Talk:Miltown/Archive

---

This is the Archive of the Miltown Discussion Page

--Nothing is omitted in the transfer from Main Discussion Page to this page

Doom Patrol - Coalition Debate

Referred from Main Suburb page

It is now obvious that Doom Patrol wiki editors are incapable of reasoned discussion, or even following simple, helpful advice - instead resorting to vandalism and repetitive tirades. I apologise to those visiting this page for their behaviour, and can only hope that you do not judge all the residents of Miltown by their low standards. I also apologise to those of you who have to look in the history buffer to find this response after DP weild their Axe on it. Rayvern 14:49, 14 July 2006 (BST)

P.S for those interested in the truth - nothing was ever deleted - it was merely moved to the discussion page, with links left on the main page to say where it had moved to.

The Truth.

Rayvern, the Doom Patrol posts you have moved from the main page over the last few weeks were no different from The Coalition & DK13 conversations that went on months ago, however none of those posts were moved or deleted. The questions that immediately come to mind because of your recent behavior are, by what right have you suddenly taken it upon yourself to be the moderator of newsworthy events on the Miltown wiki page, and why are you so inconsistent in your application of your ad hoc standard?

What is happening in Miltown ARE current events, whether The Coalition will admit to their actions or not. As far as your demand for proof, Q240z has said that the moderator you went whining to was explicit--there are no such requirements in wiki policy. On a related note, you complain about libel with regard to our posts covering ACTUAL events that have been witnessed by multiple non-DP players, but then tag buildings with scandalous anti-DP messages and broadcast all sorts of libelous claims on your 27.00 frequency. Besides being necrophiliacs, must you also be hypocrites?

I don't recall ever being revived, healed or helped in any way by a Coalition member EVER, and I assure you I have spent some time in Miltown. Doom Patrolers have been asking around to regulars in the area and--surprise surprise--it turns out that nobody remembers you guys ever having made even one act to help survivors in the area. Why don't you quit playing god on the Miltown Current Events page and spend your editing skills cleaning up your homepage to reflect the truth-- The Coalition is a zombie alliance and nothing more. Hence, Coalition celebrations (by way of tagging "another Coalition victory" on an overrun NT building) are all about zombie victories.

Response to 'The Truth'

-Thank you for finally managing to respond in a reasoned fashion.

-Did you notice how the DK13 discussions aren't on the main page? Surprisingly they were all shifted to the discussion page - same with the earlier suburb ownership debate with AoG. All moved to keep the main page clean...odd how consistent that is.....

-The Coalition do own up to their activities. You just accused them of things they haven't done - and, just out of interest, no one went to a moderator. They got involved because of q240zs vandalism without any prompting from me. I just reported a follow up incident once the ball was aready rolling. His banning was a direct result of his own stupidity and inability to take heed of clear warnings.

-As far as helping others out in the area. I don't really care who you claim to have spoken to. The Coalition maintain a resurrection assist group that is available to all....it just needs to be requested. As stated on The Coalition page, they will not resurrect someone unless it is requested because they respect a zombies right to be a zombie.

-I'm not even going to bother repeating my earlier posts refuting the spying or the reasons the tags are there. I also couldn't give a damn about anti-DP tags or broadcasts - there have been plenty of anti-Coalition ones, so it seems it's just something the groups in Miltown will have to live with.

-So kindly keep your opinions on your own group pages or on this discussion page - rather than sullying what could be a good suburb page your drivel.

Rayvern 09:13, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Warning to Other Survivors

All Survivors are warned to be aware while sleeping in buildings occupied by The Coalition members. There is a pattern emerging of The Coalition members slipping out of a building minutes before it is attacked by flack-jacketted, brain rotter zombies who, also happen to be members of The Coalition. This is happening too often to be a coincidence.

--Addendum to Warning - shifted from the main suburb page to keep it free of opinion and unfounded accusation:

Coalition zeds appear to have developed the unannounced ability to use spray cans to tag buildings. This is evidenced by buildings that have been overrun by Coalition zombies suddenly having "Another Coalition Success" tags, in addition to other, similar boasts that antagonize human survivors. The alternate hypothesis is that Coalition humans act in full support of their undead brethren, contrary to their advertised claim to “live according to the state they are in,��? tagging buildings for the undead after directing them to survivor hideouts. Resident survivors and visitors to Miltown are advised to seriously consider the potential consequences of sleeping in buildings with Coalition members present.

--It's worth noting that the above warning offers no back up to it's claims. It strikes me more as an attempt to start a Flame/Edit war - which is why it has been moved to the discussion page, rather than leaving it to make the main suburb page untidy. --Hopefully the originator will take heed and keep any flagrantly inflamatory comments on this discussion board. Rayvern 09:50, 6 July 2006 (GMT)

--What is worth noting most is that the above warning offers plenty of evidence to back up to Doom Patrol's claims--go to Miltown and look at the tags. Another thing worth noting is the possessive quality of Coalition edits of Doom Patrol posts. Statements of fact are called opinion and newsworthy events--Coalition zeds developing humanlike powers or Coalition humans playing like they stink of rot--are immediately removed. What gives the coalition the right to determine what constitutes news, especially when the proof of the EVENTS is right there on the walls in Miltown? Q240z

Please read Addendum to Response below. It was posted earlier, but you obviously missed it. Rayvern

--Hopefully the originator will take heed and keep any flagrantly inflamatory comments on this discussion board. Rayvern 09:50, 6 July 2006 (GMT)

Response to Warning

I am concerned and worried about such accusations. The Zombs kill the living. The players kill the dead. Any attack on buildings by Coalition Zombies in buildings with Coalition Players is purely coincidnetal. I have reawaken on numerous occasions to fine that my fellow members have opened a building as a Zomb and killed numerous players. Obviously i have then been attacked (quite rightly) by other Zombs. There is simply quite a few Coalition memebers and unlike other organisations in the area do not have the time or patience to plan attacks.

However we as the Coalition are most disturbed by the accusations that have been forwarded aainst us as player killers. We state again as is on our Wiki page we only kill players with players who have done the same to us. This is the law of the Coalition. We will not back off if specific players decide to hide behind large groups.

--I put the original warning back so that the response has a context Rayvern 10:13, 7 July 2006 (GMT)

--Addendum to Response

Yet another accusation without substance - might as well pluck some other offenses out the air while your at it...make it worth your while.

I'll respond to it though - I did think twice about encouraging such behaviour with undeserved attention however.

Yes, Coalition survivors do tag buildings after they have been raided. It serves as a warning to newcomers in the district that the building they are in is a regular target of our life-impaired brethren.

We have denied scouting for zombies before, and we do so again now. That is not what we are about. If you feel you have been unjustly turned by a Coalition member, feel free to email us (as described on The Coalition wiki page) and we will organise your ressurrection.

Even Coalition survivors are having a hard time finding safe haven in Miltown. It's a fairly regular occurance to find ourselves dead by the hand of an unaligned zed after the barricades have been knocked down by our compatriots. (Thankfully we have an organised ressurection team and we don't stay dead for long, unless we want to).

The Coalition / PK13 dispute=

The Coalition were accused by PK13 of being a zombie-human group who use their survivors to scout out and de-barricade targets for their undead counterparts.
The Coalition denied this charge and, after some discussion around the issue, it was decided that a halt be called to the conflict in the interest of continued peace in the suburb.
(This is a very brief summary of the dispute, put here to make this page more accessible to visitors. The full debate is stored in the page history buffer for those who are interested)

Suburb Ownership Debate

Issue

A misunderstanding arose between the Alliance and The Coalition regarding ownership of Miltown. This resulted in a reasonable discussion, which has now been simplified into the following two points of view.

Alliance POV

I will give you an example of what happened not too long ago that will prove my point. The Creedy Defense Force currently controls Ft. Creedy. They have been since November. One day in February a group of 5 men, all level 1's, ran in and said the Ft. was under their command. Of course it wasn't because CDF already had a claim to the building and has been defending it longer than they've been around.

My point? Your group was created March 1st. Miltown has been part of the AoG since February. You are claiming territory that is not yours. You do not even have the numbers to make such a claim.

You are welcome to stay in Miltown but remember that it has been under AoG control longer than you've been around. Saromu 19:39, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

Rayvern's POV

Many of your conclusions above are based on false assumptions.
Here are the facts:

- The Coalition have been in Miltown since 25/11/05. That they only announced their presence there officially (on this wiki) on 1st March is merely a formality. There have been members of the Coalition around in Malton since Mid August '05.
- Numbers are irrelevant. The Alliance is made up of several sub-groups, only 2 of which are actually active in Miltown.
- By their own admission, whatever control they claimed before was lost on 22nd Feb 05.
- The Coalition are NOT claiming control of Miltown. They never have. I am only disputing Alliance control over it. The Alliance can claim Miltown all they like, but should not say they control it - That is most definitely a False Assumption.

End Result

A peaceful resolution to the issue. The Alliance retain their tag with a minor alteration to it's contents.

Resource Building Summary on Main Page Comment

Who else thinks the Resource Building summary is taking over the whole page? Can anyone point to where this is an approved addition to every suburb - or is it one persons crusade to change every suburb page? Any Mods who see this - Does it have to stay, or can I vote for it to be removed/improved for aesthetic reasons? –Ray Vern phz ^•T

I think layout of the Miltown wiki page was good as it was. I cannot see the benefit of the resource building summary as the infomation is on the map at the bottom of the page.--Munktharo 17:17, 17 August 2006 (BST)

I think it should stay. The Resource Buildings summary is an excellent way to track down annoying-to-find NT Buildings in unfamiliar suburbs. If you want to try and come up with a better system of doing this, feel free to take a crack at it. -Deevyde 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a play with template formats and such to see what I can come up with. I post it up here for feedback when I have something –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Radio

The listed freq for Miltown is and always has been 26.20. 27.00 is the Coalition Freq. The two are not one and the same. Lallander 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because no one was using it...It was felt more useful to advertise Radio freqs that actually had traffic rather than keep to an unused District station. The space was shared previously (and agreed as being shared by more than just The Coalition I might add). Please check before arbitrary applying your adjustment hammer.

I've put it back to the previously shared state (since someone present in the suburb now wants it displayed) –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Perhaps no one was using it because any radios tuned to the Miltown frequency were retuned, and there are sprays every few blocks advertising your group frequency ;). Regardless, as a matter of basic principle, if The Coalition's group frequency is on the Miltown page then, by extension, The Brainiacs and even The Hell-Bringers also merit such inclusion. Or, far more satisfactorily, they could all be removed and only the proper Miltown frequency left there for everyone to use. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? If not I'll probably correct this tonight. -Deevyde 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(note the indenting)

I have no issue with the inclusion of other active radio freqs. That was the main reason there is now an alternative Radio information template on the Miltown suburb page. It allows the addition of as many Station details as required. Feel free to add the Brainiacs Freq to the list.

It's worth noting that the so called 'dedicated frequency' for Miltown is only such because another contributer arbitrarily decided to make it so. I'm happy to accept it and even list it, but it has no more priority than any other station. –Ray Vern phz ^•T

The point that all frequencies are essentially arbitrary is a good one but, in the same way that cemeteries have been designated revive points completly arbitrarily, having city-wide recognised radio freqs for certain areas is a great boon to survivor coordination. People can simply 'tune in' to any area they're thinking of travelling too to get a good idea what, if anything, is going on there. The Brainiacs will provisionally claim and list a radio frequency as soon as we can be certain it will be used frequently enough to justify such a listing- at the moment, we're tuned into and using the Miltown freq for any broadcasts. -Deevyde 23:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As a note http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Radio clearly shows the Miltown Frequency as 26.20 and has for some time. Lallander 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lallander - Yes, I know. That is what I was referring to when I was talking about "Dedicated Frequencies" - which is the title of that particular section of the Radio Freq list.

I'm hoping that we can improve the amount of information available to survivors by offering the list of Active Stations for the survivors to choose from. (I've also just added some formatting to the station list that highlights the "Dedicated Frequency").

It is easy enough to add another station to the AltRadioFreq template when you claim a frequency.

Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Cading Policy

Can I make a couple of requests regarding the Barricade policies mentioned on the Main page....
Firstly, I think we need to agree a policy for the suburb - rather than having two different ones. It will be much easier for other visitors to the suburb to know where to go and how far to barricade this way.
Secondly, Any barricade policy we agree on needs to be in the appropriate format. There is already a template available for cading policies (Template:BarricadePolicyBox) that would keep the overall theme of the page in line with the rest of the suburbs.
Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Hang on a second, you're seriously telling me that little paragraph is your cohesive plan for the defense of this suburb? No offense, but LOL. Have you even mapped those two sentences onto Miltown and seen what it produces? Did you actually apply any cohesive policies in formulating that? Do you honestly think it provides an ideal plan for the maintainance of this suburb? I've taken the alleviating step of adding group names to each plan for the time being. I also strongly think that the Brainiac plan, as it clearly shows its reasoning for the designation of each building, comes with a map and, to be honest, is demonstratably a far superior plan, deserves to be above the chronologically preceding Coalition 'plan', by virtue of the fact that if date of proposition is the only factor for the determined importance of barricade plans, a simple sentence of 'LOL NO CADES' would trump both our plans, providing it was proposed two years ago.

Secondly, our non-standard presentation befits our non-standard plan. As stated, we have no qualms with any alterations that increase, for want of a better word, efficiency. Just as many barricade plans are based on flawed policies, so the standard system of plan presentation suffers from various presentational flaws which make the thing as a whole a nightmare to interpret. We use bold colours, an even grid, straight lines, and a simple key, and also convey the basic logic with which the plan was formulated. Simple. Effective. Beautiful. -Deevyde 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You state simple and effective as the main 'bonuses' of your plan....I fail to see what is simpler than a barricading policy that can be summarised in an easily understandable fashion with only a single short paragraph. It's neater than the monstrosity you have included and is far simpler to follow.

Yes, I have pasted the plan onto the suburb map and it allows for a minimum of one entry point building in each separate block. Some have more than one, but every block of buildings is accessible - making it ideal for Free-Runners.

The chosen entry points are non-resource buildings and well spread across the whole suburb - making it ideal for non-free runners to find a safe place to sleep (it's worth noting that the entry points are also all centres of learning - meaning that inexperienced players will be able to rest without fear of being picked off by a passing Philosophe Knight).

The non-standard map presented by the Brainiacs is an inefficient eyesore that an 8 year old could have formatted better. You need to refer to the main suburb map alongside the cade policy map for it to be applied, adding complication and effort to the task - not something a passer-by would be interested in. Please shift it to accepted wiki standard form.

On a completely separate note, we have never complained about the addition of the alternative plan, only about the removal of the existing plan without discussing it with the contributer first. At no time has the age of the plan been a factor in determining how good it is.

Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T

P.S It is worth noting that there are Style policies regarding Suburb content. I'm not sure if The Brainiacs Barricading map would fit those guidelines (or, more pertinently, a moderators interpretation of that style guide). It might be worth checking.

P.P.S After a quick comparison of the two plans, I find myself mildly amused by this whole discussion. I'm hoping that you have already noted that the only difference between the two plans (in an application rather than a display sense) is that The Coalition plan includes Banks as VS++ buildings on top of those listed by the proposed Brainiac plan. It seems the only actual points that need to be determined are the format of the barricading policy on the main page and whether or not Banks should be included.

Addressing each point in turn, you've misrepresented my position. You claim that your plan is betetr because of it's simplicity whereas ours is much more complicated- actually, if you'd care to read our plan, you'll see it's derived from principles only slightly more complex than your own. We clearly cite the logic behind these principles, and include a map for easy reading. I daresay if you included a map in lots of crazy colours for ease of reading, and we sumamrised our plan in a paragraph, you'd find reasons to hold that a map is extremely advantegeous to ease understanding and readability.

Ideal for free-runners? You have resource buildings 2 squares away from entry points. You make no use of Sigel Arms, the island. I really, really pity anyone who gets caught on low AP around Derham. The difference isn't just banks- we actively designate other buildings to VS to ensure a wide spread of entry points, and to make such a system generally applicable to a suburb not quite as building-biased as Miltown.

Once again, a misrepresentation- and I'm *sure* you're aware of this one. Of course, the Philosophe Knights enjoy ganking lowbies for no reason, and The Coalition are the protectors of all that is good and just, even going so far as to modify their own 'barricade plan' to avoid incurring the wholly unjustified wrath of the Knights. (As this style seemed to cause earlier confusion, we call this 'sarcasm').

Formatting is entirely aesthetic and subjective. We will not shift to inferior wiki-standard formatting unless you can provide a good reason for us to do so- links to an authoritative style guide would more than suffice.

Duly noted. I now return to questioning whether or not your system can be called a 'plan'. -Deevyde 23:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually....I don't claim anything of the sort (in reference to who has the better plan). I'm quite happy with the Brainiacs plan as a whole. My only request is that it be adjusted somewhat to give location names and to be more in line with the colour scheme of the game or of the wiki maps (it should also be a template to allow other suburbs to use it without duplicating your efforts - The existing template for Barricade maps (Template:BarricadePolicyBox) is pretty naff when you get right down to it. A more visually effective template would be much better).

My initial point was more to emphasise that we need to agree a policy, rather than the rest of us just have yours forced upon us.

So, to summarise my position:

- I'm happy with the content of the Brainiacs Barricade Policy (which buildings should be caded to what level).

- I'm suggesting that it could do with a couple of improvements along the lines of templating, colour scheme and location names.

- I'm happy to look into producing a template along these lines, or you can do it yourself if you wish.

I hope that brings us to a good place to move forward from.

Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Can I just ask according to the barricade plan(1), the only buildings that are allowed to have a generator is the Necro Buildings, all other critical resource building is only very strongly barricaded(2) from Item 4. Isn't that silly? Generators are needed to help find stuff, like guns, ammo, and radios.--Munktharo 21:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Layout Discussion

I'd like to propose a minor change to the overall layout of the Main page.
The basic idea is to swap out the Resource map at the bottom of the page and create an "Available Services" section near the top (above current events). The goal is to highlight the Revive point and Revive Service, the resource buildings and other useful information in a way that doesn't overtake the page, yet is useful to passing visitors.
I'll draft up a template or box of some form to put on this page first (to get feedback).
Early feedback on the idea itself is welcome.
cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T

See top. I'll outline my personal vision for this page here in the coming days. -Deevyde 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your 'personal vision' is not what is under discussion. Your ideas and contributions are welcome, but please remember that this is not your personal page. –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Once again, a horrible, biased, and I'm beginning to think deliberate, misinterpretation of my views. At the moment, you're running the editing autocratically, and you have no right to do so. I make the merest suggestion that I think the page should be presented differently, and you accuse *me* of trying to make this *MY* personal page??? -Deevyde 23:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...that was was drawn from the way you phrased your sentence...."My Personal Vision".

I don't 'run' the editing. I'm just ensuring that things that already exist on the suburb pages are not overwritten or discarded without consent.

I look forward to your 'Outline' =) –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Basic Grammar

Okay, combined with the other stuff on the Miltown page, this is really getting annoying. Before posting anything there, could everyone please learn how to write readable English, or, at the very least, run a spellchecker on your text. If anyone thinks this is a harsh PoV assessment, I'm *more* than happy to dig up some examples. Deevyde 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a number of good examples, and I've never claimed to write perfect english. Just remember that some of the spelling mistakes or grammatical mistakes may well be deliberate (I doubt many of them are, but some may be =). Just be careful when applying your GrammarHammer across to everything. It could easily be seen as vandalism if someone takes offence to your edits.

It's worth noting that there are no official policies enforcing use of good grammar or spelling - though I do agree that some effort to maintain readability would be worthwhile.

Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Deliberate spelling errors are fair enough, but some of this stuff- not really by yourself, but in the Miltown history- is gramatically ludicrous. Of course everyone typos now and again, but this is more like the occasional coherent word slipping in among the mess. You're saying now that you support the enforcement of readability, but you've reverted such edits I've performed on your group's material multiple times and claimed to be reverting vandalism. The only person 'taking offense to' my edits right now is you, and given the way you've responded to some of the points raised over the last few days I find myself questioning your systemic coherence. Please clarify your position ASAP. -Deevyde 23:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't take offence to the results of the edits per se...more to the fact that the edits are being carried out without first discussing the changes. You seem to have taken it on yourself to personally own this wiki page - altering the content to what you would like it to be (as shown by previous text removals from Fliney and Ecclestone locations pages).

Yes, I have noted this statement: 'Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.', but there is a basic ettiquete associated with Wiki editing that you seem to have missed.

The idea is that everyone works together to create a great wiki. You will note the key words there are "work together". I don't arbitrarily oppose all things from other people - if it's a good idea it's fine by me. But what is a good idea needs to be agreed on first, otherwise we get into a long and boring constant edit war that leads nowhere.

Please consider the others that contribute to this page before applying your own additions.

Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Vandalism?

This is, in many ways, a subset of basic grammar. Correcting the *horrific* PoV and spelling errors in someone else's text is *vandalism* now Ray? You *might* want to check your definitions there. Hell, the very bottom of this here edit page says 'Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.' I have *no* objection to you archiving existing History for old time's sake, but please don't revert a completly legitimate edit to remove biased information from what should be a purely informative suburb summary page. I'm reverting the changes to the suspect paragraph now, and expect a discussion on your defintion of 'vandalism' before any further revertion takes place. -Deevyde 23:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put it back how it was originally. Changes to pre-existing content should be discussed before changes are made.

The PoV stuff was left out....I'm not getting into that discussion as I didn't post it (IMO it is PoV and had no place in the current events). I have already stated that I have no problem with spelling corrections, so long as if the original contributer complains about the change they are reverted to the original form.

I term vandalism to be the removal of perfectly legitimate content. The suburb history contains no bias to any particular group, it contains no PoV. So why should you be allowed to remove sections of it? –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Barricading Policy Decision

It seems a bit silly to have two conficting barricading policies on the Main suburb page. This dicussion area is for any and all to add their vote for which one should stay (or both stay, or both go).

Just add a "vote" below following the format of the one that's there. Comments are welcome, but keep it constructive and to the point please. Please sign and date all votes.

Voting ends at the end of the year (too long/short a timescale?).

(Options are Coalition, Brainiac, Both, or Neither - if the last one please suggest an alternative)

(Additional extra option: Mixed - This is to use one particular style with the content of the other plan. Please state in your vote which style/plan mix you support)

(I think we can assume that all members of each group will vote for their own plan. We'll count all those from a participating group as a single vote. What we need to is to get other independent and regular wiki users to take part in the vote.)

1. Coalition - Obvious vote really...I made the plan. I think it simple, easy to read and in line with the existing style of the suburb page. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 09:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Brainiac - Obvious vote really... I made the plan :). Deevyde 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Coalition - Looks better and is easier to use. Coordinates would be nice though ;)--Munktharo 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Brainiac - Well being a retard an' all I do so love the pretty colours on the Brainiac plan! Also, can't you Coalition guys see that your plan is horribly formatted and just admit that, seeing as though the two plans are so similar, it actually makes very little difference who's plan gets put up! MatteeNeutra 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Neither - Put them on your group pages (or subpages thereof) and link to them on the suburb page. This is the system most suburb pages seem to follow and I think it would be the best solution here. -- ∀lan Watson ^T·RPM 10:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting ended Early due to lack of interest - it is accepted that the advetising of the vote was lacking (my bad). In the end, the most unbias contribution to the votes was by ∀lan Watson - and therefore his suggestion has been implemented. A note to this effect replaces this section on the Miltown Talk page. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Events

Removed listing:
A strange new tactic seems to be in use by self-confessed PKer group, the Philosophe Knights.

While in the process of carrying out his morning ablutions, a member of The Coalition was taken out by one of the Knights. The victim, eager to capture proof of this act for submission to The Coalition list of survivor killers, promptly clambered to his now undead feet and checked after his killer. He was surprised to find that his killer had also joined the ranks of the dead - a odd occurrence considering the short space of time that had passed (a minute or two at most).

This incident was reported with the odd experience tagged alongside. It turned out the victim was not the only member of The Coalition to have found their killers this way, though none others were in as short a timescale.

Current theories/suspicions are that the Philosophe Knights have adopted Lemming-like Tactics in their war on other groups. There may be many reasons for this, but the favoured one at the moment is that by killing themselves they can prevent retribution and pad out their PK stats in their favour. The big downside to this theory is that it would probably require the Knights to maintain a secret reviver (untagged as a part of their group) to ensure fast return to action (rather than relying on slower reacting Revive points) - something they may well be against doing.

Investigations into the matter will continue. Any other survivor sharing this experience (or whom has contrary evidence) is asked to forward it to The Coalition contact address, given on the group page.

You could try discussing things first.....

You may not have posted unsubstatiated claims on the main page, but that hasn't stopped you posted them to other places on the wiki (other than The Coalition talk pages). You'll also notice that our discussion regarding your accussations of wiki vandalism and other such complaints are still present on The Coalition talk pages - a place we are actually allowed to arbitrarily delete content not of our own submission.

The intial part of the posting listed what occurred without interpretation (other than the fact it was odd). The later part is clearly labeled as a theory (thus without current proof), but was merely put in as part of a request for others in the suburb to be on the look out for, and report, similar experiences.

I'll grant that the Theory can be construed as PoV, but the rest was shown to have occurred.

Either way - you don't own the page, so don't act as though you do.

Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T

Once again, you are establishing double standards- one set for you and your Coalition buddies, and another for everyone else. You tell us to discuss before editing, yet you post this *completely* unsourced, aggressive, and biased statement without a word. When I revert it, you say in the edit summary 'Make an effort to discuss first at least....'. You sneak malicious snipey comments into your writing, such as your recent post on this very page with the edit comment 'Added discussion relating to [sic] Deevyde apparent ownership of the main page'. That's simply incorrect, and a good example of how readily you appear to abandon the pretense of unbiased editorship as soon as you feel it can further your own agenda. As seems to be the custom, answering each point in turn:

Correct. The talk pages are just for that- talking. The actual wiki pages, however, should contain factual information. You again seem to be aiming for the moral high ground by pointing out you haven't deleted my posts there- go ahead if you find them offensive- after all, it's your group's talk page. But this does *not* in any way give you any sort of right by reciprocation to post unsourced insults of other players on a page for factual information!

If theories with absolutly no evidense were acceptable on the main page simply because they were written from a neutral point of view... well, let's just say I'd imagine there'd be a fair whack more text on this wiki. And the 'theory' isn't even neutral- it's an extremely biased personal interpretation of events that doesn't even begin to consider other possibilities

'The rest was shown to have occurred'. Provide evidence please.

'You don't own the page, so don't act as though you do'. My sentiments *exactly*. -Deevyde 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough you seem to paint contributing and deletion with the same brush - as that seems to be the only way to excuse your editting practises. You have repeatedly Deleted other peoples work - I have repeatedly asked for discussions before such things happen.

The edits I have contributed have been reversion of your unwarranted deletes or contribution of new material - neither require that I get your okay first (to demand such is to claim ownership).

Can you see the difference yet? You remove other peoples work - That is wrong without consultation. It smacks of enforcing your own authority on other contributors - thus claiming ownership.

I have already said that the Theory could be construed as PoV - one of the reasons I shifted the whole post to here rather than just plugging it back up on the main page again.

The Philosophe Knights are self-professed PKers. Are you doubting that they killed a survivor?

(Reports of PKing are not accepted without a screenshot - I've made that blindingly obvious in other discussions. I also don't see that I have to expose the victim to all and sundry just to prove a point to you).

It's hardly an aggressive statement, or unbias for that matter - I was asking for evidence that supports or that contravenes the claim in an attempt to find out what is actually going on. I was inviting a response from the alledged perpetrator and anyone else interested.

It is completely unsourced - To You. As I stated above, I felt I had enough evidence to ask others if they had experienced something similar. The Theory was obviously stated as such - matching the wiki policy for non-NPoV postings (as far as they are defined for suburb pages anyway).

In summary, I take offense at your willingness (even eagerness) to remove the work of others without first consulting them. No other contributers currently do that (Coalition or otherwise). Why do you feel you should be treated differently?

–Ray Vern phz ^•T

Bulletin Boards

Anyone know how to put Bulletin Board info up on that dirty great resource building grid? --Munktharo 12:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry sorted it. --Munktharo 14:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Radio Frequency Section

Not sure this is a good idea. It adds a lot of wasted space to the top of the suburb page, where it was previously reasonably neat and compact - Important information was visible without having to scroll down the page.

Can I ask why this section was added? (and more importantly, can it be removed?) –Ray Vern phz ^•T 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It was added because the radio frequency box was messing with the text at the top. I was simply trying to organize it like 90% of the other suburb pages I've seen. I looked at a few and found the Freq section and liked it. I think it should be moved below the resource buildings really but I guess you can keep it where you want. I'm not sure group frequencies are meant to be listed on a suburb page anyway. IDK. Keep up the good work. --Showcase^{Malton Rangers/mossad} 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to recreate the Pennville format, which I think does a good job of showing the useful information at the top (apart from the cading policy part, though...wasn't keen on their version of that). I haven't experienced any text messing with the page though. I'll have a play with it in preview and see.

The Radio Flag template was adapted to give a list of all the Radio Stations active in the suburb (all are free to add to it) - giving visitors an easy view of what is available to listen to. The Suburb station is very clearly marked in the template. Again, it was a case of trying to get the useful information easily available to a casual visitor. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that at anything less than 1024px, the text is messed up as the radio box squishes it up. I have a laptop set at 1024 with my favorites open on the left. This makes my view less than 1024 and pages that arent standard don't fit well. Others must have the same problem. I have it with Pennville too. Either way, I'm not going to mess with it anymore. I was trying to help out and stick to some standard. --Showcase^{Malton Rangers/mossad} 17:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Help is always appreciated - As I said, I'll have a play at the resolutions you suggest and see if I can find away round the problem. If I can't resolve the problem, then it may end up back under it's own heading....

The Radio Freq Tag doesn't have a standard location yet. Those pages that use it, have it scattered in all sorts of different places. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Have edited the location of the Radio Frequency tab to fit in better with the altered Resource buildings template location (resource building template had been at the bottom of the page since september last year, but I guess all things must change eventually). –Ray Vern phz ^•T 14:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Barricading Policy Decision

Voting on this decision has been terminated early (mainly due to lack of votes and a feeling that some decision should be made before christmas).

The choice to follow the advice of ∀lan Watson was made because it was the only unbias entry to the vote list, and therefore constituted the most likely sensible answer - it also means that neither group gets their way - a fair result in anyones book.

–Ray Vern phz ^•T 18:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to organise all the suburb barricade plans so they're easier to find. Could I ask you to place whichever one you guys decided upon at the following location, Miltown Barricade Plan and place [[Category:Barricade plans]] on it, please? -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 10:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard from the Brainiacs in a while. We've plugged The Coalition version up on our group page and linked to it from the Miltown suburb page - as recommended by ∀lan Watson.

Hopefully one of their number will respond to this over the next week - if not, I'll post up the Coalition plan for Miltown.

To be honest, I haven't seen them about for quite a while - they may now be a Cat 12 group (last edit on their page was on October, and their main contributers haven't contributed since mid-december from what I can tell).

Thanks. If you give me a nudge when you decide, I'll be happy to make it into a template so that it's easy to place on multiple pages without having to edit every page if you ever decide to change it (you just change the template, and the wiki changes them all). Seems the best way to ensure consistency is maintained -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 09:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit

Removed the line "(The Coalition will only PK in extreme circumstances)." as lets face it, it just aint true. MatteeNeutra 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The Coalition do not PK at all. Thanks for that. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 09:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh naturally. My Character in neighbouring Fryerbank has most certainly not been PK'd three times by a Coalition member in unprovoked attacks. :-) MatteeNeutra 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me know who and I'll check it out with the group. (I'm amazed you haven't bothered asking us about it before now). –Ray Vern phz ^•T 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was killed again today by the player monktharo. I think that brings the total to four times that he has PK'd me under the pretense that I am a PKer even though I have never so much as punched another survivor. MatteeNeutra 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a pretense. The group you associated with were designated a PKer group because of the actions of some of it's members and it's support for the Philosophe Knights. Having the Brainiac tag indicated that you were a PKer, and therefore a valid target. That particular conflict is now over - mainly due to the non-existent status of the Brainiac group.

I have passed around to the group that if they come across anyone still bearing the Brainiac group tag, they are no longer a viable target (until that person earns their own spot on the PK list that is). To play it safe, I would recommend altering your group tag though.

If you do experience any further problems, feel free to contact me on here, The Coalition Talk pages or via the Coalition email address. I will remind the offender and personally organise your revival.

Please be aware of the fact that Coalition zombies count any survivor as a fair target. If you happen to die at the hands of a Coalition member, please confirm that they were alive at the time before complaining about PKing. (even if a Coalition zed does get you, feel free to request a revive through the normal De/Res Department channels).

Hope this clears things up for you. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fliney NT as a rot revive

On my humble opinion, Fliney isn't an appropriate NT to install a rot revive clinic, since it's too close from ohter important buildings, such as Josephine General, the factory 1 W to Fliney and Wadham PD. Altough they're important to maintain the clinic, increasing the number of zombies lurching around the places above mentioned improves the odds of zombies assaulting them, and consequently killing survivors inside. There are other 2 NT buildings on the suburb and I think they fit better for the role than Fliney. Janjones 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fliney was chosen for one main reason; the zombies have been camping in it, and it has been difficult to keep clear for more than two days at a time. There have typically been 12+ zombies in Fliney, when we have dropped generators in there to revive some of our rotted members, those generators have lasted for days before being destroyed. Fliney may not be ideal, but the situation has dictated out choice. If there were enough active survivors in Miltown, we could be more flexible in our choice. It may be that at a future date we could realistically look at moving it. -- Bisfan 08:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Content

I realise that the stuff you removed was either out of date or not serious in nature, but can you please check before erasing things. You are not the only resident of Miltown, nor are you the only contributer to the suburb page. Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Barricade plan

This should take place before you change it. Where is this taking place??

What was wrong with the old format, other than the fact that it contained more useful information and was easier to read? –Ray Vern phz ^•T 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The old format contains revive points nobody watches, entry points in inconvenient locations, and does not adequately protect resource locations. It is an outdated plan which is not followed by the residents of Miltown. A plan which is not followed is worse than useless; it is dangerous for visitors to the area and may contribute to survivor death. Rutherford 18:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of that I agree with, and some I don't. Recent zombie activities in Miltown have made virtually any plan almost impossible to implement - that and normal survivor apathy.

If a revive point is incorrect, remove it (and I have to agree, that most of the listed revive points were unwatched, legacy ones). I'm all for a rot revive location too.

I disagree about the rest.

- The existing plan does protect most resource locations perfectly well(EHB++), leaving some at VSB++ for those without free running (don't even think about suggesting a non-newbie friendly plan).

- Using the existing plan, safety is no more than 4AP away from anywhere in the suburb, how is that inconvenient?

Even if we disagree on the content of the plan, why change the format?

Cheers, –Ray Vern phz ^•T 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I created a place where we can discuss the barricade plan. Please feel free to edit, and add comments. User:Rutherford/Sandbox -- Rutherford 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

When you look at the proposed plan, keep in mind that Fliney, as a Rot Revive point, will usually be barricade free and an entry point as well. -- Bisfan 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, my apologies on hastily changing the content without using the proper procedure. The other format is used reasonably widely in other suburbs, and so provides a consistant barricade plan, but I can live with the current one. I wouldn't dream of creating a non newb friendly barricade plan, the current one has Cartwright at VSB, if we make Fliney a rotter revive point we can keep the other two at EHB. The RP's must be changed to represent what is currently used in the suburb, those are the three RP's we have listed. Right? So now all we have to agree on is the entry points.--Thekooks 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thekooks certainly wasn't intending to act maliciously, and a lot of discussion has gone in to keeping the plan newb-friendly. We welcome any and all input into the discussion. Our aim is to create a plan that is flexible, and capable of responding to zombie incursions. We've had a lot of fun trying to figure out ways to do this, it's our enthusiasm to share these plans that has perhaps had us posting and changing things precipitously, not a desire to marginalise any of the other residents of the area. -- Bisfan 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I never thought intentions were malicious, and there isn't really a proper procedure or a requirement to discuss prior to making the changes. It just helps to bring in wider input sometimes. I'm all up for change if that's the way the suburb is moving. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 09:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I put up the barricade plan today. Please do not think this means we are closed to any further discussion. Lets make the barricade plan a living document which evolves as long as there are survivors in Miltown. Rutherford 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the Barricade policy actually any use? Other than looking pretty and taking up a load of space on the town page? If I don't hear any thing within a month or so I'll have a little play with th page to try and make it look better.--Munktharo 04:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Danger Levels

There are zombie breakins every day, several buildings are ruined, you can't sleep outside, ITS NOT SAFE! Its moderate at the very least, stop trying to update it to safe! GAH!--Wooty 20:54, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Not going to argue with you about the danger level, but... "Can't sleep outside, ITS NOT SAFE!"? Bwuh. --Ravinel 16:02, 18 September 2007 (BST)

The Coalition

I removed the Coalition from the survivor groups on the wiki page. After several months of activity in Miltown, the Know Nothings have not observed pro-survivor activity from any Coalition members (that isn't to say there hasn't been any, but if there has been, it's minimal) and strong pro-zombie activity has been consistently observed. Added to that, revived Coalition members seem to move away or die again. If anyone from the Coalition wishes to comment, we'd be happy to discuss this with you.

Glad to see the page is being kept up. Coalition Survivors are still present in Miltown. Replaced the Survivor groups entry. (note: please sign your posts). –Ray Vern phz ^•T 08:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll be looking out for you. Sorry about not signing the post, slip of the mind. --David Suzuki 22:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Never a worry (wrt the unsigned post). The thing to remember is, as direct result of our play ethic, The Coalition regularly oscillate between zed and survivor status. I think most of the guys are in an undead phase at the moment (enjoying the wanton destruction), but we're a fickle lot and we get bored quickly *8-). –Ray Vern phz ^•T 10:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)