UDWiki talk:Poll/Classifying Suburb Groups

Test of a good classifier

If we are going to adopt one of these nominations, it should be able to handle all of these groups. If it has difficulty or would be open to interpretation, then we're no better off with the changes than we were before them. Some of these are obvious, of course, but others of them are perhaps not quite so obvious, depending on how you try to draw the lines. Please keep this list in mind as you evaluate each classification system.

1. 404: Barhah not found - A ghost town reclamation group that specializes in repairing ruined suburbs.
2. Big Coffin Hunters - PKs the Dulston Alliance on the grounds that they are bad for survivors.
3. The Big Prick - Goes around mass-reviving zombies.
4. British Broadcasting Corporation - A news organization.
5. Cobra - A PKing group.
6. Escape - A group with no objectives other than to survive for a certain number of days, then commit suicide.
7. Dead Air - A zombie group that works to destroy the cell phone towers in the game.
8. Feral Undead - A group of loosely aligned zombie players.
9. Illuminati - A bounty hunter group.
10. Malton College of Medicine - Is known for their organized lectures and first aid runs.
11. Malton Telephone - Works to maintain the cell phone towers in the game.
12. Organization XIII - Fights for whichever side is in the minority.
13. Philosophe Knights - A group which tries to benefit and educate survivors by using PKing as a teaching instrument.
14. RDD - A death cult group that has career zombies and PKers in it as well.
15. The Ridleybank Resistance Front - The zombie group that defines zombie groups.
16. St. Ferreol's Hospital Noise Abatement Society - A territorial zombie group.
17. Soldiers of Crossman - A survivor group.
18. Urban Anonymous - A nonsensical zombie-human alliance group.
19. Z.A.L.P. - A life cult group.
20. Zerg Hunters Unlimited - A zerg hunting group.

Borrowed from Aichon.

Discussion

This is dumb. since when did we have to make workarounds to our base classifications just to benefit niche groups? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If we want to keep on truckin' with the current system, that's fine with me. It's no water off my back. That said, our base classifications back in the day was just Survivor and Zombie. Hostile was thrown in --really as a stop-gap measure--because no one knew better, and no one really cared. In my experience, I think Hostile today means different things to different people. Which can be a problem if you truly believe the Suburb pages should be a resource for neutral game information.

Yeah, maybe this is a waste of time and maybe at the end of the day, the community will want to keep the current system while whistling "Daisy Bell," but we can at least see where people stand. As far as doing this to benefit niche groups, well, I think the winds are blowing toward either something based entirely on the game classes (you are either dead, or you are not dead) or active / not active. But we should at least see. -MHSstaff 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yarp, I can see why this poll will be useful.~ 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All we really really need is for people to stop being silly cunts about this thing and let it work out how it used to. 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^-- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the template talk page has already shown that there is interest in at least evaluating the current system, and polling the community on how they feel things are working, and if there might be better alternatives. There may not be. The real point of a poll at this stage is to make sure we are actually asking the right questions to gauge those viewpoints. Yeah. We get it. Railing against the system and/or defending your favorite suburb group POV/status quo, while hot and sexy, is sorta down the road and stuff. Let's not put the cart before the horse on this. -MHSstaff 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is if this is actually not needed, well, it should come out anyways in the poll results. -MHSstaff 02:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dual Nature is not a "niche" style of play -- it's not only how the game was intended to be played, but it's now the #1 "group" in the stats. But the Dual Nature renaissaince is not reflected in the current group categorisations. Imnsho this is the most important failure to redress. Next, groups which openly PK but do so selectively and in the name of a pro-survivor cause are not a "niche" style, either. There are not only the Philosophe Knights, but many other groups who take this approach. Now, "ideologically" speaking, I think all PKers are pro-survivor just like all the other revive juicers who hide behind barricades... But realistically speaking, they are a distinct faction. Even if they all taste like chicken.... "Hostile" was created to be able to describe these PKers, GKers, overbarricaders, etc. etc. -- all of whom play mostly as survivors but prey on or disrupt other survivors. I don't like the term "Hostile," personally, but I can't think of anything better, can you? Anyway.... these are the categories I think need to be reflected in the listings. --WanYao 05:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I never specified duel nature. Look above. I'm talking about most of those. We don't need a "educates people via PKing section" for PK do we. Add dual nature if you want to, we dont need to go on massive "ONE FOR ALL" democracy trips to have it done :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh. Honestly, I see this as a dry-run of the Poll system more than anything. I expect most of the ones to die except for Survivor/Zombie/Dual Nature or Active / Historical. -MHSstaff 05:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Some things don't change here, do they? DDR still sets up straw man arguments and in so doing pats himself on the back and thinks he's made Wan Yao look bad. Cute.

Anyway.... I was very clear about what I think the groups list should reflect. And it was nothing like the weird shyte you just described. Go read my comment again. Slowly, carefully this time. --WanYao 05:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? I was agreeing with you -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't read your whole text wall of doom, because the first sentence was the bit that addressed me and it's the only thing I feel obliged to answer. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think DDR is really talking more about me and Vapor with the "one for all democracy." Sounds like all that 'crat power finally went to his head. -MHSstaff 05:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've dealt with such 'criticism' before. All I've learned from it is that there are some people who like to voice their opinions. If they are a hobo no one listens. But if they are a crat they are mad with power!! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

MAD! MAD! MAD! Yeah I know. I am just teasing you dude. -MHSstaff 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was going to apologise for the misunderstanding. But since you can't even take the time first to read the things you reply to, DDR... whatever... And fuck, 6 edit conflicts, sheeesh --WanYao 05:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

THE EDIT CONFLICTS ARE YOUR FAULT TOO DDR, AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM. Look. Dual nature is fine, even though I personally don't really care about it so much. As for the NICHE gameplay types (read niche and actually envision one that IS niche, not one that isn't niche, claim it's niche in ddr's opinion and have a cry), fuck them up the bottom.

I'm worried about people lopping on too many categories for gameplay styles that belong to one group, and who most likely don't give a shit how they're lumped on a suburb listing... Adding the biggest one besides the big 3, is fine. I'm agreeing with you on that and saying that instead of doing this poll stuff, you should just add the listing. The best way to get stuff done on this wiki is do it yourself, not file it through ugly bureaucracy. That's my advice -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Says the bureaucrat. Anyway I agree that polling isn't for evey issue but this particular issue has gone through policy discussion, arbitration, template talk and god knows what else. No consensus has been met. If it were as easy as someone just making the change and it sticking someone should have done it by now. Polling isn't a democratic vote. Majority doesn't matter. Nothing is binding we're just getting an idea of what people really really want to do here. The answer I feel is probably just leave it alone or make a minor change. Piss off if you're upset about the way in which a group is classied. ~ 06:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. Mostly. But I think type of groups I identified -- like PK or those anti-Dullston Alliance rebels, who are ostensibly pro-survivor but who do selectively PK -- should be allowed to identify as Survivor groups. However, in the interest of NPOV and clarification for newbies, maybe they should be asked to specificy that they do resort to PKing in the name of their "cause". --WanYao 06:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And I think that having a good, open discussion about this is healthy. Let's not jump the gun and shut it down too soon, kay? --WanYao

Yeah that's fine and fair. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As much as the fact that WanYao is saying nice things about the PK gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, I disagree. Seeing as we take a certain amount of pride in being entirely peaceful in Lamport Hills (unless it's retribution for attacks on us), while laying waste to other suburbs without mercy, there's no need for specification. We're just not hostile in some places, while being extremely hostile in others. Except to zombies, because zombies have no sense of class and need to learn that their place is at the back of the bus. --DT^PK 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you and I are basically in agreement, DT. But, as you've said, PK is hostile to zombies in all cases. So, from a zombie persepctive, you're definately a pro-survivor group, period :) This is no mere rhetorical joke, however, because it underscores the fact that this is a zombie game and that there are only two states a character can be: alive or dead (and revivifying). And everything else is posturing, rhetoric... That's an extreme position, yes, but not an unjustified one. That being said, in the interest of helping players orient themselves, I think it's a simple matter to allow variation on a suburb-by-suburb basis. PK could be listed as "Hostile" (or whatever) on most pages and "Survivor" Lamport Hills. --WanYao 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself, Wan. This is a game about Humans, with some zombies sticking around the edges like a bad rash. And the PK are listed exactly as you describe as it is (hostile in Yagoton, survivor in Lamport Hills). What gets me about 'specifying motives' is the idea that, if a survivor group were to move into Lamport Hills, and then attack the PK, the resulting war would undoubtedly see us placed into some dumb category like "Pro-Survivor PKer" (because, hurf durf, we're shootin' da good guys) as if the PK were treating the place like any other fool-ridden suburb. The actual situation would be a lot closer to the small conflicts groups have over barricade levels and such. Getting too detailed is like getting too vague - "Dual-Natured Death-Cultist Territorial Anarchists" is just as bad as "Active Groups/Historical Groups". The first tells you too much and you end up with half of the groups' wiki page in the Category listing, the other doesn't tell you anything. --DT^PK 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DT, are you ok with how I phrased your "At War with" suggestion. Feel free to change it if it is not right. -MHSstaff 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually say add that subcategory to Survivor/Zombie/Hostile/Dual Nature. Because racism monomortalism is a Bad. --DT^PK 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just make it its own thing? It could work with any of the listings. Up to you though. -MHSstaff 04:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like we don't have a very obvious one, which is just adding Dual Nature to S/Z/H. One comes close (independent instead of hostile). This has been brought up before and so I wonder if it is worth making its own question on. Something like "Dual Nature has become blah blah blah. Would you like to see DN added to the current list? or something-MHSstaff 05:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a no-brainer to accept DN as a legitimate, seperate category. Let's just do it. However, let's allow more discussion before going ahead... --WanYao 06:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

not that i really ever pay any attention to what the wiki says about a group since most of the time it's just bias and chest thumping.. but why not. survivor, zombie, PKer, duel nature. ta da!--

 

07:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Nice People/Mean People/Dead People/Bi People? --WanYao 16:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Or Barricade-positive/Ransack-Positive/Barricade-Neutral/Flexible (S/Z/PK/DN).

All seriousness aside... If a group feels like it needs a special category, and if they can reasonably argue their case, allow them to add a different category. I know this could open a big can of worms, though... Ah well, keeps Arbys busy... In all other cases, use logic and common sense while allowing the groups to self-identify within reason. --WanYao 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

i like your first suggestion better. and where the fuck have you been?--

 

bitch 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dual Nature

I am thinking of adding this:

Dual Nature Groups

Dual Nature is an in-game philosophy where players play the game based on their current in-game state (dead or alive). Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes how you would feel Dual Nature groups should be classified (if at all). You may select only one.

• I would like to see Dual Nature added as it's own separate category
• I do not think it is necessary to create a new category for Dual-Nature themed groups

Thoughts?-MHSstaff 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dooo eeeet. ~ 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I bought it up originally, so obviously I'm all for this. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not following all of this properly, but Dual Nature itself isn't a group, and shouldn't be classified as such. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is more a reflection of DN as an in-game philosophy that some groups have adapted and may wish to be classified under. We should at least ask the question IMO.-MHSstaff 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, an either or category. Dual Nature itself shouldn't really fit there though, and there are other niche-like groups that are mentioned above that wouldn't fit with DN. Perhaps an "Other" category will do, instead of listing multiple sparsely populated categories? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the proposal for Zombie/Survivor/Dual Nature. It actually covers everything. If a PKer group wants to self identify as Survivor let them. If a radio group or a GKer group wants to self identify as Zombie let them. The suburb listing should be as generic and simple as possible - just a way to say "hey, here are the active groups". If people want to find out more detailed info they can click on the links and view the group pages. No need for millions of subcategories - rotter, educational, wiki-oriented, newfangled hippie, etc.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because Dual Nature covers everything that 'Hostile' currently represents. And wikis are supposed to have the least amount of info available up front as possible as well, yes? --DT^PK 03:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I interpret it more like this: Your group either has zombies, survivors, or both zombies and suvivors. So yeah, you're stripping it down to the bare bones somewhat. -MHSstaff 03:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think that "Dual Nature" is the wrong term for the listings. The idea of including some designation for multi-mortal groups is okay (but not great, given that it "fixes" a non-existent problem while not addressing the actual problems that we're already having), but the term "Dual Nature" has been misappropriated and is being misused in this context, and is entirely inappropriate. "Dual Nature" players aren't just zombie sometimes and survivor other times. They are always whatever they are at the moment. That's a major distinction when comparing them to death cultists or the like, which are always playing for one side even when (un)living on the other side at the moment. Also (not aiming this at you in particular), I'm kinda annoyed at how the fact that DN is the biggest group in the game gets bantered around as a reason to add them to the suburb listings. They may be the biggest "group", but can anyone point me to a suburb where they're listed? Or where any DN group is listed, for that matter? Compare that to death cultist groups, or even just trans-mortal tactic groups in general (e.g. just look at the list at the top of this page or the discussion from the page it came from). They're all over the place in the listings, since they have to organize to be effective. In contrast, DN players rarely organize as functional groups in specific suburbs, so adding them to the listing makes little or no sense since there wouldn't be any groups to add. —Aichon— 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think about it in terms of only the "Dual Nature" group, then yes, it would be like making a listing for "Feral Zombies" or "Unaffiliated Survivor." Kinda pointless then. We would basically be redefining what the term means. It wouldn't be the "Dual Nature" group per-se, but more the idea that some groups in Urban Dead may be composed of 1) players who play both sides or 2) who use both classes routinely within their group. In that mold, groups listed as "Survivors" are not groups that revive, cade, dump, or help keep suburbs "safe." They have classified by the sole fact that their members are simply "alive." Zombie groups are simply "dead." Dual-Nature could be both. There is probably a better way to phrase it in that context and a better name.

What do you recommend? What term would you like to see instead -MHSstaff 14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we're commandeering a term that is already well understood within the community. Any meaning that we ascribe to it will be ignored or unknown to 95% of the people using the listings, meaning that it will create more problems. As for an alternative, I don't really have one. As I mentioned, I think that the idea is okay, but I also don't think that it really fixes anything, so much as simply offers an orthogonal improvement to the system we have now. I already offered an alternative on the previous page, but I side more with the idea of simply listing all groups, with no breakdown of who they are or what they do. Easier, less controversial, and most people know which are which anyway. —Aichon— 15:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tricky. -MHSstaff 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See below. Let's just see what the people actually want. -MHSstaff 04:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a doubt, add it to the poll. There is plenty of interest in the concept to have a line of questioning spefically for DN. ~ 01:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add it probably tomorrow. -MHSstaff 03:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's emphasize what we are trying to ask and get a feel of community opinion on...

Remember, in some ways, this is more about making sure we are asking the right questions to get an idea of "how people see the system now", "what qualities they think should go into the system" and "what they may like to see instead (if any)," rather than arguing for one way or the other. With that in mind, what are people's thoughts on getting a community feel on the "Hostile" category, or really any of our current categories? Good idea? Bad idea? Do we want to see if people feel that having a hostile section is useful, if it should be renamed, etc? -MHSstaff 04:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think debate on the issues is healthy on this page. The whole purpose of the poll is to get the public opinion of an issue and to exclude debate would be counter-productive. Its the responsibility of the poll author to try and keep things on track and to formulate polling points which reflect the debate. So far you're doing a good job of that so just keep it up. Just don't discourage debate.

I agree provided that developing a system to gauge opinion and figuring out what we want to learn isn't lost in the debate. -MHSstaff 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it helps when when people see that you're keeping up with the debate and then formulating poll points. If you keep with it, I think people will respect what you're doing here. Writing down the issues as poll points should also help clarify the issue for more casual observers who might get lost in the debate. ~ 05:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the debate over the word Hostile, its a valid issue and belongs on the poll in some form. Personally it's really the only piece of the current system that kind of bothers me. I see it as just an antiquated term used to describe a cross section of players that the former wiki architects weren't sure of how to properly classify. Maybe they struggled with it as much as we do today and just settled on Hostile for simplicity's sake. Maybe they didn't put that much thought into it. Or maybe they were wise and saw that it was the correct term to use and no other classification would work. I'd be curious to see what the majority opinion is here. ~ 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's get this back to basics. Is the current system broken? And if so, how is it broken? These are the questions we need to answer before we can start proposing solutions. --WanYao 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And I don't consider the existence of a tiny handful of groups who don't fit the current classification system evidence that it's broken. If we had several large-ish and/or influential groups who didn't fit in, that is evidence of a problem. So... again... do we have any real problems that need to be addressed? Some people have pointed out that Dual Nature groups aren't that common. This may or may well not be true... If it is true, then we can list DN groups as DN where they exist and ignore the category where they don't. Simple. --WanYao 02:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What information do we want to convey?

I am tempted to add this:

Group classification systems can provide a variety of information, from how many groups are in a given suburb to some basic descriptor about that group. The current system tells us:

• How many groups are in the suburb.
• What their names are .
• What type (Zombie, Survivor, and Hostile) that group belongs to.

What information do you want the suburb page to tell you?

• I think it it is more important to know how many and the names of groups in a suburb.
• I think it is more important to know what type of groups are in a suburb.
• Both are equally as important to me.

-MHSstaff 04:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Good qualifier, hasn't been addressed in any other way in the poll yet. As long as people are answering honestly, I don't think having too many questions is a bad thing unless they get redundant. ~ 04:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Defining Type

It's probably worthwhile to get an idea of what "type" of classifier people would like to see. Do they want groups to be separated by game-class? Do they want groups to be separated by what they do (survivors cade/help/kill zombies, zombies kill survivors, hostile kills whoever, that sorta thing)? Do they want group to be separated by simple existence (Active / Not Active)? -MHSstaff 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Type of Classifier There are three general types of proposed classifiers:

• Classifiers that group based on player-classes. In this system, survivor groups are composed of Military, Civilian, and Scientist classes. Zombie groups are composed of the "Corpse" class.A third grouping would be composed of both.
• Classifiers that group based on play-style. In this system, groups are played on how they play the game. For example, in one system, "Survivor" groups might be ones that actively protect a suburb or survivor-classes. "Zombie" groups might be ones that are actively trying to kill survivor-classes. "Hostile" groups might be ones that are actively trying to impede both "Survivor" and "Zombie" groups, or just one.
• Classifers that group based on group-status. In this system, groups are either "Active," or "Not Active / Historical."

What type of classifier is important to you? You may select more than one. Classifying groups based on player-class is important to me

Classifying groups based on play-style is important to me

Classifying groups based on their current active/not active status is important to me

Yes? No? Dumb? -MHSstaff 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds smart to me.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that a character class system was being proposed. That sounds like a horrible idea. "Civilian Group"? "Corpse Group"? Blech. Other than that it sounds good.~ 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)