User talk:Jon Pyre

Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page under one of these ==Message Subject==

Messages older than 12/14/07 are archived here: Archive 1

All messages should go beneath the cookie.

---

Delicious Cookie

	A FREE COOKIE
	Jon Pyre has given you a cookie for for visiting his talk page.

I need your vote

You are very welcome to look at this suggestion (that you helped to create) and vote for (or against) it. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 11:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for voting! -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Jon Pyre! That's a funny name! Are you Jon Hill? I remember you from Wilson. --Brian Barbera 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Random spammer. Ignore please.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Purpose of Clothes (Fixed)

Re Mandatory? How so? This does not force anyone to see clothing...in fact, you have to go out of your way to make it happen. --Jon Pyre 16:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I have not read the suggestion carefully enough. Or it was not clear enough. Anyway, I assumed that if a character was not wearing anything the game would display the message. Vote revoked. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

It's odd (although quite useful) that spam votes have become such a marker of incoherent strong-kill feedback, but I make a point of reading all your stuff, when I'm passing through the active suggestions. Keep up the good work, and have a good 2008. --Kevan 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Court of Public Opinion

Jon, I suppose I should say that when taking someone into the court of Public Opinion, you are also taking yourself with him. --User:Axe27/Sig 17:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon, Grim is by no means the suggestions section but he does represent a pretty large group of people who really hate the way you go about suggesting things. You were going to Talk:Suggestions, that was a good thing, another good thing is if more of your suggestions were content instead of more and more customizable flavor(which is annoying), the issue with that is partly because everything being colorable etc is annoying but also because Customizing everything isn't a good thing, it would mean you need to take an hour getting everything just right before you could play without annoyance. It's about now that I mention maybe instead of leaving for a month you could try listening to some of the people who constantly vote against your suggestions instead of ignoring them most of the time and/or causing drama when they do something involving one of your suggestions that is within the bounds of the current rules.--Karek^maps?! 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Policy

I think it's time for a policy.

Here's what I think the meat of it should say.

"Both parties MUST agree on an arbitrator.If an arbitrator is not chosen within five days, one of the following thing happens:

If one party in particular is stalling, then a representative will be chosen and the representative will agree to an arbitrator he believes would be favorable to the delaying party. If it is a mutual deadlock, the sysops will elect someone they believe would be neutral to arbitrate. This policy applies ex post facto."

You're better at writing, and fluffing these things out than I am. So if you can fluff it out, make any necessary changes, we can fix arbitration, and in a worst case scenario, delay the case that long to get this policy into effect and leverage it against Grim's stubbornness.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just dumb, the SysOps shouldn't be able to force arbitration, that just helps justify arbitration being used as a step in the Vandal Banning process.--Karek^maps?! 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's not justified for a rulebreaker to be escalated in the vandal banning process?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You vs Grim

I believe i have an arb ruling that will please neither of you but will have both meaning and value without unduely fucking either of you... if i can persuade Grim to accept me as arbitrator (unlikely) what are the chances of you doing the same?--Honestmistake 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hydra Defense

That makes a lot of sense and sounds like a good idea, but I worry that it will hurt the Classy zombies by swinging the game more and more in survivor favor. Then again, it may alienate those who PK because of combat revives etc and other tactical PKers or may make them curb their policy. Yeah, I'd support and try to publicize something like that. Get back to me when you're done thinking it through and I'll spread the word! Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, by the way. I've been out of town a lot lately and without the internet. --Ron Burgundy 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone

You said you would be gone for a month. The month isnt up. Come on. You were happy, we were happy. Everyone was happy. Why did you have to go ruin everything again? Also, i deliberately put a misleading edit summary on this, so hi Akule. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe it has been just about a month.--Karek^maps?! 02:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But not quite. Darn. Shoo! Shoo!!!--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Double Res

You know full well that double Re-ing is against the rules of suggestion voting. It causes people work to strike them or move them, and it promotes other users to follow your lead, creating discussion where there should be voting. Next time, and each time after that, I'm reporting you to A/VB. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A reply to an overly aggressive Re is usually allowed if it is brief... In any event he (or indeed anyone else!) could have put pretty much his exact reply in as a note as it was obvious that you had mis-read the suggestion and he was merely clarifying. Take a deep breath Funt, you don't want to turn into Grim do you ? ;) --Honestmistake 09:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He has a point though. In the future I'll move it to discussion. --Jon Pyre 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Ruin Suggestion

I just wanted to tell you myself: DAMN GOOD SUGGESTION! Major well done from me. --Hhal 01:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What Hhal said, See what happens when you don't suggest one thing every day.--Karek^maps?! 14:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Worst garbage I've ever seen. Why not just ban all the survivors too? If I didn't know better I'd think you were soem RRF zealot. That another survivor can write this crap astounds me. TerminalFailure 21:35 Feb 5th 2008 EST

FAKs Question

About this, there are a few reasons for survivors to be in ruined buildings, aside from the obvious one of them APing our in one. There are also things like this, specifically that it's often safer not to repair the building, and maintaining a revive point, like St. Emelia's, or any place where you might be hit by random active zombies. There's plenty of reason to be in ruined buildings, even if most of the time the FAKs are only going to be used on yourself.--Karek^maps?! 04:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A Template For You

Hi Jon. I've seen you active a lot in Suggestions, and you always vote honestly, so I figured I'd offer you my new template. If you like it, please put it on your userpage and spread the word. --Hhal 00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

adventures

"Here's why the military would herd survivors along. They're trying to bomb infected areas. So any place with zombies gets destroyed. Ethically they want the survivors to escape, so they're taking away roadblocks and getting them out of the blast zones. However the zombies are also following the survivors so the new areas get infected too. It's a staple of zombie movies that no matter how far someone runs the zombies catch up to them. --Jon Pyre" How would it be ethical or sensible to allow those zeds to get out? it breaks the whole idea of quarantine. Assuming any force was still organised enough to carpet bomb on a daily basis it would be ruthless enough to make sure it got everything living or dead in its target area... i think the real mil call it something like "aggressive surgery" Also if they are bombing an area so severly that you can't move back into it then everything that was there must be obliterated! The suggestion just does not work in any believable way.... its mechanic is deeply flawed and its logic incoherent. I can see what you are aiming for (change and newness) and they are good goals but this is just enforced change for its own sake. --Honestmistake 15:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but assuming that the previously unseen NPC zombies are the ones that get blown apart while us PC's get to stand up and carry on is a complete cop-out. Put simply the army would not drive survivors and zombies infront of an ever moving curtain of destruction! I really do like the idea of everchanging cityscapes and even countryside warzones... I just want it to be done in a succession of short lived servers with each game having a set duration, by all means include airstrikes to wipe out the infection and shrink the map. Hell that would make an excellent scenario for another temp game (monroeville will see zombie victory but another could have NPC military sweeps moving in to secure blocks and rescue survivors) a scrolling map though would just end up exactly the same as Malton but without set locations and that would be to the games detriment!--Honestmistake 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, mate, I just don't like the suggestion enough -- and it has too many problems -- for me to change my vote. U just can't accept the rolling map, etc. Also, I think Funt's similar suggestion is better... But, for what it's worth, I'm sure Kevan has taken the hint... we would love to see some mini-games... Though, you know what? I'm bored with Monroeville... It's just too much like Malton... and, there aren't any zombies!! Not where I am, anyway... And I can't level up to feel good about going to where the zombies are. Which might point out a potential problem in ANY new mini-game?? Hmnn... --WanYao 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Do you remember me, man? --Something 01:54, 2 June 2008 (BST)

lolololololololololololololol

olololololololololololololololololololololo --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:04, 17 June 2008 (BST)

Pker List

Add me:

http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=609867

--Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||03:00, 24 June 2008 (BST)

"Votes" in the Suggestions Page

Where has the time gone? I leave the Suggestions page for a few weeks in search of wholesome entertainment in the real world that is deprived of "dick-waving" and WTF Centaurs, and, upon my return, I find that SPAM and KILL votes in the board have increased exponentially in pompous bullshit. I'm referring to both of your recent suggestions that have come under heavy fire from the likes of Wan, Grim, and Karek; the only suggestions that I have seen that warrant such reactions are the likes of "Psychic Wave Channeling" and the heinous "I Suggest More Skills" suggestions.

So, what's new? Have the locals become more and more unappeased at every month's serving of new and used suggestions, or did you piss someone off recently? Or have I just been gone from the wiki for far too long?

One thing's for sure, the ability to invalidate a vote has been underused for too long.

By the way: I gave you a keep vote on that "home improvement" suggestion so that you wouldn't feel left out. (And also because I find it saveable)

NOW WHERE IS MAH COOKIE? --Private Mark 20:16, 21 July 2008 (BST)

No problem at all. Feels "great" to be back in the Suggestions voting routine... --Private Mark 21:30, 22 July 2008 (BST)

WHERE ARE YOU?

THANKS FOR THE COOKIE hi This is Q, I've seen you/lost you/seen you again today/lost you again. I would really like to get together in Monroeville. Please email me at qqq.20.sno@xoxy.net. thanks. glad to see you're still active there. --QQQ 02:49, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Hey this is thomas rugger i seen you to. email at sparkycpw@gmail.com to let me know if you got this message.

In regards to your Ruin Repair suggestion

Seriously, it's good, but if it doesn't make it, it may be because zombies have no way of telling whether or not a building's being repaired from the outside.

Having the exterior description changed after X AP has been spent on small repairs would change that, instead making it so that a zombie roaming its territory could easily stumble across and destroy this work. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 11:36, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Response to your Alt Comment

Two alts currently in monroeville thinking of doing four to five total. --Karec 6 August 2008 (BST)

Ah I see.--Karec 21:50, 7 August 2008 (BST)

I see your zombie is following my alt Adeptus Sortias around. =D --Karec 20:09, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Alternative city suggestion

Although i dont agree with the technicality of your current suggestion, i think it has merit in one form or another, so if you want to brainstorm ideas for future cities, im more than willing to help out/feedback etc. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:36, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Suggestions Page

Currently you have two different versions of a 'Repaired ruined buildings' mod on the suggestions page. While this certainly doesn't break any rules, I assume that one of these is no longer your current view on the matter. If you would, please consider cycling out your earlier suggestion ahead of time. - Tylerisfat 04:56, 8 August 2008 (BST)

I agree, it's obvious that this one has been outdated by your latest one. How about removing the old one as stated here -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:45 9 August 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I got the wrong user. Please ignore. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting a good revive point

I have a Question why does know one use junkyards as revive points? they are the perfect revive point. They have no good resources cant be ruined and make good safehouses So why dont people use them. --Mathwhiz 05:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)mathwhiz--Mathwhiz 05:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)