Template talk:SuburbGroups

New Category

I think we need a new category for these lists. A category that would represent 'gray' groups that are not in the traditional "barricade plan making, hyper-organized" 'Pro-Survivor' group mold but also not so much in the 'Hostile' mold that they just kill anything that moves. It's maybe a little too simplistic to look at groups with such a narrow division. I'm not sure what to call the Category, but Neutral or something that would indicate a gray area between the two used now.--DeWolf 14:46, 24 May 2010 (BST)

"Hostile" alone is rarely used as-is compared to the other two groups. We've contemplated renaming it in various places around the wiki to be something more generic, but we don't want to sleight them either by just saying "Other". Can you offer any concrete examples of "gray" groups for consideration? Having some examples would make any decisions easier. I mean, by your description of the paradigmatic "gray group", I'd think you were talking about something like the Philosophe Knights, but they identify themselves as pro-survivor on the Recruitment page and elsewhere, so they're no problem here. —Aichon— 21:09, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Never mind needing an example, since it seems that you're referring to your own group primarily. Honestly, if you identify yourself as a PKer group, I'd go with Hostile. You may have some in-character reasons for doing what you're doing, but these listings are on the suburb pages, so they should be maintained as NPOV, which would generally refer to how others would perceive you, rather than any justifications you can provide for what you do. As a general rule, if your wiki page consists of black backgrounds with red text, it's a safe bet that you're probably hostile. :P —Aichon— 21:14, 24 May 2010 (BST)

We PK but so do so called 'Pro-Survivor' groups. They are selective, we are selective. The only thing that the narrow division does is make it easier or paint anyone in the so-called Hostile group as 'bad guys'. Who isn't hostile in UD? Not very many. You say there are not many Hostile groups but that does not translate to a more Neutral category. Again, the Pro-Survivor/Hostile - Good/Bad division is really overly simplistic, and just not true in many cases. It would be better to just do away with Hostile and have one category called Survivor than keep it the way it is. The term Pro-Survivor itself is biased towards a certain play style on an allegedly NPOV wiki page. Putting my group in the Hostile category just tells anyone who casually looks at the wiki that we're out to kill everyone in the Pro-Survivor category, which is not true. The whole thing just encourages a specific dynamic in how the game should be viewed (as a 3 way war). In a game where the survivors consistently outnumber zombies 2 to 1 I think we can get over the forced '3 way' perceptive and invite some more complexity into how we view things.--DeWolf 02:23, 25 May 2010 (BST)

Viewing it is one thing, but expressing it succinctly and fairly on the wiki is another. And the difference I see with groups such as yours is that your focus is on PKing, from what I gather, whereas theirs (the "pro-survivor" groups) would be on building and barricading, with PKing as a necessary "evil" done on the side (side note: I have survivor, PKer, zombie, and dual nature characters that are all active, so I'm not indifferent to your cause or clueless of the most part). You are right that it's a bit of a false trichotomy, but there's not much we can do for it, since your group already falls neatly into the Hostile category (if the point of your group is to attack other groups, you're a Hostile group by the established definition, regardless of the reasons). Now, there are some grayer groups, such as fringe types like life cultists, big prick, etc., but if the point of your group is to attack your own side, you're definitely hostile, though I do understand your consternation. —Aichon— 03:07, 25 May 2010 (BST)

Dual Nature

Why is there no category for DN/semi-DN groups? Or (as a rare example) groups that tends to change between Survivor and Hostile groups? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Since your example is O13, I'd list them under hostile or zombie - it'll be correct much more often than not. 17:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think we should add Dual Nature onto the list. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dual nature groups like OXIII could of course update their group category depending on which side they are helping at that moment. Of course, dual nature players traditionally decide which side to play depending on weather they are alive or dead, not which side they deem is in need of more help. I'm not familiar with any groups which are true dual naturist in this sense, though. ~ 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just an "Other" category? Would these "fringe" groups be content with that? It could replace the "Hostile" category too since so many overly politically correct PKing groups seem to have a problem with it.--Nallan (Talk) 01:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for Suburb Group Categories

There has been discussion recently suggesting that the current Suburb categories are 1)Outdated 2)Not very informative or 3)Potentially misleading. Given that the Suburb pages should be a NPOV informative resource for all players, it would be useful to have categories which 1)hold the same meaning across all suburbs 2) have a clear definition so groups can decide what category best describes their group.

If you would like to suggest new categories, please nominate them below. Nominations will be open until for two weeks until February 28th, 2011. Voting will run from March 1st, 2011 to March 15th, 2011.

Please provide a short rationale for your suggestion so we can understand where you are coming from. Further discussion should be confined to the Discussion section below. We'll have a "Maintain Status Quo" option during the Voting for those of you who think this is a waste of time, and want to rage against the machine. Yeah. F*ck establishment.

Nominations for Category Names

1. Alive / Dead / Other (Rosslessness proxy )- Divides groups based on how the game divides players now. If your group has more than 50% dead, you go into the dead category. More than 50% alive, alive category. Don't care? Then other is for you. Simply. Easy. -MHSstaff 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Keep as Survivor / Zombie / Hostile - If changes are made, make them to the template use guidelines. ~ 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

   To expand on this, we would maintain status quo, but actually give some guidelines/suggestions as to what these really mean on the template page -MHSstaff 19:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Survivor / Zombie / Independent - Removes the stigma some have with hostile. -MHSstaff 19:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Living / Dead / Other - I think it's slightly better wording than number 1.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Survivor / Zombie / Independent / Dual Nature - Taking into account Axe Hack's suggestion above. ~ 19:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Survivor / Zombie / Hostile / Dual Nature / Neutral - Damn edit conflicts. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Dual Nature / Survivor / Zombie - These are the only three you need. Any further designation belongs on the groups own page, whether it's "Pro-Survivors", "Death Cultists", "Player Killers", or whatever. Unless you want to make up sub-designations for every conceivable "group type" you can think of.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 20:08 11 February 2011(UTC)

   I agree with that zombie lord fellow. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

8. Groups - and lump them all in, in alphabetical order. Enough with the bullshit. Whatever way you split them up, warring groups will buck the system to create drama to try to win their war on this battlefront -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:11 12 February 2011 (BST)
9. Active Groups / Historic Groups - similar to boxy's suggestion. -- †  talk ? f.u. 03:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Attacks Zombies / Attacks Survivors / Attacks Both / Attacks Neither - Just throwing this out there as an alternative idea to get folks thinking in a different way. Most of these other suggestions fail to adequately take into account forms of trans-mortal tactics (e.g death culting, life culting, etc.). This one skirts the issue entirely by defining a group based on their targets, rather than defining them based on which side they are standing/shambling on at the moment. —Aichon— 16:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Moved from UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Unbiased_Group_Listings

Withdraw the policy, start a wiki community project on defining a better criteria for group listings, and just change the template based on what the active community decides. Worst-comes-to-worst, some hero comes along, reverts the template change, edit-war starts, and you sea-lawyer it through in arbitration. -MHSstaff 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's hear it. Is this what everyone wants? I think a template discussion is probably the best idea. Do we want to try and change the template to 'Alive, Dead, or Other'?--tyx94 14:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

no ----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 16:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think template discussion is the place to move the discussion. I'm not convinced a change is needed however. I'm all for improving the wiki and may be for a change if it is done right. I'd approach it cautiously though since it would obviously have an affect on all currently active groups. I'm leaning towards "it's not necessary" at the moment since this seems to only stem from an isolated indecent. The {{SuburbGroups}} template has been around for some time now and there have not been a whole hell of a lot of complaints about it from what I can see. Perhaps something can be added to the template's guidelines about striving to maintain NPOV or using discretion when adding oneself to a listing. ~ 17:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We should let the community decide on the template discussion page between a couple of name changes or maintaining status quo. And this has creeped up before I think (ZALP?). Right now, there is no guidance on group listing, and if you think about, the current system actually isn't NPOV. It's defined from the viewpoint / default for survivors, otherwise there would not be a hostile (i.e. hostile to survivors) category. Replacing with "Other" and simplifying the criteria would cut out a lot of pointless bickering about who helps survivors and what not. At least IMO. -MHSstaff 18:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I see "Hostile Groups" as just a euphemism for "PKer Groups". The word "Hostile" may in fact be POV but not in the sense that it is used here. PKer groups are a huge part of the game and so categorizing them all as "Other" seems...a shame. ~ 18:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting PKers go in other - they'll go in the Alive category, like the game divides them already.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's how I would do it as well. -MHSstaff 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that we are going to ignore "Historic" for the time being. Someone else can cross that land-mine ridden bridge.-MHSstaff 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It may just be me (but I doubt it will be) but I personally would not want my group to be listed as "Living" or "Dead". I am part of a Survivor Group not a Living Group and a Zombie Group not a Dead Group. ~ 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that. Personally I'd make it "Rightful Zombie-Overlords" and "Unwanted, Unloved Vermin," but I'd probably have a hard time pushing it through. ;-p So far, I think I like #3, with maybe an "Other" for those who want to rail against the Man. -MHSstaff 19:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Zl nails it IMO. -MHSstaff 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you start talking about death cultists, life cultists, "balance" groups, and the like. They don't really properly fit into DN, since DN suggests that you play for whichever side you are currently on, rather than engaging in trans-mortal tactics, which all of those types do. That's why there's a necessity for an "Other" category. Changing the first two to be clearer is acceptable, but listing the third as DN is even more ridden with problems than what we have at the moment. —Aichon— 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave it all be, except only let Cat:Historic groups be listed under Historic, and grow up everyone. 00:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical groups are 90% wank, and being disbanded groups, don't belong in the group listings -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:15 12 February 2011 (BST)

Yeah, but as is, it's like 180% wank. 01:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm with boxy on this one. Just lump them all together and be done with it. If we do have to separate them though, we should NOT be using DN as a catch-all for other groups since DN is a specific style of gameplay which revolves around playing as whichever side you on at the moment (i.e. it's the epitome of non-trans-moral tactics gameplay). Not only that, but it would exclude groups like The Opportunists and the like. Also, groups that engage in trans-mortal tactics are already the ones that we have trouble categorizing, since they are so varied and unique, hence why I think that categorizing based on the player's current dead/alive state is flawed at a fundamental level. We should classify them based on their objectives, their targets, or some other factor that is stable, rather than a factor that changes from day to day. And for those that we can't classify, we need some catch-all that is all-inclusive, rather than one that leaves us with just as many groups that'll be controversial as before. —Aichon— 16:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Voting Criteria Discussion

We'll have to cross this bridge at some point. There are potentially going to be a lot of categories. But I think it is simpler than that. Either you want to change it or you don't. I am leaning toward "Do you want to modify the Suburb Group Listings?." If you say yes, you put the new change you want. If you say no, well, you just say no. So this will be changed only if people * really want * to change it. Thoughts? -MHSstaff 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there will be that many more. There are only so many ways you can word it and you could probably lump together the similar ones. Unless you're thinking of a preemptive vote to find out if the majority of the active community even thinks it's worthy of voting. I guess that's not entirely unprecedented. Take a look at UDWiki talk:Location Style Guide#Voting. That seems to have been a good way to process the voting. There were pros and cons for each given voting classification. ~ 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We need a vote on whether to change or not, followed by a vote on what it should be changed to, in my opinion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think so. I'll let others way in and if there are no real objections, will change it later today. I'll just keep the nomination thing open, and we'll have Go/No Go in two weeks. If that is successful, we'll have the category one afterwards.-MHSstaff 20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)