Talk:Vimes Controversy

Concerning the DARIS statement (tagging from DARIS building and brain rotted zombies): both of these could easily have come about without Vimes involvement, especially after the revivication point was mentioned in public. As such, the unqualified inclusion on these statements both (a) uncritically accepts the statements of an organisation which has good cause to slander Vimes and (b) implies that Vimes is involved without actually saying so and (c) implies this without offering any proof. As these shortcommings are not immediately obvious to a new visitor, the statement (if it is to be included in the first place) requires clarification on the page. --Markus 10:49, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

OK, I believe that the evidence lies in his comments, which are linked on the page. And you know, we want to compete with the CoL, and fairly; that is, no zerging. Yes, we were upset, because the guy basically admitted to cheating. The thing is, he stated that he had brain rotted zombies in the church. We had encountered brain rotted zombies in the church earlier in the day. How do we know? That used to be the DARIS revive point. Players in our group were screaming our zombie players to "get the brain rotted zombies out of the church." So, what do you want from us, screenshots of the zombies in the church? We don't have them, because we never thought that we'd need them. You can believe what you will, but we aren't so serious about this game to make up lies about the CoL. --ShaqFu 15:47, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I agree linking the comments was an excellent idea as anyone can form their own opinion there. As to the "zerging" I really wish you'd stop using the catch all term. At the one end it used to mean "mass creating (usually) firefighters to take down a safehouse" and at the other end you seem to want to include the fact that it's impossible to not know what both your characters know. Vimes was according to his own statements quite a bit over the merely knowing what both know phase, but if his zombies kept to seperate areas of Shearbank and reported their info independently (i.e. through usual zombie meta-gaming channels) it does for all we know from Kevan on this not constitute cheating (or "zerging"). On the matter of your reports: FWIW I believe you there, yet you are a member of a rival group (see above). So it says "no independent verification". It is an unfortunate or intended (no idea which) side effect of claiming an area as ones own, that there is no independent verification, not a basic problem of the game (or the wiki). Finally, the presence of brain-rotted zombies (as per your words) makes Vimes a likely suspect. But without proof, that they were his, mentioning their presence on this page is all that the facts support (Without his statements the presence of brain-rotted zombies would not be worth mentioning on a member page).

If this is St Christopher's I can assure you that at least one of the brain rotted zombies there is not Vimes's. 'Cos he's mine. Morlock 17:56, 14 Sep 2005 (BST) (PS there are like 12 zombies and 8 dead bodies in there right now, but no humans -- why not barricade us in?)

Uh, because you can't trap zombies in a building with barricades? Either way, that's only one zombie out of twelve. --ShaqFu 18:04, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting about the "climbing out of the windows" thing now that all my meatbags have FR. Morlock 15:56, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

In conclusion, I do personally believe you and believe that Vimes did cross the line into cheating, but remain commited to restricting the wiki page to those facts that are not in dispute. Perhaps, as a compromise, you could write up your allegations and present them at the bottom of the DARIS page under "Group Statements" or preferably create your own page somewhere else. A link to that could then be included at the bottom of the Vimes wiki page. --Markus 16:11, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

The "after much hue and cry" line and the "tantamount to cheating" stuff were way over the NPOV line. Since the edit did nothing but provide a pro-DARIS slant, I reverted. --Markus 15:45, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Delete

I believe this page should be deleted/rewritten. It's not really about the character of Sam Vimes at all.

We could rename to "Sam Vimes incident" or somesuch. The main point was to provide a place where the statements from both sides can be described in a neutral fashion without cluttering up other pages. Do you think that goal is not worthwhile or that it can be better achieved by other means? If so, how? -- Markus 22:53, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I didn't provide the unsigned comment above, but I think the goal is not worthwhile. This, and all the "controversies" I've seen written about in the past couple of days, should stay on the forums where they belong. Operation Windmill Scrotum controversy is a noted exception, in that it succeeds in maintaining a modicum of neutrality. This topic is not quite as acerbic as the Kathew Kontroversy, but it really runs along the same vein: Someone who is a member of, or opposed to, DARIS, does something that offends someone on the other side . . . yada, yada, yawn. It all crosses the line from interesting roleplay to really boring netpolitical childishness. Can it, I say. --otherlleft 04:53, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

The conflict between the CoL and DARIS is a central theme in the game right now, like it or not; this was a fairly important moment in that conflict, if for no other reason than what nearly resulted from it. If you've got a problem with the article itself, let's fix it. --Kazmeyer 05:34, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

If you think it's not much about Sam Vimes the person, then edit in some stuff about Sam Vimes the person. It's really that simple. As it stands, Sam Vimes was the centre of controversy and since that's practically all the page is, that's how it's staying. If I moved it to another thread, I'd make Sam Vimes redirect to it. If you can add in enough stuff about Sam Vimes the person, player, character - whatever - then I might consider moving the controversy part. --Katthew 05:45, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

Renaming

I think we should rename this page, as it gives no real personal information about Sam Vimes, and it should be on a User: page if it did. Any suggestions for a neutral title for the controversy? What was the building with the graffiti called? --Spiro 15:07, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

How about "Sam Vimes Controversy"? The building was only part of it. --Stankow 15:45, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'm not at my home computer, but I think the building in question was St. Christopher's. I've got that info, as well as the full text of his zerg threat, which I'll add to the page since the forums aren't coming back. We did find it slightly odd that members of two groups vehemently opposed to DARIS would claim to be raiding an isolated building in the middle of Shearbank for Many scalps, especially given that the Many was publically known to be several suburbs away, but hey, what are ya gonna do? --Kazmeyer 17:39, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

I might be getting the wrong end of the stick, but isn't the claim that they were going after the high level zombies that had been attracted to Shearbank by the knowledge that DARIS were entrenching themselves there, rather than specifically the Many? --Morlock 17:46, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

If you view the history, you'll see an edit Sam Vimes himself made claiming the strike was against (what they believed to be) the Many. This was three days after SLA had declared open war on DARIS, and after recent (very public) Many attacks in Peppardville, so DARIS took this latest claim with a substantial grain of salt. --Kazmeyer 17:56, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

I think that "believed to be" part is the crucial bit. It's impossible to disprove their claim that they thought that, however hard it is to believe it. --Morlock 18:05, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)