
The suburb is Dangerous, but only because the zombies aren't focusing on where the survivors are, they aren't even close. Remember the name of the group that guards this area before you go hunting. Because they aren't being pressured this is actually a case of strafing actually making things somewhat safer, I would say it is doing nothing but some buildings have been powered for three days, the generator production line is in survivor control and isn't even being threatened, and the only place that actually can be considered in zombie hands completely are the primary resource buildings. The survivors don't even notice you guys(the zombies.) because you aren't actually pressuring them.--Karekmaps?! 03:02, 25 July 2007 (BST)
With all due respect Donathin, unless you're admitting to spying on us in order to coordinate attacks, you haven't read up on all our tactics. Only a barebones description of one such tactic is available in a forum that can be read by anyone but Zookeepers. As Karek described (in more detail than I wish he had!), there's a survivor population in the area, and there always has been. I'm more than willing to admit that it's been a much more dangerous two months than we're used to, and kudos to you, the local ferals, and the local griefers for making our jobs a lot more interesting. I just can't agree to calling Ketchelbank "Very Dangerous". Ultimately, though, we're of the opinion that it doesn't really matter to us - if the community here feels the need to change the danger level, go right ahead. It won't stop us from doing our best to make the Zoo the most fun place to visit in Malton, if not always the most safe. --Lo Meng 04:50, 25 July 2007 (BST)
Just wanted to add my two cents in as a Zookeeper and longtime resident of Ketchelbank. I do think Donathin and the Tahr folks have a good point: by traditional standards, Ketchelbank is far from a safe suburb. We do not keep control of our resource buildings, we have large swaths of unoccupied territory, and often the zombie population outnumber the survivors by vast numbers. I do think that there are a few things that should be borne in mind, though, when considering the overall safety of the suburb. As Lo Meng (Piemancer as we know him here at the zoo) has already said, our tactics are very different from the usual location-based survivor group, which accounts for why we do not hold resource buildings. It bears repeating: this is frequently a matter of choice on our part, not a matter of overwhelming force or skill on the part of the zombies. To put it in perspective, Caiger Mall is 4 blocks. Ft. Creedy is 9. The Zoo is 20, with none of Creedy's convenient barriers. Because of our unique situation (no PDs, no mall within two suburbs, close proximity to Ridleybank and Eastonwood, two zombie hotbeds) we have adopted a series of unconventional tactics that has secured the survival of our group as a whole, and the safety of Zoo visitors who take the time to drop in to our forums and find out our suggestions for living safely in the suburb. The other thing that I think is important to remember is that because we are a unique structure in the city of Malton, we are a magnet for novelty zombie invasions. Everyone wants to sack the zoo, it looks funny on their wiki pages. We fully understand that, and even encourage it sometimes (we recently played happy hosts to large number of Feral Undead. We threw a party to comemmorate.) And moreover, when considering the zombie-to-human ratio, it is essential that you remember that the Zoo is an Equal Opportunity Employer, that we maintain two safe areas for zombies to congregate without fear of being killed, and we encourage zombie and survivor alike to visit, often having events in our Zombie Visitor Center that people of any living status can enjoy. It is fallacious, I think, to base the suburb's safety on the number of zombies that lurk around - many of them are Zookeepers, and many more are just hanging around to see the sights. I think this discussion has gotten needlessly ugly, and ultimately I think the safety level of Ketchelbank is inconsequential to us - we are not in the business of digging in and defending our home so much as we are of entertaining zoo visitors and enjoying each others' company. And I would like to echo Piemancer's invitation for you to come join our forum and make yourself known. We always love to have open contact with any group, especially those who are currenty devouring our brains. I think an amicable siege is much more fun than a bitter rivalry anyway.--AKA Smasho 8:46pm PDT, 24 July 2007
oh and uh everything he said, too. --Lo Meng 04:53, 25 July 2007 (BST)
Well said. I wish you would've said it to us before we left though. We left (mostly) about four days ago, and pulled out officially yesterday. I think the agitation of BP's dealings with the Ketchelbank page and myself personally is what caused hostilities (and even inspired the creation of our fun horde). As Karek has noted, without the Tahr or another major zombie group to organize the suburb, the suburb is only Dangerous (as opposed to VeryDangerous, which it had certainly been for a while, when both safehouses and TRPs were down constantly). I'm sure it is nothing the Zookeepers haven't seen before, and nothing they cannot recover from. It was, for a young horde, however, a challenging and successful first Tahr. Again, good luck. I'm sure you'll be seeing our influence in Richmond and Brooke Hills soon enough. :D --Donathin 06:14, 25 July 2007 (BST)

here we go again.

Most buildings are empty of survivors or ransacked. Resource buildings are in zombie hands entirely, and the zombies more than double the small human population in Ketchelbank. It is very dangerous for survivors currently.--Donathin 04:50, 19 July 2007 (BST)
look will you just give it up allready? there are plenty of buildings caded in ketchelbank. and some are even powered. i'll try and get this iwitness thing working and show you. but in the mean time anyone who doesnt belive me? check it out.im not say it's moderate. cus the resource buildings fall often enough, but almost everyother building is caded.--'BPTmz 06:16, 19 July 2007 (BST)
nope. for some reason iwitness doesnt want to work for me. but i got some screen shots.

--'BPTmz 06:38, 19 July 2007 (BST)

Six survivors in five unimportant buildings, two of which were strafed all with under three people. That looks pretty unsafe to me. Ridleybank has a worse infestation right now and it is unarguably Very Dangerous.--Karekmaps?! 09:57, 19 July 2007 (BST)
Thank you, Karek. If the survivors made more of an attempt to make the suburb safer instead of merely giving the illusion of it being safer, maybe it wouldn't be Very Dangerous. However, it is very dangerous. I wish a moderator would change the level. I won't say anything about my npov post being moved from the wiki article to the discussion page, except that I hope other suburbs that we take the Tahr to have better, more honest players than the ones I've had to be bullied by and deal with in Ketchelbank.--Donathin 13:13, 19 July 2007 (BST)
how many times must i say this. read the guide lines! very dangerous= every building open. every building is not wide open. lots of buildings are caded strafed or not.--'BPTmz 16:59, 19 July 2007 (BST)
Actually Blood Panther, Very Dangerous is most buildings wide open or zombie infested most can be anywhere from 50% to all, but most people generally consider it to be about 75%^ or all resource buildings sacked and at least 30-40% of the rest of the buildings contested or in the same situation. In all honesty though, you don't even really need that, almost everyone will agree that if you are dying frequently and there are significantly more zombies than survivors, or at least more active and coordinated zombies. Anyway the point is 5 buildings is no where near enough to justify the suburb not being Very Dangerous, especially when there are so few actual survivors in them. Like I have said time and again barricades being there don't matter, it's their absence that does. --Karekmaps?! 18:43, 19 July 2007 (BST)
i only showed a few buildings most buildings are just as caded. no where in the guide lines does it say the buildings have to have survivors in them. about 60% of the suburb is caded. i havent seen a zombie break in, for about 5 days, and have been living in ketchelbank without dieing for about 2 weeks. the suburb is dangerous but not very.--'BPTmz 18:50, 19 July 2007 (BST)
You know, if you got some evidence I would believe you but since all you've shown is picture of buildings which look like they belong in a Very Dangerous suburb and were cade strafed(one even had you upping the barricades). . . The point is that I'm inclined to believe Doathin on this one because you are blatantly reporting it falsely and breaking the spirit of the danger level set up because you are trying to conform only to the criteria and view that suits you, when your evidence is like that and you say the rest of the suburb is caded it makes me thing it's cade strafed and 60-80% of the time that isn't the true state of things, worse it makes me think that screens you may provide will be from different times of day and not a true sample of the state of the suburb. I'll be there in a day or so to check for myself but I highly doubt I'll find anything that says you're right in this. Now, would you two mind dropping this until then?--Karekmaps?! 19:03, 19 July 2007 (BST)
you could look at the clock in the bottom corner...that proves they were all taken at once. but your main argument is about strafing. so what? barricaded strafing has nothing to do with dangerlevels. it's not even mentioned in the guidelines. i strongly suggest you come check it out. donathin is nothing more then a newbie who belives his "group" of two people is doing more damage then they are.--'BPTmz 19:16, 19 July 2007 (BST)
No slandering because this is a problem on both of your parts neither one of you is any more to blame than the other.--Karekmaps?! 19:37, 19 July 2007 (BST)
ok ok ,that was a little uncalled for i guess, but the fact remains. to be very dangerous, as you said, most of the suburb has to be open. that is just not the case. strafing or not, more then 51% of buildings are caded at any given time.--'BPTmz 19:42, 19 July 2007 (BST)
Hey guys, can we take a deep breath and chill for a minute? I know you guys are just itching to get back at hammering at each other, but that hasn't solved any problems since this whole thing started. Now, I know anything I say will probably not hold up in your estimation, BP, since I'm the other half of the Tahr management, but give me a chance, at least. BP, from everything you've written since the whole mess began, you seem to want to uphold the letter of the danger report criteria, which is fine. But having the Zookeepers and other Ketchelbank survivors go through and cade buildings and hang out in the one or two strongpoints, and calling it safer isn't really true. It's safe until the zombies get their AP back and start wrecking all your hard work again. I'm not denegrating barricade strafing, it's a completely valid tactic and accomplishes exactly what any good tactic does in this game: waste opponent's AP. Cading buildings is great, but recovering and cading the four resource buildings is even more important, and I haven't seen any of the NTs last for more than a day. Yeah, you kill the inhabitants and cade it up and maybe a couple of you hang out, but it's not really doing what it's there to do, especially when it's smashed open and ransacked the next day. For all intents and purposes, you survive in Ketchelbank because the large numbers of survivors inhabit unimportant buildings. On the other hand, and this is for you, Don, there are still survivors in Ketchelbank, more than you can eat in a day by yourself, or even with the rest of the troupe. They're very, very good at hiding and staying where you don't expect them, and their reward is another day of life and another day of you two jibing at each other. BP's absolutely right on the point that the Tahr isn't at a point where we have enough organized zombiepower to demolish the suburb at will. Chunks of it, yeah, but without accurate proof from someone with 150ish AP to examine each square and the insides of buildings and take a snapshot, it really should be left at dangerous. Yeah, cades go down every day and delicious harman braanz get munched, but the cades go back up every day, too, and those revives are coming from somewhere. Maybe not Ketchelbank, probably not Ketchelbank, but somewhere. So let's leave it at Dangerous. The other thing I want to touch on is the fact that there is absolutely no reason to not be civil about this. We may be unholy blasphemies against whatever Almighty you happen to believe in, but we're people, too. Don, you and I have made plenty of backhanded comments about the Zookeepers in general when we're really just refering to our opinion of BP which is unfair and jerkish of us, and BP, you've made plenty of snide, long-suffering, and outright vitriolic comments about Don himself, our status as new players, the Tahr's status as a new group, and this whole situation in general. Even the title of this section highlights your disdain for us. Yeah, we're new. So? Weren't you, once upon a time? Weren't the Zookeepers, once upon a time? I'm not trying to challenge or usurp your place in the City, so why do you feel the need to run us down because we're new players? The fact that there's even a group called the Mmm...Braanz! Tahr is because of the Zookeepers. Don's first post was a simple joke at the fact that the Drama Club's production at the Zoo coincided with a big zombie feast. You guys were the ones who put the idea in our head to actually go through with it. So please, quit the senseless and intentional public denegration of us. It doesn't make us look pathetic and stupid, it makes you look like you're grasping at straws and trying to prove your point by bringing light to the fact that we're just starting out. The fact that your spelling and grammar begins to suffer when you get angry just adds to that perception. I'm not trying to attack or mock you with that comment, because I know that you can and do write well, it's just that it goes out when dealing with Don, and that comes off badly on you. He's a handful, and very frustrating at times. Trust me, I know. But that's no excuse to fly off the handle and start cursing him out and not bothering to spellcheck before you hit the "Save Page" button. So guys, can we please, please, cut out the name-calling, swearing, backhanded and front-handed jibes and insults? It's not helping, it's making you both look like squabbling thirteen year olds, and Don, I know you're not thirteen, and I can assume you're not either, BP. We're adults, let's act like it. Sorry for taking so long with this, but I'm sick of it and I'm sure everyone else is, too.--Oliver Donahue 02:44, 20 July 2007 (BST)
can i talk to you from now on whenever theres a problem? yes i'm sure i've gotten pretty angry with donny so maybe we should just stay away from each other for a while. but just so you know i never tried to be mean for the sake of being mean. the way most people learn around here is the hard way. but i ramble.--'BPTmz 03:04, 20 July 2007 (BST)
No, man, you have been mean for the sake of being mean. Often. Reffering to anyone as a newb or mentioning our group and putting it in sarcastic quotation marks has no other purpose than to run us down. And as for talking to me about problems, Don's always going to be right on top of it, so there's not really a point. Don't get me wrong, I'd be more than happy to see Ketchelbank get moved to Red status, but the fact is that I just don't care enough about your spat with Don to get involved in it, any more than telling the both of you to just get on with your lives. I just want to eat some brains, and though yours will be delicious, there are other, easier, and less aggravating ones to get.--Oliver Donahue 02:22, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Donathin. by putting your groups name into the report, your making it point of view.--'BPTmz 00:10, 20 July 2007 (BST)

BP, the way he did it wasn't POV, barely, but it wasn't.--Karekmaps?! 11:19, 20 July 2007 (BST)
Thanks Donahue. In short response, BP, putting a group's name into a recent news section is not POV. The Tahr is part of Ketchelbank, and its leaving will affect Ketchelbank. There've been plenty of mentions of the Zookeepers in recent news, and those were not considered POV.

Now to divulge momentarily - I may be stubborn, and I may not care for you, but I've been attempting to avoid confrontation with you, BP. It is annoying to the entire community, along with myself (and I hate the fact that I've had to be so involved with it in the past month and a half).

The truth is, a few days ago we broke into a hidden, non-chalant stronghold with your character in it and attacked him and anyone else who was in the building (I personally broke down the barricade, so I can vouch). Whether or not this coinciding with your most recent string of deleting my posts constantly was more than casual coincidence, you have vandalized and bullied me since my first week here. I have an over-developed sense of right, wrong, and telling the truth. Searching your talk page, Ketchelbank's history page, and various forums (and groups of PKers who have you on their list of annoying/harrassing people to kill), I realized that I was not the first. Your constant vandalism and harrassment of me on the wiki is, ironically, a major reason why Ketchelbank is in such bad shape now. You singlehandedly gave Donahue and I a goal, which we have succeeded in pretty well considering the size of our opposing force.

And now, my final words - do not remove my posts ever again. You are incapable of being impartial when it comes to me. If you take issue with them, have a moderator decide whether or not to do it. If you vandalise me again, I will report every attempt to bully, delete, and vandalise that I can catch you in. I don't want to fight anymore - it is petty and embarrassing. Unfortunately, that damned overdeveloped sense of justice will not allow me to let you get away with deleting a perfeclty NPOV and honest (not only in syntax, but in spirit of the wiki and the recent news purpose) post out of spite/revenge. This is the last time I will discuss it here.--Donathin 07:32, 20 July 2007 (BST)

fine then. but it's not true. you say most buildings are ransacked. wrong. there are still plenty buildings caded. plus your own friend agrees that the suburb is not very dangerous, but just dangerous..--'BPTmz 20:32, 20 July 2007 (BST)

and here are more screen shots to back up my claim (more then just a couple this time). they prove you're wrong when you say "most buildings are ransacked".


My statement is that most buildings are ransacked or empty of survivors, and that most of the caded buildings are strafed and extremely temporary. As Karek and Donahue have stated, strafing barricades is a strategy, but is not sufficient evidence of the spirit of safety. Karek will soon do another third party view of the suburb. If I didn't work 70+ hours a week and could successfully use iWitness, I'd show just howmany deaths there are in the suburb, and just how unsafe and strafed it is. However, I would like a third party to deal with your obfusications in the future - thank you for agreeing not to vandalize my posts anymore. G'luck.--Donathin 21:58, 20 July 2007 (BST)
to be technical i didnt vandalise. i annoyed yes but not vandalised. in any case i do agree that the cades are temporary, but that proves my point. if there are enough survivors hiding in the suburb able to spend all there AP cadeing it cant be very dangerous.--'BPTmz 23:03, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Danger Level

I've changed it back to what Hagnat put it at last. Few reasons. The biggest being that before you two started bickering this is what it was set at. That and barricades existing don't matter, barricades not existing however is a sign of danger, sounds weird but think about it for a little and you'll probably figure out why.

Now, the current state of the news is fine, it is Neutral, and doesn't actually say the suburb is any safer than it was, just that the buildings were probably strafed if they have any barricades at all, which definitely does not mean the safety level should change. Want to change it go to my danger reports page and send me screenshots of the buildings, preferably done with iwitness. I'll be glad to change it and help in that situation. But both of you(Donathin and Blood_Panther) need to realize the suburb news sections of the wiki are not the place for your little spat to go on. Take it to your talk pages, and please cease the edit war. Neither one of you have evidence to back up your changes, and until you have such evidence it would probably be best for neither one of you to change the Danger level again.--karek 01:25, 4 July 2007 (BST)

I am a newer player and was not aware of iwitness, or else I would have taken the screenshots to show the danger. I am interested in becoming an active and helpful member around here, but I have been harrassed in Ketchelbank's wiki since the first time I edited anything. I hate getting into an internet-spat with BP, but he has sort of harrassed me and lied about Ketchelbank's safety time and time again. I'll take screenshots for you, Karek, and thank you for your moderation - but look at all of the RED around Ketchelbank and realize that Ketchelbank is no less dangerous than several of those red suburbs. BP's cade strafing, wiki propaganda and bullying is seriously fogging the integrity of having an open wiki system like UD does. Even now, he's claiming to me (and other people) that you changed it to yellow because you scanned the area and that's what it appeared to be to you. It's just very annoying to see this kind of blatant BS interaction, and I have to wonder howmany other people BP's bullied around on the wikis. I hope you can understand once more my frustration with having had this interaction since being brand new (a little over a month ago). Anyways, thank you one more time for getting involved, even if "moderate" is not an accurate depiction of the danger level in Ketchelbank.--Donathin 06:26, 7 July 2007 (BST)
learn to read. i never said it was Karek that changed it. it was boxy. who check the suburb out IN PERSON. so quit your bitching. im getting fed up with you. and i'm a pretty easy going guy.--'BPTmz 06:34, 7 July 2007 (BST)
If I had more free-time, I'd figure out what the best route to take would be, in an effort to keep you from harrassing me and the Ketchelbank wiki.--Donathin 06:45, 7 July 2007 (BST)
just face it dude. others (who have been here alot longer then you) agree that the suburb is NOT dangerous. if you dont like it then make it dangerous by attacking buildings. or better yet go away!--'BPTmz 06:46, 7 July 2007 (BST)
Attack a building? I kill multiple people every day in Ketchelbank and see all of the razed resource buildings and zombie mobs. I hear the groans and see the massive amounts of people die constantly. I see where the (very few) safe buildings are. You say that others agree that it is moderate? WHAT OTHERS?!?! You are the only one who has ever claimed this - others who have posted have agreed with me (including Karek, a moderator, who took screenshots and posted them on arbitration) about the safety level of the suburb, and some have even suggested that it may be closer to RED! All you do is say that "others" agree with you, but I have yet to see one of these "others" post. You are HARRASSING me and harrassing the Ketchelbank page with the same load of lies for the past month! Moderation, please, Jesus.--Donathin 07:03, 7 July 2007 (BST)
FOR FUCKS SAKE! this is why you are a newb! i gave you info yet you ingnore it! read the bottom of this User talk:DangerReport/Ketchelbank fucking page dipshit! EDIT also karek is not a moderator....just FYI--'BPTmz 07:15, 7 July 2007 (BST)
That's right, I'm not a moderator(nor do I currently have any wish to be), but Boxy there is, he has the final say, and unlike me he has been there in the last few days(last time I was in Ketchelbank was about 6-7 days ago now). Boxy says it's Moderate I tend to believe him, especially when he gives numbers that seem to work with screenshots provided, and that make sense from when I was last there. I do have an issue with the criteria for danger report lowering of levels, but that is being dealt with elsewhere. Now, you said you would do what you need to do to solve this problem without forcing someone else's hand, well that is simple, go to your talk pages and talk it out amongst yourselves. If that doesn't work go to arbitration and let them know what is going on and they will make sure it gets solved. That would be general wiki policy here, considering that I'm sure there is not a moderation group here that handles pre-arbitration arguments(although I might be wrong, we do have moderators).p.s. I have seen a lot of situations where many suburbs are red and one is green within those, it usually makes sense because zombies can't be everywhere and with enough survivors most any suburb can be justifiably green, same isn't true for red though.--karek 09:21, 7 July 2007 (BST)

I went and had a look for myself, first as a zombie, and then as a survivor when I got a revive within an hour at the local revive point. From outside, there are lots of standing zombies, and you don't get headshot very often (it seems) on the street. Inside there are a lot of occupied buildings, and even a couple of powered TRP's. I see this as a moderately dangerous suburb... not safe by any means -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 08:00, 7 July 2007 (BST)

What you are seeing is barricade strafing, Boxy. It's no matter - after a night of sleep, I'm prepared to no longer let myself sink to BP's level; I will gather up screenshots that show the breakins and murders. His obfusication is pseudo-clever, but since I spend every day in Ketchelbank, I know that the situation has not changed. I wouldn't be this loud if it had - I merely have an over-developed sense of justice, and BP's attitude, bullying, and lying really sets it off. I'll deal with him differently in the future.--Donathin 13:57, 7 July 2007 (BST)

Boxy knows what barricade strafing is. but it doesnt matter acording to the current guidelines on dangerlevels. the buildings could be full of people or empty it doesnt matter.--'BPTmz 21:24, 7 July 2007 (BST)
Actually it does/should matter if people are sitting in the buildings. At least when it comes to lowering the danger level. Selective interpretation is a bad thing m'kay. Let if go, and know that you should probably gather evidence before either one of you changes the danger report again, it's always useful to have evidence, especially considering it is now easier than it ever has been before--karek 21:48, 7 July 2007 (BST)
yes it should matter. but at the moment, it doesnt. this is why we really need to change the current guidelines--'BPTmz 21:51, 7 July 2007 (BST)
As I mentioned to Boxy on the talk page, an empty building isn't survivor controlled, which means it is zombie controlled. The buildings hasn't been retaken by survivors which means it really shouldn't be considered worth lowering. Also it should be pointed out that the danger level guidelines are meant to be a guide, not cold hard rules. And in the case of cade strafing that usually comes into play because it doesn't make the suburb any safer, any more survivor controlled, or any less zombie controlled. All downgrading the suburb danger level before it is truly ready does is screw the player community out of valuable and useful information by giving them false info, same goes for upgrading before it is ready. And trust me, you know when it is ready and although this suburb follows the rule of the guideline it doesn't follow the spirit. When you have large groups sleeping in the real resource buildings every night then the suburb is Moderate, until then it is a false moderate. And that is all I'm saying on the subject for the next few days.--karek 22:04, 7 July 2007 (BST)
i have to disagree on "an empty building isn't survivor controlled, which means it is zombie controlled" thats why we have the grey color. also as i told Jorm if the guidelines are just guides then whats stopping someone from changing suburbs to whatever he wants? we either follow the rules or we don't, no half ways...but in anycase i do understand what your saying so i guess we agree to disagree.--'BPTmz 01:55, 8 July 2007 (BST)
Zombies have to populate the building to take control of it and change the danger level, survivors should have to do just the opposite to lower it. It shouldn't be easier to lower danger levels because falsely lowering danger levels causes far more problems for everyone than falsely raising them does.--karek 02:19, 8 July 2007 (BST)
Which is yet another reason why we need to change the way danger-levels currently run. but until then theres really nothing we can do.--'BPTmz 03:15, 8 July 2007 (BST)

July 2

i dont know what suburb donathins in but it's not ketchelbank. after leaving for the weekend i came back to find my charicter was still in perfect health with no zombie attacks what-so-ever. then i did some rounds and found almost all buildings caded with 3-6 survivors in most. resource buildings such as Telfer, Russel NT and Riddel way FS safly caded. we do have a small breakin of three zeds inside St Eusebius's Hospital so visters are warned.--'BPTmz 01:29, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Let's try to keep this page neutral. It's becoming laughable. I've been inside NT and FS buildings in the past two days, as well as inside the Zoo itself. If they get recaded, it doesn't last long, and many survivors are dying constistently every day.--Donathin 02:15, 3 July 2007 (BST)
i'm just saying as it is. i went on a walk and around the suburb and every building i went through was caded. until you open them up again, the suburb is safe.--'BPTmz 03:59, 3 July 2007 (BST)


Moved this here, Barricades being up really means little to nothing, barricades being down however means a lot. Anyone can cade strafe and claim a suburb safe. That and poorly veiled insults are most definitely not NPOV. Didn't you two already have a recent Arbies case about this exact type of thing?--karek 03:51, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Better?--'BPTmz 04:09, 3 July 2007 (BST)
Much.--karek 04:29, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Danger level

After alot of hard work and zombie killing, by The Malton Zookeepers and allies, ketchelbank is well on it's way to recovery. the two southern NT's are still under constint attack, and survivors are advised not to sleep inside lowering the danger level.--'BPTmz 01:09, 26 June 2007 (BST)

Most of the southern suburb is ransacked and 10-20 survivors are still dying in that area daily. There are mobs of 50+ still in that area, though the mob in the Zoo area itself (closer to 20) is a little smaller due to the zig-zagging nature of the Mmm Braanz Tahr. There is a slight neutrality issue regarding what the safety of Ketchelbank is. It is definitely Orange, though, by definition. Donathin 11:26, 26 June 2006 (EST)

lets bring this to ketchelbank talk page. there are no +50 mobs in the suburb. i have scouted the area completly. many buildings are still barricaded. if changed back before the situation changes i will report you for vandalism.--'BPTmz 05:54, 26 June 2007 (BST)

You have not scouted the southern section of the suburb, where there are over 50 zeds within a block or two's radius. A mob does not have to be all loaded into one square - 50 zeds spread out over two or three blocks is far more dangerous than 50 zeds in one square. Easily over 50% (closing in on 75%+) of the suburb is unbarricaded and many people are dying. You are making light of the issue, because of bias, and have no room to report anyone for vandalism. I spend a lot of time counting. The suburb is dangerous - Orange Level. If I were bitter enough, I'd report you for vandalism for the many posts of mine you have deleted or tried to obfusicate with incorrect counts and propaganda. Please take care of the huge mob that has torn down all of the buildings in south-southeast Ketchelbank if you want to change the color of this area to Yellow, and stop causing me to have to appear dramatic on the wiki just to make sure things are accurately presented in this suburb. Donathin 9:03, 26 June 2007 (EST)
while the south eastern area of ketchel bank is open there are no zombies inside the buildings! and few outside. i have screenshots of the entire suburb showing no more then 25 in the whole of ketchelbank. i have never vandalised you or your reports. i have however removed a couple that were writen out of format. following the rules of the wiki. leave the dangerlevel were it is for now. talk to me here and lets try to work things out.--'BPTmz 20:35, 26 June 2007 (BST)
Just thought I'd mention that Very Dangerous=Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested; or hostile zombie mobs of 150+
If so many buildings are open, as seems the case from what I read from both of your statements. Then the suburb is probably Very Dangerous.--karek 20:38, 26 June 2007 (BST)
just the buildings in the southeast. all other buildings are safly caded.--'BPTmz 20:40, 26 June 2007 (BST)


Simply put, Blood Panther is lying about the safety of the suburb because of his group's duty to defend it. Most of the buildings in the suburb are overrun and there are a LOT of zombies in Ketchelbank that are not being stopped at all right now. It is not VeryDangerous, simply because there are no 100+ mobs in any given area, but there is a 50+ size mob that has been just tearing the suburb apart. I've changed it back to dangerous and will continue to do so - because that is the truth, and BP is obfusicating it (and has been trying to do so for weeks). Donathin 10:22, 26 June 2007 (EST)
lying? i have the screen shots to prove the "safety" of the suburb. yes our group is sworn to protect the suburb, but we do admit when we have failed. in this case we have not! there are plenty of buildings safly caded. by continuneing to change the suburb danger-level back, you are makeing false claims, and doing so on the wiki is considered vandalism. if you continue we may have to start an Arbitration case againest you.--'BPTmz 04:59, 27 June 2007 (BST)


Stop trying to bully me around with ridiculous threats. Howmany "screenshots" would you need to show a several block radius including the ransacked insides of the suburb. "Screenshots"? That's ridiculous - you'd need 15-20 screenshots (at bare minimum) to prove what you're trying to prove, and that is that the suburb is moderate - There's no arbitration case to be made against me. You've heard what other people think - with the number of broken into buildings in Ketchelbank, others have suggested making it VeryDangerous. I'm not even that. What I'm doing is not vandalism - it is just honest. You have come right out and said "this area of the city is safe" in the past, at the same time I've been sitting in giant mobs in that area watching the carnage. You're being vindictive and dishonest over something silly - it's a dangerous suburb. Period. Trying to claim anything otherwise is ridiculous. 50-75% of the suburb is broken into - anyone passing through can attest to this, and you've heard what people have to say. It stays Orange. If you really want to push an arbitration case, they'll probably tell you to forget about it and play the game and have fun.
When I was newer, you deleted my posts because I was incorrectly tagging them (without the time/date stamp was your reason). Now you are trying to bully me and give false information to the wiki as a whole. Can we just forget about this? Ketchelbank is actually -more- dangerous than some of its surrounding Orange suburbs! Just play, please. Donathin 12:47 27, June 2007 (EST)
you say anyone passing through can attest to this. well that is my defense as well. if people dont belive the suburb is only moderate dangerlevel, they can come see it for yourself.as for your "bullying" comment. i am mearly trying to show the truth. about deleteing your posts. that was on the suburb page. if you dont sign your reports on the suburb page they get deleted. thats the way it's always been. in anycase, i have asked a mod to lock the danger report page from editing until we get this strightened out.--'BPTmz 06:00, 27 June 2007 (BST)
The others who have posted on this discussion thread seem to think that it should be RED! I don't understand why you insist on trying to claim that it is yellow! You deleted my posts and changed the suburb danger level to yellow saying that "you would keep changing it back until I signed my posts correctly", when all that my signature had been missing was a time stamp (something that is recorded in the history anyways). This suburb is dangerous. I just swept around the suburb yet AGAIN since my last post, and almost -every- building is broken into, and particularly resource buildings. There are no Necrotechs, Hospitals, etc - The zoo itself is half-broken into and unbarricaded. Whatever mod allowed you to freeze the danger on the suburb alert should send a character down to Ketchelbank himself to see how insane you are being. It is Orange (at the minimum) and pushing Red. Donathin 1:18 27, June 2007
The reason I protected the page is because of this ongoing edit war, the page is locked in whatever state it was in after I read the protection request and confirmed that there was an edit war as required by UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines, my alt is on route to Ketchelbank just to satisfy my own curiosity but it is unlikely he will make it there today. I would suggest that you take this to Arbitration so that this issue be resolved and the page can be returned to it's unprotected status - Vantar 06:31, 27 June 2007 (BST)

ok Donathin? learn to read. no-where doed anyone else say the suburb should be red. karek said If so many buildings are open, as seems the case from what I read from both of your statements. Then the suburb is probably Very Dangerous which is a misunderstanding as alot of buildings are still caded. are the resource buildings caded? no. but plently other safe houses are around. yes i deleted you post on the suburb page. BECAUSE YOU DIDNT SIGN WITH A TIMESTAMP. quoting the suburb page. Reminder: All reports must be signed to be accepted. Any reports that do not have a signature will be removed. Put most recent reports at the top. i even found one such case. i didnt delete your post that time but did the same thing he did. [2]--'BPTmz 06:54, 27 June 2007 (BST)


A lot of the buildings are still caded? No! I take daily trips through the suburb on several characters. All of the resource buildings are down and sacked. Almost all of the rest of the buildings in the whole suburb are sacked at this very moment, over 75% of them. This is the problem with wikipedia sometimes - it becomes a you vs me argument, and you get people lying for political or personal reasons. The suburb is DANGEROUS.

And you can sign without leaving a timestamp - you've just gone out of your way to try to keep anyone from changing the danger of the suburb to anything besides Yellow. You are being ridiculous (besides being unable to even spell words correctly, which I believe should be a pre-requisite for posting and controlling articles on wikipedias). Eventually some mod will see this and unfreeze/set the suburb to what it should be. Orange (maybe even RED). Donathin 02:00, 27 June 2007 (EST)

ok i think i'm done talking to you. i have tried to talk things out but you just dont listen to reason. another thing..I take daily trips through the suburb on several characters thats considered zerging. goodnight and see you in arbies.--'BPTmz 07:06, 27 June 2007 (BST)

It's not zerging to walk through a suburb with multiple characters. I only have one character in Ketchelbank that is contributing to violence. The rest peek in from surrounding suburbs to see how ransacked the suburb is. And it is very, very ransacked. Be done with talking to me - you haven't tried to work out anything. You picked on a new player, and now that I'm not-as-new, you've bullied me and gotten someone to lock the danger level on the suburb to a level that is dishonest. I was nice to you when you began to delete my posts - but there's not really a reason to be, now. You're a bullying, griefing player who is so obsessed with Ketchelbank's (I don't even know, status, or something) that you lie about how safe the zone is and how well the Zookeepers are protecting it. I looked back into the history of some of the danger reports and suburb updates, and I've seen you do this to a few other players also. The only difference is that I'm calling you out on the lie. Ketchelbank is dangerous. This conversation may be ridiculous and laughable, but I'm going to head to bed at least knowing that anyone who reads this will probably know that you are kind of a douchebag who picks on new players and lies. Donathin 02:19, 27 June 2007

[3] and yet you are the one to start name calling...real nice.--'BPTmz 07:25, 27 June 2007 (BST)
Just for the record, after remembering about and waking up an alt in Brooke Hills Iwas able to reach Ketchelbank and spent a few AP poking around. The largest horde I saw was ten strong there were a few EXB buildings and a few building wide open. I'm no expert in the danger levels so I'll just give you what I found in my travels, User:Vantar/Ketchelbank - Vantar 07:30, 27 June 2007 (BST)

Whoah whoa, calm down boys. I'll be there to do a little searching of my own but according to BP's statement that the resource buildings are open. Well there is the issue, Donathin would be right the suburb is Dangerous, not Very Dangerous, but Orange is the appropriate color. If the resource buildings are open and unbarricaded as you said BP then it is Orange regardless of numbers.--karek 11:02, 27 June 2007 (BST)

Ok, after a 40+ AP tour of the suburb in which I went to every resource building I only found two barricaded, and one of them was loosely with a near death defender. The suburb is Dangerous at the least, I would recommend Very Dangerous but I am not aware of the current status of the Zoo area which I did not venture into. The Zoo may be the only even semi safe area in the whole suburb. I'm trying to set up a danger report page here, you should be able to view the results along with IWitness screen shots of the whole area.--karek 11:41, 27 June 2007 (BST)

Phone Mast status report

If you time, can we get you to update http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Mobile_Phone_Mast#Locations with the current status of your local phone mast? Thanks. Asheets 20:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

If you feel that Ketchelbank is noteworthy please go to the suburb talk page and comment.--Blood Panther 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ketchelbank a Suburb of Note?

Ketchelbank is under discussion as a Suburb of Note on the Suburbs Discussion page. Architecturally unique in Malton, Ketchelbank contains the city's only unique structure, the City Zoo which is defended by, among others, The Malton Zookeepers, currently the second largest group in Malton that is dedicated to the defence of a single location, second only to the Caiger Mall Survivors. Please join the discussion and make your opinions known. --Belmondzoo 08:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been decided against, and moved to the archive -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 06:52, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Known Groups in Ketchelbank

Has anyone seen a member of The Black Rhinos in Ketchelbank lately? I believe that all the other groups listed are currently represented in the suburb but I haven't seen a Rhino in a long, long time. --BelmondTMZ 19:30, 24 September 2006 (BST)

A request

i was wondering if there could be any news and plz maintain the revive point. alot of zeds are there—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cody6 (talk • contribs) .

Old Map Box

If anyone ever needs this for anything, here it is. --Dickie Fux 00:34, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Removed. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 16:25, 30 July 2009 (BST)

Great Suburb Group Massacre 2010

All suburb wiki pages are undergoing a clean up to remove inactive groups from the group listing (see here: this suburb's groups). If you are a group currently listed in this suburb, you will be contacted on your group's talk page within the next few days and asked to reply, indicating that you are active in this suburb. Groups that fail to reply within two weeks of being contacted will automatically be removed from the suburbs where they are listed.

We're posting here in the hopes that more groups will be aware of the clean up and can respond appropriately, since our team does not have the time nor the manpower to seek out every group in-game or track down its group members elsewhere on the wiki. If you know that some groups in your suburb do not check the wiki, please be a good neighbor and let them know that they NEED to check it for this, or else they will be unlisted in the near future.

The wiki members coordinating the cleanup will be using the table below to track their progress in communicating with the various groups. Please do not edit it if you are not involved with The Great Suburb Group Massacre 2010 team.

The Great Suburb Group Massacre 2010
Group Name Contacted On Date Due
Malton Fire Department 26 January 2010 Removed
The Malton Zookeepers 26 January 2010 Removed
Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service 26 January 2010 Confirmed
Undeadites 26 January 2010 Confirmed
This suburb has been cleared. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check your group's talk pages in the next few weeks, and respond promptly when you receive a communication from the GSGM2010 team. Thanks. Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 08:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation as we cleaned up the group listings for this suburb. Your help in reaching out to groups and replying to our requests has been much appreciated. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Ketchelbank/Archive&oldid=1891141"