Category talk:Historical Groups/FailedArchive

The nomination of any group that fails voting of historical status should be moved from Category talk:Historical Groups to here. Archives for failed nominations prior to 2010 can be found here.

Umbrella Corporation

• Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service
• U.B.C.S. Merc-for-hire
  • Umbrella Corporation and it's subgroups hava a long history with Urban Dead starting way back in early 2006 Umbrella Corporation Recent Events [1] Umbrella Corporation/History. During it's prime it had substantial presence in Molebank, Shearbank, lastly Ruddlebank and the surrounding burbs Geographic Influence of the Umbrella Corporation[2]. Historically Umbrella Corporation has never acted alone, working alongside many groups including others that are no longer with Urbandead Umbrella Corporation/Alliance Archive. Umbrella Corporation is true to its common public image and has been a target of those seeking intrigue, malevolence, power, corruption and other role playing aspects popular with the group. At its peak of influence the group faced it's greatest adversity when it became the target of hackers, zergers and slanderers followed with emotional losses of core members and facilities yet it still managed to survive even with the continued aforementioned attacks. The fall of the Fourth Era was a precursor for events to come including a war with it's own subgroup. Umbrella Corporation has also contributed to spicing up the wiki with member original content for what would mostly be empty pages: Corp Boulevard Railway Station (Ruddlebank), Factory 53,29, Handley Towers, The Holmes Arms, The Nisbet Building and The Rush Building As well as a large collection of excellent templates User:Cody Mac/Templates2.--President Jackson 23:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally those nominating groups write a short paragraph explaining why they have nominated said groups. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

that usually applies to groups that have some accomplishments in game tho.--User:Sexualharrison23:28, 14 November 2012

Should I remove them? Since they were absorbed into our group I thought the these pages should be represented as well.--President Jackson 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Aren't these separate groups? Some of us chose not to pay attention to the drama-bomb that exploded with them, so I have no clue which groups are sub-groups are separate. —Aichon— 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I start this over or something? I misunderstood the voting. I thought people would be voting for each unique page. I'm simply representing Umbrella Corporation, I'm not here to represent the other subgroups that were absorbed into us. Just thought it was part of the measure of voting to include those groups with us.--President Jackson 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You can try again a week after the voting ends if you really want, but I seriously doubt you'll get a friendlier welcome next time. Anything with the name "Umbrella" in it (with a handful of exceptions) tends to get a rather visceral reaction from most folks, based on what I've seen over the years. Since I missed most of the original drama, I don't entirely understand it all, but I wouldn't bet on making it into Historical Groups unless you can cite something that's actually historical. I.e. Something that changed the way the game was played. You may have accomplished more than some groups, but most of those groups came earlier and came up with ideas that altered the course of the game in some way. Without being able to show that you did so, it's hard to succeed in getting through these days. —Aichon— 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your sympathetic response. I guess I'm not the man to do this. Surprisingly (or not) I did most of the coding for anything Umbrella related on the wiki with the exception of templates. It was a lot of time spent that I hoped to be preserved. When the second Era ended our history was deleted from the internets by those who seized control in the Third Era. It's really the stigma of Umbrella Corporation. It's a lot of fun to role play it out but didn't translate well with ends not justifying means. The incident in which the majority are basing their decisions off of was with a character player named Haliman111. I'll spare details that lead to the "drama", but he was a fine addition to our group at the time and a great adversary at the end of it all. Same cannot be said for those who destroyed our forum or erased our history. Around six years our groups involvement in-game. I'd like to think that we did something, but perhaps I will simply be left to thoughts.--President Jackson 20:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You should have contacted me Jackson, even though I could have told you in advance this attempt would have stood no chance at all, and while Umbrella is something of a long closed book to me, I wouldn't have minded writing a decent overview of the group's shaded past that I knew of. Even though even I personally lean on "No", right now this bid doesn't do the group justice. Perhaps I'll try to write something better, if only to serve as a counterweight to some of the more predictable criticism. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal wasn't authorized by the current leadership of Umbrella Corporation. Although I have great doubts that this'll go through (Yes, I understand our shady history); I would like to say that Jackson no longer represents UC as a whole, he hasn't for quite some time. Although we are largely inactive, we still continue on as unnoticeable mist... I, as the current legitimate Chairman of the Board, CEO; in no shape way or form condone Umbrella Corporation (Or it's sub-groups) being nominated for historical status. That being said, I shall vote as such below. --Chairman Fanglord, 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If the group is still active in part, then this isn't even a valid nomination (see rule #6 above). —Aichon— 16:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Then it's decided, this nomination isn't valid.... Just another tarnish on our public relations record I'm afraid. --Chairman Fanglord, 17:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

oh look umbrella infighting and drama.. go figure. now thad has to start zerging again and it's pre 2009 all over again.--User:Sexualharrison13:56, 17 November 2012

Yes

1. Yes As stated above.You want to belittle us? I can pull at least five names of other groups we've accomplished more than those in the historical groups section.--President Jackson 23:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

   I'm calling. Name 'em.--RadicalWhig 01:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   The grammar is not strong with you. I second the call. Show your hand. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   I'd like to see this too! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   ditto! in fact i demand it!--User:Sexualharrison13:06, 15 November 2012

   Five demands, call five groups and motivate those calls. PB&J 13:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   Make that six. In fact, toss in a sixth group as an added bonus if you want! You said you can name at least five, so that should mean you can name a little more than five as well! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   I, too, wish to know which groups have slipped in on a poorer recommendation than any of the Umbrella groups. --DT^PK 15:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   ...Aaaaand the bluff is officially empty. Pack it home, folks.--RadicalWhig 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   Personally I don't think "these guys are worse than us" should be a reason to merit inclusion  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 15:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   If such documented history (Umbrella Corporation Recent Events [3]) is not enough to impress then I willfully concede our faults and apologize for wasting each of your valuable time. Much of our personal history was lost after the end of our Second Era.--President Jackson 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   It is not. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   i'm still waiting for thad to chime in.--User:Sexualharrison05:05, 16 November 2012

No

1. NO WAY what has this group ever done except be a target for pkers and drama? there is nothing original at all here. yet anther fail survivor group based on a shity zombie movie and a so so video game. get bent.--User:Sexualharrison23:19, 14 November 2012
2. Spam Seriously Ross Jackson, stop trolling. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
3. No 1) You're too lazy to even write up reasons why these groups should be included, (Didn't know, not going to hold it against them) 2) I know little about these groups and what I do know isn't good  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 23:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

   I've read what you've put and even looked into some of these links. It's not particularly impressive trying to show off what you've done with broken links and I'm really struggling to see what sort of achievements you've actually acomplished. The history page is rather scant filled with what I can only call fluff (2 operations? and even then not particularly well documented - the 2nd in particular is highly confusing as to what you actually did). I remain unconvinced.  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 07:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   I "fixed" the links. Would you mind removing the comment about being lazy? I didn't know I was allowed to post a brief paragraph and my wiki skills are lacking.--President Jackson 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

4. I think in its heyday, I saw some graffiti around about UBCS, but unfortunately that was about it. Yeah, I'm sure you guys were around, but I really can't say with confidence that I ever had any experience with your group besides on the wiki (bad things). A ZOMBIE ANT 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
5. Famous for zerging and other miscellaneous douchebaggery. Nothing else. --Papa Moloch 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   Whoa whoa whoa whoa. "...zerging and other miscellaneous douchebaggery..." Can you site any of that? Sounds like you are all basing your biased decisions on something that happened back in early 2009. Not reflecting on anything prior or post as if that is what defined this group. Are you freakin kidding me?--President Jackson 01:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   No one said that was all you did. It's just the only thing you did well enough to be noticed. So for almost everyone outside of the group(s), all they know is zerging and crying. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 15:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   This is called, "Historical Groups". As such, any history, even the ones from early 2009, is vital history about the groups. As such, we're making our opinions based on the groups' history, and what parts of it stands out. Sadly, the bad history stands out a lot more than the good. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

6. Moloch nailed it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
7. Nope. Your given reasons can be summed up thus- "We played the game, had some drama and made a few wiki edits." Great, now how about something the rest of us didn't do too? Also, your only legacy is as a drama magnet, and what little contact I've had with Umbrella only supported that. Pretty sure trollbait doesn't count as historical.--RadicalWhig 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
8. No - As Harrison and Moloch. I will say however, you did end up contributing to my UserPage, so thank you for that. --DT^PK 02:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   Much understated with such humor but that really made me laugh.--President Jackson 20:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

9. No - Insert belittling comment here. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 05:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
10. Nope - I'm amazed by their high opinion of themselves though! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
11. HA HA HA OH WOW -- Spiderzed█ 19:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
12. K, well, I held off for awhile, but I still haven't seen or heard anything particularly historical, so nope. —Aichon— 19:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
13. Got its chance, no way. PB&J 22:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
14. No references to stupid video games should ever be historical zerg, I guess? I dunno, I just blanket accuse people--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
15. Absolutely no, see my reasons above. --Chairman Fanglord, 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
16. Group still active, so categorically not historical. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
17. ahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha lolno -- Adward  17:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I assume this was Withdrawn? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 16:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Regulators Alliance

The Regulators Alliance was based out of Dartside. The RA, initially was the group name. Over time we evolved into an alliance, the original members still carried the RA in their name, but newer members were not required to do so; As such we had many groups which fell into the umbrella of the alliance, but weren't necessarily Regulators themselves. The groups listed on our page, included both allies (separate groups entirely) and alliance members. While the RA was together Dartside stayed safe, and kept to the original founding members mission of establishing a place where survivors could be safe. The RA was the main group in Dartside until their disbanding. The RA had a reputation for being fair, regardless of affiliations. Pk'ers who moved through Dartside but did not attack members were allowed to move through untouched. Groups who wanted to call Dartside home were encouraged and helped. To this day, the 57th ADMI is still in Dart and maintains a presence. If the RA has a legacy, then they would be a part of it. I understand just because a group was around for awhile doesn't mean they deserve this; but I think the RA does. We dedicated our time and talent to not only securing Dartside, but we maintained the area, and helped our allies whenever they needed help. Our connections to other groups, went much farther then just Dartside, as we maintained many friendships throughout Malton, which included not just other survivor groups but some pk'er groups as well. I will happy to answer any questions, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to vote and comment, thanks. Thanks to Aichon as well for helping me with the page. John Blast 21:59, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are Yes and No. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Yes

1. Rage against the machine. Perhaps not the most glamorous of groups, nor the most glamourous of suburbs, I still think RA had a pretty sizable impact on the history of Dartside from 2006-2009. Yeah, its localized history, but I still see it as history, and hopefully it won't be forgotten. -MHSstaff 21:57, 22 October 2012 (BST)

No

1. Who the fuck..? --Papa Moloch 16:32, 22 October 2012 (BST)

   The Regulators Alliance. Who were apparently strongly regulated allies, or strongly allied regulators. -- Spiderzed█ 16:44, 22 October 2012 (BST)

2. The only groups I recognize in this alliance is the Night Ravers and the Thundercats... but thats because I griefed them. Seriously, you can't have a character called Anime Princess GoGo and not have me grief you--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:55, 22 October 2012 (BST)

   I think those groups are their allies; the RA is a separate group and not an alliance of survivor groups. -MHSstaff 18:43, 22 October 2012 (BST)

   Or they were back in the day. Guess they evolved into an alliance more recently. -MHSstaff 22:04, 22 October 2012 (BST)

3. 誰ですか？(Daredesuka?) - In English...Who? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:42, 22 October 2012 (BST)
4. First of all, as Moloch. Second, unless you wrote a book called Finnegans Wake, you must learn to use the apostrophe. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:58, 22 October 2012 (BST)
5. Unfortunately I've never, or if so, very rarely heard of you. I fear historical groups may be in a different league. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:18, 22 October 2012 (BST)
6. As DDR. —Aichon— 22:43, 22 October 2012 (BST)
7. Looking at the list, the only member group that I would view as potentially eligible for historical status is Tikhon Medical (who have been around for a long time, and had at times a large member roster). And even Tikhon is already a borderline case. -- Spiderzed█ 22:51, 22 October 2012 (BST)
8. First of all, who? Second, the reasons given are "we made friends and protected a suburb". Congrats, everyone else in the survivor meta did that too. Third, who?--RadicalWhig 23:56, 22 October 2012 (BST)
9. Never even heard of them. --BOSCH 01:55, 23 October 2012 (BST)
10. as whig--User:Sexualharrison06:05, 23 October 2012
11. All of the above.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 13:55, 23 October 2012 (BST)
12. No. --Hibernaculum 02:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
13. Who? NO!--Akbar 03:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Failed. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Team Xtreme

Team Xtreme - Having been a Pker for a long time and seen a lot of things in this game, I will say that as far as Bhers go, and I've seen a lot, these guys were one of the best I've encountered. They were an early adversary and served as a bit of measuring stick for ones that followed. I still remember these guys putting up a tougher challenge with less than half the players 'The Saints' had. A rare Bher group that you, as a Pker, didn't want to see much of but you respected them. A small but very effective group who often took on challenges rather than cower from them. Well organized, well lead and well known to those who stuck with the game for more than a month. --Hibernaculum 01:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are Yes and No. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Yes (Team Xtreme)

1. Nominator Vote - Hibernaculum 01:39, 4 July 2012 (BST)
2. At least I can say I got the final shot against Josh Clark. He was a good man. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:12, 4 July 2012 (BST)
3. Happy birthday! :D --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 02:14, 4 July 2012 (BST)
4. Yes.. lol --Carrie Cutter 02:17, 4 July 2012 (BST)
5. Yes and not just because it's you-know-who's birthday ;) Grogh 02:23, 4 July 2012 (BST)
6. RAWR. Joshy's awesome  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 02:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)
7. As the former leader I ask that all voters look at the History part of our page. We worked with Survivor groups such as the Cannonball Crew and Skynet Defense Network. Even though we were indeed Bounty Hunters we did a lot of pro survivor operations such as this one Alliance 45 In 2 operations we fought the Zombies in Gulsonside with Operation Damage Control (July 21, 2010 - Sept 12, 2010) and Operation: Beaten to Death (July 28, 2011 - September 5, 2011) Also with Operation Uplift (October 1, 2010 - October 22, 2010) Wyke Hills goes from Red to Green with Team Xtreme, the Wulves and D.S. R&D. Operation Blindside (January 19, 2011 - January 28, 2011) Team Xtreme with Skynet Defense Network, FPDF, AZS, KT, MR, C4NT, WULVES, MCDU, The Fortress, DSR&D, and Z.A.L.P. worked together in Whittenside against the Feral Undead just to name a few things (Not typical BHer stuff) Operation: Rock The Dead (April 11, 2011 - July 2, 2011) Was when Team Xtreme helped defend Malton against the return of the dead. Operation: Black List (September 9, 2011 - October 3, 2011) Was when Team Xtreme fought against Text Rapists and Zergs. This event won a 2011 Malton Murder Award for Best Bounty Hunting Moment, Team Xtreme is proud to have participated in the event. Team Xtreme was also Winner of the 2011 Malton Murder Awards for Best Bounty Hunter Group. And lastly October 28, 2010 is when I officially launched my blog web show The Xtreme Zone to entertain the people of Malton. The show lasted a year. And there was 4 years worth of Bounty Hunting in between all that. So my vote is yes. We have a History Page for a reason. --Josh Clark 02:32, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   Historical by association isn't historical. Just because you have history doesn't mean that you're historical. Particularly when that history has almost no overlap with documented notable game events. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:23, 7 July 2012 (BST)

8. Hell yeah!--Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 02:50, 4 July 2012 (BST)
9. I says yep! :D --Lucy Daniels 03:05, 4 July 2012 (BST)
10. Absolutely, Yes! When The Cannonball Crew was fighting in Gulsonside against CTD, Josh and his crew were Indispensable! [User:Midge Owner] 03:15, 4 July 2012 (BST)
11. Definitely!! TX will always be the best BHer group, in my opinion --Solodog 03:20, 4 July 2012 (BST)
12. Because I was told to. —Aichon— 03:42, 4 July 2012 (BST)
13. Because I'm scared of Carrie. *hides* --Rambo ninja spidrman 04:12, 4 July 2012 (BST)
14. Xtremest group EVER. --Penguinpyro 04:15, 4 July 2012 (BST)
15. Easily one of the finest BHer groups Malton has seen. Their impact on several areas of the Pking/BHing industry may still be felt. -- Albert Schwan  _{Wednesday, 4 July 2012}
16. Yup......nuff said --Raven Corvus 15:30, 4 July 2012 (BST)
17. Josh's patter is hopeless and Hermann Munster always enjoyed ripping him and his Cheeto-stained buddies a new one, but TX's concerted efforts with Skynet were the only survivor push that ever threatened to shift Clubbed to Death from Blesley Mall for any length of time. The Cheeto Wars with you guys rank among the Club's most enjoyable nights out. And if that doesn't warrant a footnote in history, what does?--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 18:33, 4 July 2012 (BST)
18. Yes. It was always an event for the BAR when Team Xtreme came to town. Jesus Sante ^CFT 04:27, 5 July 2012 (BST)
19. As a general thing, the niche of PKers matters very little in the big picture of UD given the default conflict (survivors vs zombies) and basic game mechanics (cost of killing vs cost of revival, significance of draining AP with meatshielding and ruining which PKers don't do). BHers, being essentially a niche within the niche, matter even less as a general thing. That being said, within its narrow niche, Team Xtreme has been highly significant. When we will look back in a few years and wonder about who has mattered within the field of bounty-hunting, TX must definitively be mentioned. For that reason, I think they should be included. -- Spiderzed█ 19:26, 5 July 2012 (BST)

    To specially lower the bar to "Well known presence in a subgroup community" would be to devalue what Historical Groups purpose as a category. It's purpose is to help newer users to understand how the community and culture has grown and particularly the groups which will come up in discussion time and again as being why things are done. Team Xtreme doesn't even make that list for BHers, nor PKers, much less Survivors, Zombies, or Players. And its particularly egregious when most(including these) BHers by nature play poorly(ineffectively) and are not innovative strategically(Beyond RG and some of what DARIS did) in even the limited anti-pker realm, COMBAT REVIVE was a more effective anti-pker group by the numbers than this, 404 and THEM are/were a functionally better example of anti-pker strategy that actually had demonstrable lasting effects on both specific conflicts and the game itself. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:20, 7 July 2012 (BST)

    Sorry, Karek, but I've got to disagree with your assessment of Historical category as a tool. If you've ever actually tried to learn about UD history based on groups in this category, you'd be pretty damn confused/frustrated. That's why projects like Zombie Renaissance, Project Timeline, UDThisMonth and others exist. These days Historical Group is nothing more than a badge. I'd argue that TX are probably more deserving of the badge than other groups wearing it, but I don't think they necessarily NEED it to be recognized as a group that contributed to UD's history.~ _{18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}

    Just want to note that both Project Timeline and UDThisMonth use Historical Group status as a criterion for inclusion, so this vote has bearing on those pages. See here and here. Bob Moncrief 21:33, 7 July 2012 (BST)

    Historical Group status is specifically not a criteria for inclusion on PT. That's why you don't see groups like ASS, Brain Central, Mockers or other questionably historic groups but you do see RRF, Fortress, ACC and others. ~ _{22:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}

    In this case your disagreement note actually reinforces why this nonsense is nonsense. My statement is based on why this category exists, which was initially to preserve pages of noteworthy groups from deletion during the Crit 12 days so that valuable reference material wouldn't be lost. Since then we've preserved it as a navigational reserve for those groups who we accept as being information-ally important to the mission statement of the wiki(i.e. Providing imporatnt game relevant information). Team Xtreme is an example of a group that will never meet that purpose and shouldn't even be up for a vote. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:04, 8 July 2012 (BST)

20. As Spiderzed above. --Belisarius17 03:30, 6 July 2012 (BST)
21. Worked with TX...agree with Spiderzed. --Met Fan ^F 06:13, 6 July 2012 (BST)
22. What Josh said, what Albert said, what Mallrat said. Leon Silverblood 17:46, 6 July 2012 (BST)
23. As Albert, as Spiderzed --CptFastbreak 18:39, 7 July 2012 (BST)
24. At some point you have to look at a groups contributions as a whole, not just if they changed the game or were one of the first organized groups six years ago. Otherwise you can pretty much stop adding groups to this category altogether. A lot of groups have had a huge impact on the game and its players without having changed how its played or bringing about new rules or mechanics. A good group that does well, contributes positively in its particular field, and has maintained reasonable longevity in the community should be recognized. TX has done all of that.--Roddy Winters 19:51, 8 July 2012 (BST)

    This is not true. Quantity of stuff they do does not outweigh the quality. And honestly, the people arguing for this have only pointed out the quantity, not the quality. And those voting no aren't seeing the quality and making judgements based on quantity. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 19:40, 9 July 2012 (BST)

25. Yes please. MHSstaff 00:19, 13 July 2012 (BST)
26. Although I'll again note (since it continues to bruise certain egos) that The Saints didn't care a whit about FoD, I don't think there should be any doubt that TX deserves historical status.--RichterFury 01:07, 19 July 2012 (BST)

No (Team Xtreme)

1. meh and meh. they did nothing that other BH groups didn't do before. --User:Sexualharrison01:50, 4 July 2012
2. Convince me. --Ross^lessness 18:22, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   Since you asked let me give it a shot. Admittedly, what follows is information that predates me. It is my understanding of events and if its accuracy needs to be called into question, please feel free. How did TX change the game? Undoubtedly, there were BHers before TX. My understanding is that most of them were lone hunters or small groups of 2 to 3. They would come together at places like the RG but not in a permanent strategic way. Was there Pack BHing, yes. Organizations like the DEM were organized and engaged in BHing along with their many other functions. My understanding is that if there were purely BHer groups before the time that TX, Malton Marshals, and the Saints formed in 2008, they were transitory. They specialized and they organized for the sole purpose of hunting bounties and they were good at it, providing a counterpoint to PKing groups which had been around for some time. Helping to create organized opposition lead to BHer events like All saints day in 2008 and the organized opposition to Samhain Slaughter. BHer groups are a feature of the game today. Now, while I might well be unaware of a notable group or two that would damage this argument, one thing I am fairly sure of is that TX was instrumental in introducing BHer arms into super groups. There were super groups before TX, but since their inception from Alliance 45 to Cannonball Crew to SDN, TX was there making their specialized services a part of how groups like this would operate. Regardless of how one feels about BHing groups or supergroups, they are a part of Malton life and TX helped make them what they are today. Long winded but I hope it helps. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   there is nothing "super" about any of the groups you just mentioned.--User:Sexualharrison03:08, 6 July 2012

   Funny then that you are listed as leadership on a group that evidently thinks otherwise. Might want to see to setting that straight :P -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   i can still think they are D-bags can't i? and the NMC is a collective with no real leadership. cat herding comes to mind.--User:Sexualharrison05:05, 6 July 2012

   Shearbank Liberation Army, Dulston Defense Death Squad, to name a few old BHer groups (or semi-BHer groups) of the old days that has Historical status, Al. Sure, they were limited to a single location and didn't use Rogue's Gallery as heavily as today's BHer groups, but they were still BHer groups. Just...correcting your facts a little there, Al. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:36, 6 July 2012 (BST)

   They didn't use RG at all because it didn't exist yet. The concept of bounties didn't even exist. Back then it was just a PK List hosted on Desensitized with screenshots of last known locations. Ironicly, though, it was former members of DARIS, whom the SLA were were at war with that were partially responsible for the modern bounty system. That new group was called The Council of Leaders (new), led by Katthew (and others). They were the real pioneers in Bounty Hunting as are those members of DEM who founded the Rogues Gallery. Just correcting some of your facts, Axe. ~ _{17:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}

   Thanks Axe, I figured I missed a few, but the fact remains, these groups were institutional or regionally strategic. I still maintain that the 08 groups brought something new to the table that was not there before and still is there today. TX to me was the most successful and recognized of the newer batch. Their influence was formative and therefore historically significant.-- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   That can be seen both ways. For one, I honestly believed RG was a lot better back then before it moved to it's current home. TX deserves a spot in historical, but not for the reasons you've stated here. It's the same with CK. CK deserves to be historical too, but not for the reasons stated in both CK votes. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:05, 7 July 2012 (BST)

   Where are you getting your information regarding dates? I assume it's the wiki, and you don't realise that the history gets wiped every so often, making the History tab inherently unreliable. The Malton Marshals date back to 2006 or so. Fascist Pig Hunters adopted that name and their PKer hunting ways at the beginning of 2006. Pretty sure the CDF's PKer Response Unit (PKRU) dates back to '06 as well, but you'd have to check with them because they don't make much information publicly available. Either way, while TX were certainly notable the last few years, you can in no way call them a founding bounty hunting group. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:07, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   My guess is the earliest possible entry in the History tab, although had Al checked their talk page... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:45, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   Yes, that was my guess too. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:09, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   Yes that is where it came from. I was unaware of the history wipes. I mentioned that this all predates me right? I might still argue though that being the principle torch-bearer of a tradition is a historically significant role, as is advancing the work of a predecessor into a more public arena. Without treating this as notable, there are gaps in your timeline. -- Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 8 July 2012}

   Aye. The formation of the groups I mentioned predate me, too; I just read a lot. (And had to set the record straight.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:48, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   It's also probably worth mention here that the RG list was predated by CDF and DHPD's lists in addition to whatever was running on ressenz/dessenz at the time. There was a point in time where the go to list recommendation was those two groups wiki based PKer bounty lists(which I believe are still somewhat maintained?).--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:10, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   Ya, the wiki history is periodically wiped as to not slow down and strain the servers. We were suppose to get another history wipe a few months ago (as stated by Kevan himself), but it seems that wipe never occured. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:53, 8 July 2012 (BST)

3. Why are they historical? Because they were effective? Did they change the game? Is this another popularity contest? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 20:08, 4 July 2012 (BST)
4. As above. This vote is largely irrelevant, as there is clearly a bandwagon rolling. However, I'm really not seeing this at all. They were... alright and that's about it. If a CV features only events that the applicant actually has to explain then there is not much there. If there were a category for Historical Characters (and I have long believed that there should be), then Josh Clark would make it. Team Xtreme though? Not for me. --Papa Moloch 20:32, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   Edited to add: The menstrual outbursts added to the initial proposal are absolutely absurd. There is no evidence of significant PKer bias in the contrasting votes for TX and Pathetic Bill and there isn't necessarily a need to 'change the game' in order to make the list. The Bills were very original, highly influential and famous both on the map and in the metagame. In short, they added something new. TX, while a good team, were essentially just a later equivalent of other older groups, spent much of their career perceptibly overshadowed by the Saints, embarked upon repeated incarnations of Operation Trenchyname (about which only those directly involved gave even a quarter of a damn) and have a CV upon which half the content relates to their alliances/service to other groups. Of the three examples that Josh has cited in his edit, two involve unheard of 'wars' with very minor groups ('...things of legend'? How embarrassing.) and the other amounts to 'We tagged along on a major event, tried to fuck it up and failed.' It's hardly C4NT stuff.

   As for the alleged 'PKer bias', holy fucking shit. Before slinging that accusation about, try taking off the tinfoil hat and having an objective look at some of the 'Yes' votes: I can see at least 11 that offer no reasoning at all, more that offer specious reasons and more than a few obvious RSVPs to the meatpuppet house-party. In short, even if a couple of PKers are voting without due objective consideration, they aren't even close to leveling the circle jerk score.

   The one thing on which I will agree with Josh is that things should indeed change in this category. However, they need to change in a way that would mean that no-one would bother even proposing a group like TX for Historical Group status. My own interpretation of 'Historical' is less stringent than Karek's, but it's far closer to his than the circle jerk mess that this category has become. If I had my way then about 80% of the current groups would have their status removed and I would never have even allowed Columbine Kids to be put forward at all. --Papa Moloch 19:19, 9 July 2012 (BST)

   I'm a lot better looking than you. No hard feelings. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 06:44, 6 July 2012 (BST)

   Yeah, but my penis is far larger and we both know that that's what the bitches really love, brah. --Papa Moloch 19:19, 9 July 2012 (BST)

   Stop flirting with me. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:28, 9 July 2012 (BST)

   Don't deny your feelings, Paddy. There is no shame in love. --Papa Moloch 09:18, 10 July 2012 (BST)

5. never heard of you and frankly the number of votes such a none group are getting makes it obvious how much of a joke this category has become. Seriously... what did you do that made an impact, let alone changed the game? --Honestmistake 22:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)
6. Good at what they did, I guess. Outstandingly so? Nope. Uniquely so? Nope. 23:37, 4 July 2012 (BST)
7. No real game significance--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:43, 4 July 2012 (BST)
8. As Paddy and Moloch. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:47, 5 July 2012 (BST)
9. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:55, 5 July 2012 (BST)
10. I liked Team Xtreme. They were good at what they did and weren't obnoxious about it, either. Other groups have gotten Historical due to being so good that they forced other groups to change their tactics to deal with them, but I don't think TX did that. And I really don't think TX had the sort of presence that impacted the suburbs they went through. I'm rather sad to find that they've disbanded though. Until I saw this, I thought they were still active. --DT^PK 05:30, 5 July 2012 (BST)

    Hey, where the hell have you been? Imma stalk u now. ~ _{23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}

11. This group has never been important or notable. Nor have they had any real impact on the game or 90% of the meta at any point in their history. If Team Xtreme had never existed not only would no one here have noticed, no one here would have cared. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:31, 5 July 2012 (BST)
12. No.--Akbar 18:21, 6 July 2012 (BST)

    From CK's last crash n' burn:

    Yeah, everyone knows who they were, they had a sense of humor, and they killed a lot of people. Good enough for me.--Akbar 02:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

    This is the group that most voters here agree were at least famous and good at BHing (meaning they killed a lot of people). And humor? TX launched the Cheetos wars on CtD and famously mocked the Heathers as they fought . Sense of humor indeed. But keep fucking that chicken of hypocrisy.--Penguinpyro 23:36, 9 July 2012 (BST)

13. No. A highly visible and fairly well coordinated bounty hunting fixture for many years, but didn't change the game nor challenge the perimeters, nor do anything singularly more spectacular, sophisticated or successful than any other group. --BOSCH 01:06, 7 July 2012 (BST)
14. Meh. Even if they were "highly significant" within bounty hunting (and I've seen little indication that they were, they were just very good at it, they didn't change the way people bounty hunt) it's kind of silly to say that that makes you historical. If you say being very good or even the best at a given subsection of the game is noteworthy, you get in to a weird line of argumentation. If there's a really specialised section of the game e.g. people who hunt people who hunt people who hunt zergs, if the people who do that are very good at it, are they historical? No. Because what they do represents a very small aspect of the game which is largely insignificant. If we look at the history of the game, these guys didn't change it in any way; they aren't a landmark on it. They were just very good at playing the game as it was. Not Historical. --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:19, 7 July 2012 (BST)
15. No. There is absolutely nothing that stands out about them, historically or otherwise. -- CyanEyed ^C-Kids 14:12, 7 July 2012 (BST)
16. How did this group change the way UD is played or have a significant impact on the community at large, i.e. on the whole, not just in one or two suburbs. It didn't. And I don't have to have been around a lot lately to tell from the application that this group is NOT qualfiied. --WanYao 14:28, 7 July 2012 (BST)
17. Team Xtreme was a good group filled with players who had class. No one who was ever bountied by one of their members can say that the person who killed them was a dick about it. But they didn't really impact the game enough to justify a historical group. -- Goribus 02:11, 8 July 2012 (BST)
18. After considering all the arguments on both sides and my own thoughts, I'm going to have to come down on the not historical side. While I always enjoyed playing against Team Xtreme, I don't consider them to have changed the way I or any of my groups played – which, I might remind you ,included the largest PKer groups in the game. Albert Schwan's argument, that they were the first BH group to be part of a "supergroup", can be disproved singlehandedly by CDF in the old days (they were HUGE) and their PKRU, or by the DEM's Malton Marshals branch, both of which were extant several years prior to Team Xtreme's founding.
    In my opinion, your strongest argument for Historical Status is the movies and videos put out by Josh Clark. That man is a star! (N.B. I may be biased by having appeared in his first animated movie. ) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ
19. Not outstanding enough. A good group but not of the same calibre as genuinely game-changing groups like Pathetic Bill. Sorry. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:32, 10 July 2012 (BST)
20. No. Five years in the game, never heard of them. Rib15 00:49, 19 July 2012 (BST)

And that's a wrap. Turn out the lights, the party's over: With 25 votes for and 19 against, Team Xtreme fails to make the grade. <Insert conspiracy theory here>. --Papa Moloch 01:46, 19 July 2012 (BST)

Columbine Kids

10 months have passed since the last nomination, which furthermore failed by just one vote. I see it thus as justified to re-approach them and see how well their reputation has kept up.

It has now been much more than a year that any Columbine Kids have been active, let alone orchestrated anything together.

From their very founding day on, they have polarized the UD metagame, going even as far as getting the group put up for deletion vote due to bad taste, or because no one thinks of the children, or whatever the reasoning was for those who voted for deletion. And it wasn't just at the beginning that they shocked and polarized the UD crowd, it even continued throughout their career.

They have not just made impact by their concept, though. They were also effective PKers, racking up massive bounties, performing highly coordinated timed strikes and getting involved in events like the 2008 Wedding Crash or Samhain Slaughter 1 to 3. You also mustn't forget their various school shooting tours they have organized and pulled off on their own.

They were recognized in the Malton Murder Awards 2010 as nominee for Best PKer Group.

Seriously, if you are involved in the PKer metagame at all, you have heard of them and their exploits. -- Spiderzed█ 15:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes

1. See above. -- Spiderzed█ 15:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
2. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 15:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
3. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
4. They was robbed last time. You all is just e-cock blockin'. ~ _{19:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)}
5. --User:Sexualharrison20:27, 4 February 2012 (bst)
6. They're well known, have maintained mindshare over the last year, participated in a number of major events, and were effective in doing what they set out to do. They may not have pioneered new tactics or methods for PKing, but they did make a name for themselves, and it wasn't all just bluster. —Aichon— 20:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Yus! Petite Fille 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
8. for what it's worth. I think they are a lot more valid for this than many/most of the groups that are already in the category --Honestmistake 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
9. --ZombieDalkorian 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
10. I suspect that many people never payed attention to the in-game contributions of the CK, focusing mainly on the loldrama on their talk page and on their attitude out of game. My group may have been opposed to most of their antics, but they certainly had an impact on many major events, including getting several off the ground. --DT^PK 20:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Yes, I think they had a decent impact on PKing in general, and they made good use of the concept. --Shatari 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
12. Yeah, everyone knows who they were, they had a sense of humor, and they killed a lot of people. Good enough for me.--Akbar 02:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Manson made me vote yes. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
14. If they were historic for the PKer community, I think it would marginalize PKers to think that that isn't sufficient for them to be historic. --Moctezuma ^{The Streltsy} 05:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
15. It's possible that I may be biased... --Papa Moloch 11:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
16. Likewise with the biased, but frankly we kicked ass in an incredibly tasteless manner. :D --CyanEyed ^C-Kids 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Yeah, sure, why not? - Zombiegeorge 13:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
18. I missed the last vote and would have said yes then so I'm saying yes now.--Samhain Sam 17:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No

1. As the previous bid's against votes. Too much of their value has been put into their apparent offensiveness, and otherwise they seem only successful, and neither of these points are enough to be entitled historical, or what should be called historical. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
2. No, Same as last time wiki drama does not make you Historical. They were just your average PKers who only PKed nothing more. This does not make you Historical.--Josh Clark 18:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
3. They did nothing of note besides "participated" and "had a cool name." They just floated around like typical flotsam. Hardly standout. Frankly, these guys have done zilch to be considered anywhere near the same notability as groups like Channel Four or the old FOD.--RadicalWhig 01:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
4. No, as Josh Clark. (There, I agreed with Josh for once!) They weren't historical last time this came up, and they've not become any more historical in the meantime.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
5. No, while CK was a skilled collection of PKers and good fun to boot, I have to agree with AHLG. Skilled? Yes. Historical? Me thinks not. --Ciscokitty 03:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
6. No,--Carrie Cutter 03:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
7. As one of the yes votes even indicates, they brought nothing new to the table other than wiki drama. Being coordinated and successful when other groups are out there doing the same thing does not put you on a timeline. The event participation just goes to say "and this group was also there" The school shooting tours would not seem enough to me to warrant the nod.  Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 5 February 2012}
8. Nope. They were notable, but not exceptional - not on a level with the other groups who are historical, and I'd prefer not to see the concept deleted by just including larger groups that hung around a while. --Rambo Ninja Spiderman 04:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Nah, either your historical, or your not... repeatedly putting something up for historical seems a bit desperate. The consensus was no last time, so I'm gonna vote no this time.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

10. No - Very few pker groups do enough to be considered notable or historic. The only reason anyone knows who the Columbine Kids are is pretty much some very minor wiki drama. They're no Amish, Red Rum, or DEA. They didn't help make a huge event and the most you can even note them for in their nomination is as being a tag along? An Historic Group these things do not make. —myself last time around

    
    Nothing has changed except now even less people care about them. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

11. No - emphatically as Karek. —myself last time around

    
    D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
12. No, their only notoriety is having a shock name and like ten year olds, they want attention for it. Their whining makes me even less inclined to vote for them. Herr Gerdongerdorf 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
13. No, I have no interest in seeing a group made historical for their impact on the metagame. -- 19:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
14. No. As Anime and Karek. You're holding on to MMORPG accomplishments a little too tightly, brother. Let it go. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
15. No. This group was not notable enough to warrant any further comment.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  06:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
16. No. Attention grabbing name, but not much substance. Jesus Sante ^CFT 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
17. No. As Anime. Asheets 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
18. No. The group wasn't notable enough to be considered historic. Standard Zombie 22:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
19. No. Barely ever heard of them in-game. Also, per AHLG.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
20. No. Who? →Son of Sin← 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
21. NO for all the reasons above. Duck J 17:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

SWING AND A MISS! - Voting is over and the poll says "No". --Papa Moloch 15:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Columbine Kids

Now that probably the last member wearing the tags has switched to a different group (welcome to Cobra, YOG :P) and the group as such hasn't coordinated at all for a long while (the forums have been down for months), it's probably about time to recognize Columbine Kids as historical.

From their very founding day on, they have polarized the UD metagame, going even as far as getting the group put up for deletion vote due to bad taste, or because no one thinks of the children, or whatever the reasoning was for those who voted for deletion. And it wasn't just at the beginning that they shocked and polarized the UD crowd, it even continued throughout their career.

They have not just made impact by their concept, though. They were also effective PKers, racking up massive bounties, performing highly coordinated timed strikes and getting involved in events like the 2008 Wedding Crash or Samhain Slaughter 1 to 3. They were recognized in the Malton Murder Awards 2010 as nominee for Best PKer Group.

Seriously, if you are involved in the PKer metagame at all, you have heard of them and their exploits. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:38, 27 March 2011 (BST)

Yes

1. I, duh, nominated them in the first place? -- Spiderzed▋ 18:45, 27 March 2011 (BST)
2. Who?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:51, 27 March 2011 (BST)
3. Classy chaps. Oidar 18:54, 27 March 2011 (BST)
4. lets just get this over with-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking
   
   bitch 20:21 27 March 2011 (UTC)
5. After this, we're gettin' the C4NT up here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:56, 27 March 2011 (BST)

   You should think about slapping an inactive tag on them and starting the clock. -MHSstaff 03:46, 28 March 2011 (BST)

   isn't the page history a better indicator to begin with? -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

   

   bitch 09:33 4 April 2011 (UTC)

6. For about a year the leading source of UD metagame butthurt (other than wiki drama, which is the untouchable Queen of UD Drama), inspiration behind a few less competent attempts at shock groups (such as Pumpkin Pedophiles) and a couple of even less competent hunter groups dedicated to 'teaching us a lesson', we made a significant splash in both game and metagame. Also there were two School Shooting tours that aren't mentioned above, which put hundreds more corpses on the streets of Malton. 1 2. --Papa Moloch 03:28, 28 March 2011 (BST)
7. Never even met any of them in game, but I still heard about them. Sick of all this historical status elitism. They were well known enough to be let in.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 03:41 28 March 2011(UTC)
8. They are worth giving historical status --Bluewaterdragon 04:02, 28 March 2011 (BST)
9. Sure! Why not? --Akbar 06:11, 28 March 2011 (BST)
10. Yes. Shootin up skool iz fun! --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 08:13, 28 March 2011 (BST)
11. Smyg 08:18, 28 March 2011 (BST)
12. Having had the pleasure of kicking off their mall tour from MCM it would be hard not to vote for them. Like it or not they did make themselves know! --QBee 03:25, 31 March 2011 (BST)
13. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'mma go with 'yes'. -- CyanEyed ^C-Kids 10:25, 28 March 2011 (BST)
14. - Not a giant group, but they caused a massive stir. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:13, 28 March 2011 (BST)
15. That bounty alone must qualify them for historical status never mind what else they did! Gordon 23:13, 28 March 2011 (BST)
16. Sigh... Yes And here's why. I despise this group. I hate everything about them. I Loathe and detest the very creaion of it ffs. It's unsavoury, childish glorification of 'shock value' made me uneasy from the first minute I saw some plank wearing the tags two years ago when I started playing, and still, to this day does. However, that's why they work. That was their hook, so to speak.
    The BH'er in me, always wanted to whack a CK. Hell, I wanted to do it with Deej too, should the chance arisen. They made an impact, and much as I dislike the theme of the group, they certainly knew how to grab the eye. They should be remembered, if not for 'cos they were a 'great PK'er' group, then 'cos they were a bunch of knobbers people wanted to kill. A lot.
    Btw, this vote will be changed to a No, if Harrison doesn't admit, in the next 24 hours he watched, and fapped to the vid linked in my yes vote. Clock is ticking, perve. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |
     
    05:07, 29 March 2011 (BST)

    hah hah suck my balls kempy this was the message i got when i clicked the link. """The uploader has not made this video available in your country. Sorry about that.""" suck it!-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

    

    bitch 05:11 29 March 2011 (UTC)

    ..tock. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

     

    05:47, 29 March 2011 (BST)

    Try Hotspot Shield? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:37, 29 March 2011 (BST)

17. DO IT. 00:58, 29 March 2011 (BST)
18. Sounds like a good idea. --Cexylikepie 02:03, 29 March 2011 (BST)
19. I have been roused from my wiki hiatus to vote! --Pibbit 05:49, 29 March 2011 (BST)
20. They were quite notorious, both in game and on the wiki. The fact that people still hate them makes them quite memorable (and by extension, historical). Their talk page alone is comedy gold.--Shatari 07:15, 29 March 2011 (BST)
21. Fuck yes. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:16, 29 March 2011 (BST)
22. Didn't really need to ask, to be honest. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 09:33, 29 March 2011 (BST)
23. As Anime Sucks. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 18:45, 29 March 2011 (BST)
24. Switching my vote, after the responses below. —Aichon— 22:12, 29 March 2011 (BST)
25. The creation of this group sparked a large negative response from the community and did spark alot of copycats. It also raised valid issues concerning associates of RG mods farming people into the Ignore List--Rapture 23:42, 29 March 2011 (BST)

    Being part of their mall tours for several years it would be hard not to vote for them. --QBee 03:25, 31 March 2011 (BST)

    You already did vote for them, see vote number 12 above.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 06:16, 5 April 2011 (BST)

    vote struck- were still gonna win this you turd. putz.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

    

    bitch 07:03 5 April 2011 (UTC)

    No problem, as long as it's all fair and square. Thanks for deleting the duplicate vote.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 11:03, 5 April 2011 (BST)

26. Yup. Kirsty cotton 04:35, 31 March 2011 (BST)
27. Yes. CK got me interested in PKing. --Amber Waves of Pain 05:10, 31 March 2011 (BST)
28. Nov puts them at four months. Still think PHOG, BBIII and Ackland Abattoir should be in if these guys go in but what do I know.-MHSstaff 00:06, 1 April 2011 (BST)
29. Yes, and Fuck Yeah! Everyone knows hows demented you were. I loved crushing all hope with you.--_♥AU10♥Pantomime _{Mistress of Pain}┌∩┐(◕‿◕)┌∩┐ 23:05, 1 April 2011 (BST)
30. Yes, Not always into their schtick but they played a big part in the game, back when people played the game that is.--User:Rob Collick/sig 00:41, 3 April 2011 (BST)
31. Yes. Every suburb they went people were talking about them. - Love from Swing XOXOX^Talk 11:31, 3 April 2011 (BST)
32. Fuck yes. The Columbine Kids are one of the most infamous groups just based on name and reputation alone. If you played the game on a regular basis before they disbanded, you most likely heard of them. The group also polarized people you either got it and loved them, got it and hated them, or didn't get it and hated them. The only thing about them that sucks is that they won't be around anymore and I never got around to leveling the character I wanted to join with before I left the game. -- Goribus 12:50, 3 April 2011 (BST)

    join cobra, not as offensive, definitely as evil tho.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

    

    bitch 13:03 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    And just as crap.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:10, 3 April 2011 (BST)

    do u ever get tired of being wrong all the time? i mean like about everything.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

    

    bitch 19:01 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    Let him pwease. People getting all riled up about us are good :p And also the most fun to shoot... --Sally A. Summers i Ω i 14:30, 4 April 2011 (BST)

    For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that Cobra is in fact even more useless than CK was.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 20:03, 4 April 2011 (BST)

    I actually have an idled Cobra alt Harrison. But now I don't know what to do with Whitfield Crane other than keeping him perma-idled. -- Goribus 07:49, 7 April 2011 (BST)

33. crashing in-game weddings is cool --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 18:04, 3 April 2011 (BST)
34. This group was so good that they should also be included in one of the four basic food groups. Petite Fille 13:42, 8 April 2011 (BST)
35. Yes. One can't deny they shook things up. --priapus 13:55, 8 April 2011 (BST)
36. Yes. --Zorinth 19:26, 8 April 2011 (BST)
37. Add another one to the yes pile. --ZombieDalkorian 00:47, 9 April 2011 (BST)
38. YES! All the cool kids are doing it! I can't handle the peer pressure (or Petite's repeated shin kicking). Zombiegeorge 15:58, 9 April 2011 (BST)
39. Yes. --MyEvilTwin 16:41, 9 April 2011 (BST)
40. Yes, they've been around long enough.--Deadone 14:17, 10 April 2011 (BST)
41. Yes. Offensive tastes good. --Runaround Stu 16:42, 10 April 2011 (BST)
42. Yes - We came, we saw, we hurt some butts. --Yodadog 17:11, 10 April 2011 (BST)
43. Yes - Just because. --Yournewdad 18:10, 10 April 2011 (BST)

    Yes --Moglet 18:41, 10 April 2011 (BST)

    Yes --Makncheese 18:52, 10 April 2011 (BST)

    Sorry, Moglet and Makncheese, the two weeks for voting ended at 18:38.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 19:01, 10 April 2011 (BST)

No

• Come back in three months - See rule #6 above. It hasn't been four months since they went inactive. YOG only left a month or two ago, otherwise I'd say yes. —Aichon— 19:36, 27 March 2011 (BST)

  the forums have been down for months - as indicated here. Moloch's words don't sound like the group has been active as a group either for quite some time before. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:52, 27 March 2011 (BST)

  say yes it's easier-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

  

  bitch 20:24 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  Spiderzed is correct. The group ceased to exist months ago. The forums were closed and the leader (that would be me) idled out. --Unhappydisgustingwow 07:39, 29 March 2011 (BST)

  Vote changed. —Aichon— 22:12, 29 March 2011 (BST)

1. No - Very few pker groups do enough to be considered notable or historic. The only reason anyone knows who the Columbine Kids are is pretty much some very minor wiki drama. They're no Amish, Red Rum, or DEA. They didn't help make a huge event and the most you can even note them for in their nomination is as being a tag along? An Historic Group these things do not make. --Karek^maps?! 20:01, 27 March 2011 (BST)
2. No - emphatically as Karek. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:36, 28 March 2011 (BST)

   No - As Aichon. -MHSstaff 03:46, 28 March 2011 (BST)

   And now..? ;o) --Papa Moloch 23:35, 30 March 2011 (BST)

   Eligible so vote Changed. -MHSstaff 00:08, 1 April 2011 (BST)

3. NO - Who the hell are these guys never even heard of them get real don't you have actually had to of done something? Wow they should change the name from historical status to Popular disbanded group since obviously you actually never had to of done anything. This is really pathetic the Profile police didn't get voted in but the Ck do????? Everyone who ever played this game has heard of the profile police but as I said before who the hell are the theses guys. Divs 04:48, 28 March 2011 (BST)

   You've never heard of CK, yet you've heard of some obscure group called Profile Police? CK are pretty well known. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 13:18, 3 April 2011 (BST)

   it's okay.. it's bad attitude barbie what do you expect? reality. nevah.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

   

   bitch 13:28 3 April 2011 (UTC)

   Oh, the irony! The reality is that Divs is not Bad Attitude Barbie (check the IPs, Einstein.) But as long as we're on the topic of reality...remember when Sexual Harrison (bitch) noted that he was a leader of NMC? *snickers* Bitch, please!--Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 17:30, 28 August 2011 (BST)

   first off loser this vote closed in april. second, so I wasn't a leader of the rangers, c4nt, QSG, and mossad? sorry just before your time i guess when the nmc was for a short time relevant. i can't check IP's on the wiki. if I really felt like i guess i could come back to the nmc and check it there. but why why bother? i don't care. you are still a trenchie loser no matter how we slice it.--User:Sexualharrison19:43, 28 August 2011 (bst)

   Bahahaha! First off, You Mad! Next, is there an expiration date on calling you out on your bullshit? *glances at her earlier post* Apparently not. *grins* Now, as to the question about whether you were leader of some groups...well I don't know! If by "leader" you mean you plastered your name as such on the wiki after having absolutely nothing to do with those groups over the course of two months and a series of successful operations, I'd have to say yes! But let's be frank, shall we? Regardless of which groups you "lead," you did NOTHING to contribute to the operations of NMC during the time you felt the need to post your name on the wiki proclaiming yourself to be among the leaders. See, this is how it works, Genius, when you boast about accomplishments you never achieved, your claims of other notable deeds lack credence.--Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 21:05, 2 September 2011 (BST)

4. No They were typical PKers and did not do anything but typical PKer stuff. --Josh Clark 04:53, 28 March 2011 (BST)
5. No As Karek and as Josh. --Penguinpyro 08:20, 28 March 2011 (BST)
6. No Never heard of them. --Louis Vernon 15:03 28 March 2011 (BST)
7. No Bad taste is neither historical or notable. Asheets 16:35, 28 March 2011 (BST)
8. No. As Asheets. We might as well put Assholio on the Historical Groups List with his various zerging neo-Nazi groups.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 18:03, 28 March 2011 (BST)

   how can you compare CK to cornhole? that insults everyones intelligence. we were at least good at what we did.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

   

   bitch 05:00 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   Because both CK and Cornhole's chief claim to fame is creating wiki drama through glorifying mass-murderers. But hey, for the lulz, right?--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 16:43, 30 March 2011 (BST)

   Yes, it's what all murderers truly crave: To be represented as borderline-retarded, monosyllabic, repressed homosexuals who kill because they are too stupid to do anything else. That truly is the definition of glory. There are several reasons why comparisons to Cornhoolio are absolutely cretinous, including the subtle distinction between actual satire and 4Chan 'here it is LOL' vomit, the not-exactly subtle distinction between stupid and wasteful murder and mechanised and legalised genocide, and then the entirely obvious distinction between a legitimate group of UD players and a single serial-zerging mass wiki vandal. Somehow though, I suspect that aiding you in grasping these will prove a sisyphean task on a par with trying to teach a particularly stupid dog a card trick. --Papa Moloch 23:34, 30 March 2011 (BST)

   Much of what fuels mass murderers like the Columbine Kids is the desire for notoriety. You feed that notoriety and thereby encourage others. Most UD players never use the wiki so your pisspoor attempt at 'satire' is lost on them: all they see is 'Columbine Kids' tags. Even for those of us who frequent the wiki, the CK page has only got 15000 hits - FFS, even my TSI page has well over 50,000. As for Cornhole, you miss the point entirely - he's not historical, neither was this group. Hint for the future: satire is funny, not merely offensive, as Chris Morris could tell you.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 20:43, 1 April 2011 (BST)

   Yes and he can also attest to the fact that for every person who enjoys a piece of satire there will be a hundred or more whiny babblers shrieking their butthurt. The fact that you cite Chris Morris as an example in the same post in which you laughably assert that a group from a minor internet browser game could influence potential future mass murderers only underlines just how inexorably stupid you actually are. I suppose then that Chris Morris is a great influence upon the next generation of paedophiles, drug dealers and suicide bombers. After all, if you draw attention to something then that means that people will think that's cool and become more likely to do it themselves, right? As a part of his work Morris has made jokes about Myra Hindley and Peter Sutcliffe, so he runs the risk of inspiring murderers too. Hell, he did it on the television for the viewing of millions.

   Your arguments are becoming increasingly garbled. You assert that Columbine Kids 'feed notoriety and thereby encourage others', then claim that they don't get enough attention to claim influence, and then subsequently cite a man who has an audience of millions and also uses representations of real-life murderers as an example of how satire 'should' be done! I'd suggest that you make up your mind, but it appears that you'd need the world's most powerful microscope simply to find it. --Papa Moloch 17:23, 2 April 2011 (BST)

   Lots of words, many insults, not much substance: looks like I touched a nerve and you're upset. Arguments by numbers for the hard-of-reading, do try to keep up: 1. Morris is funny, CK isn't. Having some wit counts for a lot in satire. 2. Most people playing UD don't read the wiki, so yes, they might well regard CK-tagged characters (shooting survivors in schools, etc.) as glorifying murderers. 3. CK claim historical status partly for stirring up wiki drama but in 6 months, even poor deluded Cornholioo's talk page got more hits than CK's talk page has in nearly two years. It's pretty easy to stir shit up; as for timed strikes, taking part in events, being runner-up in a PKer award, so what? Hardly epoch-making stuff.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 18:02, 2 April 2011 (BST)

   Not upset at all: I just genuinely enjoy slapping around people who try to present arguments and fail miserably. Note how there's no argument with Paddy, Karek, et al. They make their points in a rational fashion and, regardless of whether I agree or not, get due respect for it. You simply manufacture a fatuous comparison to a mass-zerger and wiki vandal and then, when that fails dismally, you resort to the old 'glorifies'/'encourages copycats'. Even then you screw that up by citing as an example a man whose whole career would, by that measure, have inspired murder, paedophilia and drug abuse (amongst other things) on a truly immense scale. Did anyone in CK ever expect to rival Morris? Not even slightly. Who could with a wiki page and a group name? Still, I'd rather do something a little different and be compared very much unfavourably with him than be yet another lame-wit peddling the same tired references to the same tired sketch from the same tired 70s show.

   As for the number of page hits, an interesting pair of parallels there. Cornholio and TSI? Well, they have at least one thing in common... --Papa Moloch 19:15, 2 April 2011 (BST)

   Well then, hopefully as the first voter here it will be helpful that I agree with you. Claiming that you see them as Cornholio equivalents is both kinda insulting(UDWiki, so I guess it's a bit expected) and irrelevant to whether or not their historical. The Dead were grade A dicks to a lot of people, ask any DHPD memebers, still totally historical. It's not really relevant to the vote Mallrat, did they have a impact on the game that you saw aside from that? That's the question that should be being answered.--Karek^maps?! 19:22, 2 April 2011 (BST)

   Exactly. Emotional responses against and in favor of the CK should not be justification for a no or a yes vote. And the comparison with Cornholio is bullshit. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 20:21, 2 April 2011 (BST)

   Monty Python - now there's a historical group. Karek, my point re Cornhole is that he also created wiki drama, but there's no way he'd be considered historical for that, and to highlight that (as you said), CK's dramatic impact was minor. Paddy: "did they have a impact on the game that you saw aside from that?" - No.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 21:32, 2 April 2011 (BST)

   (NPOV comment: Papa Moloch has slapped poor Mallrat around like a boss) --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:54, 3 April 2011 (BST)

   Arguments left unrefuted: that CK wasn't funny; that most UD players don't use the wiki; that even Cornhole generated more drama; that CK did nothing new as a PKer group; and that their in-game impact was minor. Moloch's had plenty of chances to come up with arguments rather than hysterical insults, and fluffed his lines every time. As I've said to Karek elsewhere, this has already had more attention from me than it deserves, so I'll leave Moloch to write another rambling essay if he wants.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:08, 3 April 2011 (BST)

9. No--tyx94 22:48, 28 March 2011 (BST)
10. No- I never would have heard of them if not for the wiki, metagame drama hardly seems basis for historical status - Legion8 05:58, 30 March 2011 (BST)

    isn't that the point of the wiki? way to contradict yo'self -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

    

    bitch 11:31 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    -It's hardly a contradiction, I just think a group has to have actually done something in game to be 'historical'.Legion8 05:52, 2 April 2011 (BST)

    first learn how to indent. second read the bid, and our talk page, and bounties and get back to me.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

    

    bitch 12:36 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    I've seen them, but I still don't think it's basis for historical status. Legion8 05:13, 3 April 2011 (BST)

11. No- as Mallrat and Asheets.-Obi ^{+ Talk!|TZH|MDK} 22:10, 30 March 2011 (BST)
12. No - For the same reason Moloch voted no on the FOD’s bid: The CK "were undoubtedly good, but for me an historical group needs to have made a difference to the game itself. Sadly I don't think that they achieved that." Polarizing the metagame doesn’t change the way the game is played, in my opinion, nor does coordinating themed strikes. It’s true that I didn’t find the CK’s satire particularly funny or effective, but I never questioned their right to exist. They are a highly intelligent, articulate, legitimate group of UD players. But not historical. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:50, 31 March 2011 (BST)
13. No - I almost want to vote Yes to counter the they're offensive and therefore not historical argument. But from a more reasoned standpoint, I agree with Paddy. Trolling like this is fun for the whole family and they deserve a small share of our appreciation for bringing creativity and discussion to the game, just like any other group. But they were never large, they were only moderately organized, and they didn't impact the population ratio. --VVV ^RPMBG 02:35, 1 April 2011 (BST)
14. No As Karek. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:46, 1 April 2011 (BST)
15. No As Karek. Trolls are a dime a dozen, and I only remember this group because they were trollbait (on the wiki). Otherwise, as pkers, they came, they killed, they got killed, and then they promptly left when they realized citizens in the suburb ignored them. --Private Mark 21:04, 2 April 2011 (BST)
16. ^ --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:52, 2 April 2011 (BST)
17. As AHLG and TripleU. Only reason I remember them was because of their offensive nature (which doesn't make them ahistorial, but it doesn't automatically make them historical, either.) Linkthewindow  Talk  13:58, 5 April 2011 (BST)
18. No - Who? I reckon you have to make an impact to be historical, and they made no impact on me or anybody I game with.--Heneage 20:11, 5 April 2011 (BST)

    it might help if you played the game for more than a few months, and actually read the wiki. ya think?-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

    

    bitch 08:31 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    Yet funnily enough, doing both of those still made them an irrelevance. What a surprise.--Heneage 19:44, 6 April 2011 (BST)

19. No as per most of the above Sanpedro 13:36, 6 April 2011 (BST)
20. No - As Karek, but with less of an edge. You seem like a fine group and I've got nothing against you, rather I'm unfamiliar with your in-game historical achievements.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:57, 8 April 2011 (BST)
21. No- Shock value isn't historical and opens the door to other trolls --Marc Andreas 10:02, 10 April 2011 (BST)
22. No They seem to be a rather boring group that only achieved kills when the survivors were already fully occupied by zombies. --Herr Gerdongerdorf 18:00, 10 April 2011 (BST)

    I have to question your logic: When are survivors not occupied by zombies? We're the main antagonists, for crying out loud. --Shatari 02:41, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Aaaaaand CLOSED --Papa Moloch 18:53, 10 April 2011 (BST)

After checking the votes after deadline and checkusering unestablished users, CK has failed to achieve Historical status by one measly vote. (Or by three minutes if you count the struck decisive vote.) As this is a very close call, I'll let that sit for a day in case anyone has unresolved concerns with certain votes. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:07, 10 April 2011 (BST)

we was robbed! -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 19:42 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am probably going to regret pointing this out, but here goes anyway. Strictly speaking CK passed this vote. The policy which is place states that a group must be approved by 2/3rds of voters, with a minimum of 15 votes WITHIN two weeks, i.e. not after two weeks have elapsed. The 15th vote on this was Penguinpyro's no vote at 08:20 on the 28th. At that point there were 10 yes and 5 no votes giving 2/3rds within the two weeks as stipulated by the policy. Gordon 21:19, 10 April 2011 (BST)

It's never been done nor interpreted that way though, and strictly speaking, both Aichon and I still had no votes at that point which would make it 10-7. The policy should probably be clearer. It's a good catch though.-MHSstaff 21:36, 10 April 2011 (BST)

No, it's completely stupid. The wording does nothing to suggest that. Maybe if said maximum instead :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:49, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I don't know. I can see it possibly being read like that, but it would be like the most literal interpretation you could possibly do, while also giving a big FU to the spirit of the law. -MHSstaff 22:57, 10 April 2011 (BST)

i also love how herr gerdongerorf sole contribution to UDwiki is this vote.. wonder where he can from?-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 23:00 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. It's on both sides though, i.e. yournewdada and runaroundstu. -MHSstaff 23:03, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I can see the interpretation above, though it's stretching. To be strictly a fair vote, members of the group being considered should be ineligible to vote. P.S. I've been in the game since 2008, and I come from a place where we know how to spell and use grammar. --Herr Gerdongerdorf 23:45, 10 April 2011 (BST)

--Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:03, 12 April 2011 (BST)

The 4-H

One of the bigger (at one time, at least) and more resilient localized survivor groups in Malton, The 4-H, officially closed their doors on October 6th, 2010. While not exactly a game changer, the Headhunters of Huntley Heights participated in a large number of historic events in Malton, including the defense of Stickling Mall during Shop-a-Thon 2006, the Battle of Blackmore, and the operations of Alliance 45. The group lasted two months shy of five years, secured and maintained two previously uninhabitable suburbs (Huntley Heights and Raines Hills), opened/established the long-utilized Veryard Crescent Revive Point, and employed 105+ members over the course of our time in Malton.. We also established the original public barricade plan, as well as all of the original UDwiki pages for Huntley Heights as part of our efforts to keep the survivors of the Heights informed, safe, and sound.

Unfortunately, over the years the group was decimated by a combination of griefers and a lack of new members, but I hope that those we played with (or against) can fondly remember the audacious 4H that fought the Big Bash in Shearbank (even if we did lose, hah), rather than the skeleton crew left at Vicari when we disbanded.

Farewell UD, and Happy Hunting! --Aiden H ^4H 03:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes - Submitter vote. --Aiden H ^4H 03:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Yes - The 4-H were around for a long time, and had a great impact on Huntley and surrounding suburbs Captain Winters 04:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Yes - Group played an important role for years! Dweeezul 05:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Yes - I had a alt with this group and they were good at what they did. They taught me a thing or to about playing as a survivor and were well known. This group is worthy of being Historical.--Josh Clark 07:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Yes - Well-known, and considerable impact on the game. --Buddhagazelle 08:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Yes - 4-H was responsible for maintaining Huntly, taking revive requests, and tracking of PK players around Huntly. -- Nocho14 08:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Yes - I've been involved with the 4-H in some way, shape, or form since I first started playing UD back in '05, be that as an ally or an actual member of the group. We may not have influenced the entirety of Malton, but we most certainly affected Huntley and the suburbs around it rather heavily. That, and we were good at swapping bullets with quite a lot of PKers. :D --RagnaRover 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Yes - But barely. -MHSstaff 22:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No

1. Who? Never heard of this group before which generally does not imply historicalness. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
2. As Link.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
3. No -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Nay Judging from your wiki mentions you appear to have little overall impact.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
5. No - Have never even heard of them and I have 6 alts and waste a lot of time on wiki --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 12:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Njet comrade Who? And your self-presentation doesn't look too overwhelming either. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Sorry, mates. If I never heard of you, you must not have been that significant to begin with. And I'm an old UD player too. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
8. No - I didn't grief you, thusly you can't be historical --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
9. No - Unlike the uninformed masses above, I have heard of the 4H. I know enough of their history to say that they were pretty much only relevant in Huntley Heights. They were a good group, to be sure, but they didn't add much to the experience of other players - beyond being a bullet sponge for a fair number of PKers and PKer groups. --DT^PK 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Who? - Meatpuppet army! Thine ranks are thin, and thou shalt surly fall! --VVV ^RPMBG 00:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
11. No - Nothing special. --Papa Moloch 07:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
12. No - Local and quiet, however enduring or legitimate a group. Little ripples do not move mighty oceans. Something zen like that. 23:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Failed. With less than 50% support, this bid obviously has. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Big Bash 3

BB3. Many of you were fortunate enough to have been a part of it or taken apart by it. For those of you who were, there's no need to explain any of this stuff to you since you were there. You saw it. You felt it. For those that missed it, however, it was something BIG, and it had a planned beginning and end.

Game Impact: We began in the wake of Escape on June 3rd of last year. BB3 started out in the southwest corner of Malton, did a giant looparound the city, had to pause periodically to let folks catch up since we were moving too fast, and finished things up 4 months and a week later with dozens upon dozens of our tag-wearing group members descending on the historic Whetcombe Park, in tribute to those that went On Strike. During that time, we ruined partied in 48 suburbs, though we also ate the brains of dozens of other suburbs that were fortunate enough to be adjacent to those 48. We moved through suburbs so quickly that most survivors never even knew we were coming until their suburb was ruined, and though no official count was kept, it's probably safe to say that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of brains were eaten by our members in the four months we were active. Backing that up, the survivor to zombie ratio shifted from about 70:30 when we started, to more like 40:60 when we ended.

Community Impact: I believe that at our peak we were the largest organized group in the game, which is made all the more impressive by the fact that we had numerous other groups that joined us while keeping their own tags, plus a massive feral cloud that could be felt from suburbs away. A cloud so renowned, in fact, that more than once since we disbanded, many of us have heard the cry of an ignorant survivor as they declared, "Its [sic] Big Bash 3!" when a random zombie breached a building. It's happened so often, in fact, that the Philosophe Knights even satirized the occurrence during a play they staged. The fact that the Malton Herald & Sun featured BB3, coupled with the fact that we disbanded suddenly (but intentionally) while we were still the second largest organized group in the game probably led to the confusion.

Strategic Impact: We advocated the use of attack windows in addition to strike teams, which ensured that even without coordination and communication, we still struck as a horde. Tactics such as these are what led to a healthy Fort Creedy and Giddings Mall falling within hours of each other after we moved into the suburb. Having a horde didn't hurt either, of course.

Wiki Impact: Did I mention that we have a kick-ass group page? And that we had received over 3000 page views of a countdown we posted a week in advance of when we officially started? We were also the most-linked group page for most of our run.

Other Impact: BRA!NZ.

—Aichon⁴— 22:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes - The party may have ended, but we still have the memories, and there's no denying that we made a big impact while we were around. I've been waiting for the four-month inactive timer to finish up so I could finally post this, and today is the day. —Aichon⁴— 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Yes - If you want to talk about things with an impact in 2010, Big Bash should be high up on your list if you don't want to be laughed at. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Yes - Wow has it been four months already. I was there and it was indeed groundbreaking. Just look at the suburb map history for June, July, August, and particularly September of 2010 and you'll see just what kind of impact was made. The group made a lasting impact on the game which lasted many, many weeks after (and to an extent before) the events. It was definitely historic. ~ 22:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
4. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Yes - I had fun! -- Bisfan 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Yes - I don't think a horde has ever moved around the map so fast. Good times and great memories.-- Skoll ^Die 01:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Yes - Had a clear impact on game history that in many ways, defined and dictated 2010 for UD. -MHSstaff 04:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Just because it didn't come up against the same survivor opposition as BB2 (and therefore won't be remembered as much for great battles, impact etc.) doesn't mean it isn't worthy of wearing the historical tag. Just because we were too weak to make any notable stands against BB3 doesn't make BB3 worse in itself. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
9. I heard of them, and I was nearly inactive. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
10. The standout happening of the last two years. BB3 revitalised a dying zombie metagame and defined the standard of play for a huge duration of time. 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
11. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Yes, BB3 was awesome, and the fact that it came at the end of Escape was the perfect cherry on top. --Shatari 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Sure - Why not?--Amber Waves of Pain 10:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
14. Hell yes --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
15. YES BRA!NZ!!!!!--Akbar 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
16. Yes The speed in which this mega-horde ripped through suburbs was astonishing. Revitalised the zombie game it seems, and Malton hasn't been half as safe during or since. --BOSCH 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
17. Yes -

    This Big Bash triumphed.

    I'm making a note here, HUGE SUCCESS.

    It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

    It's the third Big Bash:

    We killed who we could because we must;

    For the good of all of us-

    At least the ones who are dead.

    -

    But there's no sense crying over every mistake,

    You just keep on killing 'till you run out of hate.

    And the slaughter gets done

    And you cut the flow of guns

    To the people who are still alive.

    -

    I am still hungry.

    I'm being so sincere right now.

    Even though we ate your heart and killed you.

    And tore you to pieces.

    And threw every piece into our stomachs.

    As you died it hurt because

    We were so happy for you.

    -

    But those points of action brought a beautiful time

    To a great faction, who's strength only climbed

    So I'm GLaD the bash returned, think of all the meals we've turned

    Into the people who are not alive.

    -

    Be lucid and vote Yes

    You know it deserves to be recalled

    Unless you find something else that moved you

    Maybe Escape II

    That was a joke, ha ha, FAT CHANCE

    Anyway your brain is great

    It's so delicious and moist.

    -

    Look at me still talking when there's murder to do

    When I look out there it makes me GLaD we killed you

    So those breathers better run, 'cause we're loose to have some fun

    On the people who are still alive.

    -

    And believe me we were not alive.

    We murdered people and were not alive.

    We felt fantastic and were not alive.

    While you were dying we were not alive.

    And when you died we remained not alive.

    Not alive.

    NOT ALIVE --VVV ^RPMBG 07:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

18. Yarp --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
19. Yus - As TripleU --DT^PK 00:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
20. Yes - sound pretty important to me. And I know what sounds important (I don't really) Louis Vernon 00:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No

1. No -Big Bash 3 was to Big Bash as Godfather 3 was to the Godfather.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2. No I thought I'd be the only one. The Impact was much less than either of its predecessors and was nothing new. (I can see why people would vote yes, but I've always fallen back on the question "Did they change the game?" when I vote. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   I can see where you're coming from, but by your standard I don't think that we'll ever see any new groups enter the ranks of Historical Group, which isn't fair to those that are worthy of note. And if you're looking for game changing or new, it shifted the population balance drastically and introduced a new method of coordinating a feral horde that I have not heard of being used prior to it at this scale. As Spiderzed said, any mention of 2010 should include it. —Aichon— 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   Remind me why you voted for Blackmore XVIII as an historic event again. -MHSstaff 04:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

3. No - BB3 was impressive and it did demonstrate that the survivor player base is evaporating (confirmed by the recent GSGM). Furthermore, it is now clear that the remaining metagamers are basically zombies. So the fallout from the bash has lead to a significant revelation. However when considering a big bash or a big prick or a mall tour or escape etc, I think it's enough to include the first of each of these events as historically significant, rather than each subsequent one.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 04:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

   I have to disagree with this statement. The survivor player base is not evaporating. The zombie player base is. When I checked the stats yesterday to update Organization XIII's page, the population favors the survivors, and it still favors survivors right now. As of right now, the current ratio stands at 39% zombies, 61% survivors. I'd like to know: where have all the zombie metagamers gone to? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

   I don't really agree with Giles, but his argument is more about the organized, player base who metagame/use forums/are in groups rather than the population as a whole. -MHSstaff 04:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

4. No - I say this as somebody who's zed took part in BB3, or at least tried. I had extreme difficulty ever finding the horde, and ending up sitting outside Caiger Mall for 3 months. I find myself agreeing with Giles, Ross, and sadly, Anime Sucks. This wasn't really on the scale of the other bashes, imo.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
5. No - as Yonnua above, the third Bash didn't bother to update the wiki enough, anyone trying to follow via the wiki would find themselves a suburb or two behind, wandering ruins. Seemed kinda selfish. Plus the grande finale we were promised was a waste of time sitting around waiting for nothing for a few weeks. Saying that, it was kinda historical, and had its moments, but fuck it - am punishing its inadequacies with a NO. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 09:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Nay A big horde steamrolling Malton historical? No. More like day to day business. Compared to BB2, it really isn't anything special. Mostly as the others too. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
7. No - As Anime. --Papa Moloch 14:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
8. NO as above except for thad.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 16:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
9. No - due to peer pressure. I was involved in it, but I didnt see it being that huge it needs historical status.--Rapture 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
10. No -- Sad to say, but the math is simple. Escape =! Historical, BB3 << Escape (due to the fact that BB3 came from Escape), therefore BB =! Historical. Besides, according to the map on the page, they didn't even manage to hit every single 'burb before giving up. Asheets 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Um BB3 came from Escape what? Can I have some of what you're smoking?-- Skoll ^Die 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    This gentleman seems to be mistaking Big Bash 3 with The Red Death, which is a smallish horde which joined BB3 after the Bash was already rolling. Praise Knowledge, down with Ignorance! --DT^PK 00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

11. Nah - Like YoKo above, I got lost dead early into it with mah zambah. Lost, or bored, can't remember which now. Either way, it was balls. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |
     
    13:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
12. No - as said above --Efighter 16:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
13. No - Just not really as important as the first two. And I'd consider Escape more noteworthy in 2010.-- Adward  17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
14. No - I was going to attend but it had all been done 1st and 2nd time --C Whitty 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
15. No - BB3 did not raise or even meet the bar set by previous Bashing. --ZiP^MH+LUE 20:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

With an approval rate of ~57%, BB3 has failed. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

But...but...but...Trips gave such a poetic speechsong. :( ~ 14:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Big Survivors Little Survivor

Anyway, as unlikely to succeed as it is, I'd like to nominate Big Survivors Little Survivor for Historical status.

You probably have no idea who they were. It's unsurprising.

To Paraphrase.

• BSLS were the first group of any description to be created in Borehamwood.

• BSLS members hold the records for both "largest survived suicide repair in a perma death city." (350ap) and "largest suicide repair ever attempted" (529ap)

• BSLS were the largest organised survivor group, before the meta combined all survivor groups into a single lump.

• BSLS helped implement the standardised 28.06 radio channel throughout borehamwood alongside Galaxy News Radio

• BSLS helped in the hunt for Game Over actively tracking Borehamwood's only publicised PK'er group. In the end we managed to wipe out their two leaders, whilst other survivors finished the job.

• BSLS had Borehamwood's only international celebrity, namely Dermot O'leary. Famed throughout the city for his habit of suicide repairs without telling anyone.

• BSLS made up 5% of The Borehamwood 100.

So what? I here you say. Did the BSLS do anything game changing or unique? Well I believe they did.

• BSLS helped discover, understand and fix the single most game breaking error in Urban Dead history, namely the free repair of all buildings with a repair cost of more than 150ap. Rather than exploit a bug that could of led to the reclamation of the entire ruined city in only a month and against the advice of some radical survivors, the Little Survivor's suspended all repairs, and tried to stop the game from massively screwing zombies. As one member commented. "We've stayed ahead of the zombies so far, we don't need this."

And on a slightly more annoying note,

• BSLS were finally wiped out when User:Rosslessness requested Kevan bring snow to Urban dead. Less than a day later the last of the group was devoured by a feral who simply followed their footprints.

Which is why you now get....

• Although it's freezing in Monroeville and Borehamwood, the snow isn't heavy enough to leave footprints there.

So there you go. I look forward to your, "WWWHHOOOOOOO?" comments. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes Obviously. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Yes but maybe have subcategories for the different cities. -MHSstaff 17:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   If there was more than one, then yes. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   I see. Cross that bridge when you have more than one in Borehamwood/Monroeville?-MHSstaff 18:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   It's been suggested in the past, pretty sure it was rejected because both those categories would be pretty much empty. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

3. I could vouch for this. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Who?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   You placed your vote in the wrong space >:P --Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   I do know who they are, but Ross said he was looking foreward to who comments :P --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

5. Yes - Have missed Borehamwood, but even I have heard of some of their accomplishments before. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Aye - Who? Usually when I say who I go "Nay" but not here. Their accomplishments are quite impressive. I didn't play in Borehamwood, so I can't blame the group for not being known to me. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
7. Yes - may as well. BTW Dermot's wasn't Borehamwood's only celeb [[4]] --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 19:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
8. What you mean it isn't historical yet? Something died inside me when I didn't get to kill Dermot--which feels well funny when you're already very dead. Make it so. And add the Monroeville Many, while you're at it. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 19:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
9. They were a seriously important group - I've heard alot about them, and I did very little in Borehamwood.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
10. yes but Zombie Davina does not approve of anyone else eating Dermot! --Honestmistake 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
11. Yes - It's a bit of a case of a big fish in a small pond type of situation, as I see it. They might not have been anything special had they been in Malton, but in B-wood, they stood out from what I've heard, and really shaped and defined that city. —Aichon— 21:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
12. Yes - BSLS are one of the few non-Malton groups to have had a significant impact on the wider game, and are responsible for one of the game's few truly iconic characters, too. 21:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
13. Yes as Thad. I didn't get into borehamwood, but those are impressive accomplishments. (maybe not so if they were in malton, but they weren't) --†hana†ologis† (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
14. Yes even if I didn't grab Dermot's sig when I had the chance.--ZIPO/Talk/◆◆◆/CAPD 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
15. Pretty much as Aich. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
16. Yes they played with a straight bat --C Whitty 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
17. Yes -- Rahrah is pumped that he's going to lose another Manhunt. 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

    welcome back Rorybob!--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 18:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

18. User:Whitehouse 21:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No

1. Meh - Being the first group in the city, if true, would be worthy if there were some separate category for borehamwood, but the rest looks like padding the resume - finding a bug, doing survivor things like working with other groups and repairing buildings, getting killed when zombies found the last member, etc. This isn't to diminish the fun they had playing or the significance of the group in their own context, mainly I just can't get excited enough about a borehamwood group to put them on par with the historical entries from the main game.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
2. ahNO - it pains me to agree with giles.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 02:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

   Love you too sexy ;) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

3. Who? - As Giles. --VVV ^RPMBG 18:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
4. No - Borehamwood, snorehamwood. --Papa Moloch 22:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Nope --Efighter 13:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
6. No As Giles and Papa Asheets 16:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
7. No Having a historical group from Borehamwood would be like giving an Emmy to someone in Joanie Loves Chachi. Spinoffs hardly ever work. Unless its Golden Girls, which this is not.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
8. No fuck no Spud 01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
9. No absolutely not! --Akbar 04:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
10. No Borehamwood, snorehamwood. I also hear password sharing, zerging and other asshattery accusations all the time regarding the group. Also where is my sig button

    There was no sig button, so I didnt use it so goi shuffle paper somewhere else.--Rapture 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    no thanks, I like fixing problems with people who can't read rules -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Whatever makes you feel important--Rapture 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    The zerging accusations are complete rubbish. As is standard practice I'm more than willing to give Anime and the resenitised boys my Beerhah.Com password so they can read through the groups messages and private forum to confirm this. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Fair enough, I still vote No though.--Rapture 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Fair Enough. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    heh, I found it amusing to password share to prove that there wasn't password sharing.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    There's no rule about sharing passwords on forums is there? Is there? (There might be?) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

11. No Helluva absolutely fuck not no -- Skoll ^Die 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
12. No - bb3 and escape not historical but this? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
13. No You start your proposal with 'You probably have no idea who they were. It's unsurprising.' So surely it should be a No for a historical group vote? Louis Vernon 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

With 18 for and 13 against, BSLS has failed this time. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Grove

The Grove formed out of a loose coalition in Judgewood in the early months of the game's existence. Seeing the need for a combined effort in an area lean on resources, the coalition became The Grove, named for their headquarters, the Brentnal Grove PD. Active in defending nearby Caiger Mall in many of the early seiges, they were a fixture in the NW corner until disbanding in 2009. In addition to their dedicated defence of Judgewood, the group made periodic tours out of their home base, lending a hand in a number of mall seiges. This group fought long and hard in this vulnerable corner, and as a result were one of the first groups to encounter Extinction in their early attempts to dominate the NW, and kept tbeir headquarters a safe haven for survivors.^^^^

Yes

1. Yes. This group protected Judgewood long and well. Anyone who spent any appreciable time in Judgewood would know this. Rib15 03:59, 12 October 2010 (BST) - Rib15
2. Absolutely. The Grove are the stuff of legends in these parts. Well, maybe not legends, but they're still very notable around here. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 09:20, 12 October 2010 (BST)
3. Yeah, maybe. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:27, 12 October 2010 (BST)
4. You talked me into it. True I'd never heard of them, but they apparently hit 28th on the stat page at one time and they look and feel like one of those old school groups that formed organically in game. Nice little slice of UD history.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:51, 12 October 2010 (BST)
5. Borderline, but as a long-time resident of Judgewood, sure. Asheets 16:06, 12 October 2010 (BST)
6. Yes - A great group in the Northwest of Malton, they deserve to be remembered for their efforts in and around Judgewood, as well as everything they did while on tour around the city. A classy survivor group. —Aichon— 22:00, 12 October 2010 (BST)
7. The page looked suspect. However, they did have some grounds to boast. I'm going to say yes. --keepster33 00:58, 13 October 2010 (BST)
8. weak yes i remember fighting extinstinktion and the dead with these chaps. they were small and kept to themselves but a good group none the less. and yes i remember what color my shit was yesterday.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 17:03, 13 October 2010 (BST)
9. Super Weak Yes - I have never heard of The Grove, but I haven't been up to the NW corner for anything either. Certainly sounds like a group worthy of the historical section on the Judgewood suburb page, but I leave it to others to make a case for them being historical beyond that. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:20, 14 October 2010 (BST)
10. Never knew them personally but they seem like they were a good bunch. Weeks MCDU 01:58, 17 October 2010 (BST)
11. Considering there are no real criteria for historical eligibility other than being disbanded, I'm going to throw in on the Yes side due to sheer longevity (~5 years is pretty impressive) and the fact that I remember bumping into these guys with my survivor. Good luck with the nom, and sorry to see yet another small local group closing down. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:11, 26 October 2010 (BST)

No

1. I say, who are you? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:53, 12 October 2010 (BST)
2. This is beyond a joke. 03:54, 12 October 2010 (BST)
3. I've heard of you, but I don't think you're at all notable.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:12, 12 October 2010 (BST)
4. -- LEMON #1 12:06, 12 October 2010 (BST)

   Move to strike. According to the rules, there must be a yes or a no vote. This post has neither. How do you know if this isn't an incorrectly placed Yes? Rib15 16:25, 21 October 2010 (BST)

   You're being petty (seriously...I'm tempted to arbitrarily renounce my Yes vote after seeing everything you've said here), and no, the rules do not say that. According to the voting rules (which are to the side), the only valid voting sections are Yes and No. Placing your vote in one of them is sufficient to vote that way (thus satisfying point #3 of the policy at the top of the page). —Aichon— 21:18, 21 October 2010 (BST)

   Read the voting rules above and don't you dare touch my vote. -- LEMON #1 03:24, 26 October 2010 (BST)

5. Is this Shit Nominations Month or something? --Papa Moloch 15:23, 12 October 2010 (BST)

   Anyone from the Northwest should have been aware of them and their influence in the area. They're just one of those groups that had a decently large impact in the areas they helped out, and had lots of cool people with them. That said, last I checked, they don't meet #6 above (i.e. they haven't been disbanded for at least 4 months). Can someone from The Grove confirm that they have indeed been inactive for 4 months already? I've only seen their former group members start joining new groups as of a week or two ago, so I was under the impression that was when they had disbanded (but since they were on tour for so long before that, I may have just missed it). If someone can confirm it for me, I'll switch my vote to a Yes. —Aichon— 19:29, 12 October 2010 (BST)

   I don't know. This is a very weak no. Only on the grounds that this seems like a trenchcoater group. If anyone can confirm or deny this please do so. --keepster33 20:35, 12 October 2010 (BST)

   Hi, thanks for the questions. Aichon: Bilko disbanded the group on their forums in August of 2009. He said: "As the last remaining Elder in game I guess it's up to me to lock up the place. I wish all the people I've met in game good luck and a happy life. Thanks for the fun. Darryl (Bilko). Keepster33: No trenchcoating here. Just defending Judgewood against often overwhelming odds and a long tour of Malton in 2007 helping out far and wide. I was in the group and have just got back on after an overlong absence and found the place shut down. They were good people and deserve to be remembered. The USAI and Cannonball Crew were among their allies. Hope this helps.Rib15 21:17, 12 October 2010 (BST)

6. No, you've got to be kidding.-Fallout11 21:30, 12 October 2010 (BST)
7. Who? - Never expanded very far from their home base, never had many members, never did anything worth remembering. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:37, 13 October 2010 (BST)

   Please reconsider your vote. Lots of groups, like the Dribbling Beavers, dedicate themselves to defending a single suburb. The Grove was also involved in the early seiges of Caiger Mall, which are almost universally considered classics. Also, read the summary of the group's 2007 tour of Malton. Rib15 16:19, 21 October 2010 (BST)

   1.) They aren't insignificant because they focused on one suburb, they're insignificant because they never got it safe enough that they could move farther out (like the RRF does in Greater Ridleybank), because they were never powerful enough to have that much of an effect. 2.) Lots of groups attend sieges. EVIL went to escape, and they aren't historical. 3.) Going on a tour is not historical. --VVV ^RPMBG 17:10, 21 October 2010 (BST)

8. Who? - --Kooks 23:10, 13 October 2010 (BST)
9. An old group is not always a historical one.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:41, 14 October 2010 (BST)

   If you carry that reasoning forward, then most museums should throw out large portions of their collections. After all, they're only old kitchen items...I see that FES has historical status. They defended only a single BUILDING! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rib15 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

10. Is this a joke? --Radio 03:31, 17 October 2010 (BST)
11. You glance at a man with black rimmed glasses. Before you ask him for approval, he says "No." --Noted Literature critic, Mead Sheaffer. 05:20, 17 October 2010 (BST)
12. ...Hasn't Judgewood been predominantly ruined until fairly recently? My alt used to run through there last year and never iced one of these fellas. Criminally Insane ^{Talk | LoD} 05:24, 20 October 2010 (BST)

    Of course you didn't see them. They're disbanded. That's why they're being considered for historical status.And I just looked: Brentnal Grove PD is operating just fine. The Grove maintained that as a stronghold and the tradition continues.Rib15 16:19, 21 October 2010 (BST)

    Pork Chop Sandwiches Although this vote has neither a yes or a no (and may even theoretically be misplaced), the world may never know. -- Shatari 04:10, 26 October 2010 (BST)Voting had closed

    NO, so sayeth the Blob! --Dr summeroff 19:15, 26 October 2010 (BST)Voting had closed

With 11 For and 12 Against, The Grove has failed to achieve historical group status at this time. —Aichon— 21:02, 26 October 2010 (BST)

The Penny Heights OGs

Yes

they were loud on the old Proboards Forums way back in 2005. Several historical pages link to them. Zombeater

No timestamp vote struck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:13, 6 October 2010 (BST)

1. Not quite the level of impact of a group like DARIS but unique enough in my mind during the early stages of UD that they shouldn't be left to rot in the dust. Strike this. -MHSstaff 20:26, 6 October 2010 (BST)
2. Fine, here we go again, timestaped: they were loud on the old Proboards Forums way back in 2005. Several historical pages link to them. Zombeater 20:28, 6 October 2010 (BST)

   I fixed your entry so it doesn't mess up the counting. Not that the "Yes" section will need a lot of counting.-MHSstaff 20:29, 6 October 2010 (BST)

   Two links out of the fifteen links are historical, but regardless, having links on the pages of historical groups/coalitions does not make a group historical. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:30, 7 October 2010 (BST)

3. Yes, but the page needs to be expanded - The Penny Heights OGs were one of the first PKer groups to step forward and say: "Hey, we're a PKer group.", which at that time, was not common. Most groups of that time were still pretending to be pro-survivor, so they enjoy the plausible deniability of being a "survivor group", but could get away with PKing random people. Unfortunately, it seems that their low numbers, a schism in the group (note the leadership change), and the open declaration of being a PKer group, hastened their demise. Despite being a small group, you can see that they yellowed Penny Heights, took over two hospitals, and even took a stand with DARIS against the CoL. Also, if you look at the history for the page, Max Grivas was advocating that they be nominated for Historical Groups back in 2007. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:09, 19 October 2010 (BST)

No

1. Never heard of 'em, and they have no real achievements. Moving on... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:04, 6 October 2010 (BST)
2. What a joke. --Thadeous Oakley 20:04, 6 October 2010 (BST)
3. I've never heard of them, and If AH hasn't either, they probably weren't that notable.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:11, 6 October 2010 (BST)
4. It's enough that the United Territories Federation is historical. Plus Who? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:18, 6 October 2010 (BST)
5. No thanks. 20:33, 6 October 2010 (BST)
6. Not heard if them, + they are small--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:46, 6 October 2010 (BST)
7. Who. The. Fuck? --Papa Moloch 21:38, 6 October 2010 (BST)
8. To quote the Bard, "Who?" —Aichon— 22:12, 6 October 2010 (BST)
9. I've had characters in PH for years, and I've never once heard a mention of this group. Asheets 22:35, 6 October 2010 (BST)
10. -- LEMON #1 22:46, 6 October 2010 (BST)
11. It appears that during their time in UD a mere 5 wiki users ever had cause to comment on their talk page, and then it was only to remark that the group didn't appear to exist. This, and comments from others asking "who?" would indicate they haven't made the kind of impact on the game that is generally deemed necessary for historical status consideration.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:23, 6 October 2010 (BST)
12. Spam - We need a better system of trashing these idiotic claims for fame. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:09, 7 October 2010 (BST)
13. Who? What? Why? There's not anything remarkable in any of those categories. No. --keepster33 03:16, 7 October 2010 (BST)
14. poop as everybody else.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:16, 7 October 2010 (BST)
15. I've never heard of them either... --Colette Hart 06:27, 7 October 2010 (BST)
16. Sorry, the historical significance of this group cannot be found at the moment. Please leave a NARP after the beep. Beep. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 13:30, 7 October 2010 (BST)
17. You know, most groups vying for historical status at least include a summary of what they've accomplished here. Was there nothing to say? --Shatari 18:15, 7 October 2010 (BST)
18. Can't say that they were that important, or at least important enough to be historical. They were pretty obnoxious as I recall, on a specific forum I lost the link to.--Mead 23:46, 7 October 2010 (BST)
19. Oh Glorious Blob, give me guidance as I vote on...on...ermmm...pssst, Marinus, who are these guys again? Ahh yes, the Penny Heights something or other. *The Blob simply Stares and blinks once or twice.*...I take that as a No then? Very well. NO. --Dr summeroff 00:22, 8 October 2010 (BST)

    The blob has eyes?? >.> -- LEMON #1 23:39, 19 October 2010 (BST)

20. I would never vote for an Olive Grove, no matter where its located! --Justin 01:50, 8 October 2010 (BST)
21. Who?--VinnyMendoza 02:16, 8 October 2010 (BST)
22. Kilroy8675309 19:07, 9 October 2010 (BST)
23. no, no, no... no --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 00:40, 10 October 2010 (BST)
24. No, never heard of 'em.. --KujiMuji 1:36, 10 October 2010 (BST)
25. Never heard of them. They don't seem to be making a large enough impression in the game. --Citric union 17:42, 11 October 2010 (BST)
26. Once again, you have got to be kidding. No.-Fallout11 21:31, 12 October 2010 (BST)
27. Narp. I'm guessing this vote was the biggest impact they ever had on UD. --Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:33, 14 October 2010 (BST)
28. Did they ever exist to begin with? Weeks MCDU 23:34, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Ackland Abattoir

way back in the day, actually right near the beginning of the game, the Ackland Abattoir ravaged havercroft, and Ackland Mall Security with its attacks and tricks. being such a plight to the suburb itself way back when, countless scores of survivors, newbies, and now veteran players fell victim to their tactics. As of right now, this group has been disbanded for quite some time, and only has one remaining member who does not recruit, yet proudly keeps his group status on his profile the same. i remember seeing them shortly before/after the Battle of the Bear Pit. i commune with this remaining member quite often actually, as it is nice to reminisce about the good old days. they terrorized our suburb for a long while, and i believe they deserve the due credit Nuerotoxic2213 19:30, 4 September 2010 (BST)

Yes

1. Similar impact on the game as several other groups that have been given historical status - i.e. Shambling Seagulls, the Gray, Ars Requiem. -MHSstaff 06:15, 5 September 2010 (BST)

   Yeah, but only 0.4 of those 3 groups will survive The Great Historical Group Purge. --VVV ^RPMBG 06:27, 5 September 2010 (BST)

   And let it be a swift and merciless purge when it comes -- LEMON #1 08:57, 5 September 2010 (BST)

2. Yup. Sadly, pretty much nobody will remember them, so this vote is pretty much doomed, but for my money they deserve Historical. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:58, 5 September 2010 (BST)
3. Yes. I've worked in the area a lot & have met countless Ackland Abbatoir members, although not recently. Seem to remember they smashed the Mall several times, with style. Made quite a impact on survivors & survivor groups in this area. --Jsrbrunty 19:44, 5 September 2010 (BST)
4. Yeah, they sounded interesting. --Blades 02:48, 6 September 2010 (BST)
5. Jeez. I'm so sad nobody remembers these guys. I saw the name on the front page, and I was all, "Holy shit, you mean those guys from back when I first started playing?" They were cool :V Cool enough to get my completely meaningless vote. RinKou 01:40, 9 September 2010 (BST)

No

1. Who? Never heard of you. --Thadeous Oakley 19:57, 4 September 2010 (BST)
2. See Thad's reason. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:16, 4 September 2010 (BST)
3. I'm gonna have to go with Thad on this one. -- 
   •   Timmah!  
   •   Talk  
   20:21, 4 September 2010 (BST)
4. Their news have been regularly updated for, what, 2.5 months from May to July 2006? They better should have made a hell of an impact during that quarter year they've been actually active. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:23, 4 September 2010 (BST)
5. Thad nailed it.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 20:25, 4 September 2010 (BST)
6. bad -- LEMON #1 22:52, 4 September 2010 (BST)
7. Fixed your link in case in helps your bid, but I've followed the goings on of most of the important PKer groups in Malton and have heard of these guys only in the briefest of asides. 22:56, 4 September 2010 (BST)
8. Thad nailed it. Also, if their leader is still around and hasn't disbanded it, I don't know that this meets rule #6 of the policy. —Aichon— 23:51, 4 September 2010 (BST)
9. As Yonnua. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:06, 5 September 2010 (BST)
10. This might be the worst nomination ever. --Papa Moloch 01:07, 5 September 2010 (BST)
11. I browse the wiki quite a lot to read about Malton history and I've never heard of these guys.-- Rolfe Steiner ^{Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders} 02:18, 5 September 2010 (BST)
12. Fail. I thought actual in-game impact was a prerequisite. Criminally Insane ^{Talk | LoD}
13. I have no idea who these guys are. --Huntress 07:33, 5 September 2010 (BST)
14. As Thad.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:04, 5 September 2010 (BST)
15. Sorry but never heard of you or your past glory --DiSm ~ T 17:58, 5 September 2010 (BST)
16. Why? You were post-Ackland Damien falcon 22:06, 5 September 2010 (BST)
17. Who? Asheets 00:01, 6 September 2010 (BST)
18. I know nothing of your work --Zensaga 01:00, 6 September 2010 (BST)
19. Not historical --Papa Johnny 08:46, 6 September 2010 (BST)
20. As Aichon and Rolfe Steiner. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:15, 6 September 2010 (BST)
21. as moloch----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 23:03, 6 September 2010 (BST)
22. No. According to their files, they have done very little in regards to noteworthiness. --
     
    ^SDN 12:05, 8 September 2010 (BST)
23. After carefull thought, deliberation and a perusal of the historical records, the Blob has rendered his verdict: No. --Dr summeroff 00:17, 9 September 2010 (BST)

    Never heard of them. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 02:45, 20 September 2010 (BST) Voting had closed.

Voting has closed. With 5 For and 23 Against, Ackland Abattoir has Failed to achieve historical status. —Aichon— 04:32, 20 September 2010 (BST)

PTT

It's been ages since I've seen any of the members active, and it's also been ages since I've seen them on the stats page. The group was made up of a bunch of members on a Taiwanese bulletin board system under the same name of the group. They came into existence in late 2006, and held strong until early 2007 (from what I know, at least). Their base of operations was situated around Shearbank. They've reached over 200 in weeks, took a small part in Battle of Blackmore, and were a major force in defending Shearbank from Shacknews after Shacknews came in and ravaged Blackmore. If anything, they were probably the largest group whose players originated from Taiwan. And believe me, their presence gave Malton a good feel of having a mixed-culture population, especially since the majority of the players in Urban Dead speaks English.

Yes

1. Yes - Those were good old days, all right, and these guys were a big help in many major sieges back then. If you ask me, Shearbank should have been renamed to China Town due to the large Chinese speaking population stationed there. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:28, 3 September 2010 (BST)
2. Yes - The name rang a bell, but the wiki page brought it all back. Certainly deserve it.-- Adward  17:02, 3 September 2010 (BST)

   Heh. Remember when the SysOps of old thought the first few users trying to create the group page were adbots? xD --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:06, 3 September 2010 (BST)

   My lurker memories of old remember that :3 -- Adward  18:57, 3 September 2010 (BST)

3. Yes --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 17:29, 3 September 2010 (BST)
4. Yes - Their page is even in the top 10 most visited on the wiki, and for good reason. —Aichon— 18:52, 3 September 2010 (BST)
5. Yep --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:54, 3 September 2010 (BST)
6. Yes - A great group. Redoubt 19:40, 3 September 2010 (BST)
7. Yes - They did their part. -- Rolfe Steiner ^{Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders} 03:40, 4 September 2010 (BST)
8. Yeah - As a long time resident of Shearbank, I have seen them often in the past. Left a good impression. --Thadeous Oakley 10:12, 4 September 2010 (BST)
9. 200+ members and over 447,000 group page views! If they were still active they could boss Malton.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:06, 5 September 2010 (BST)
10. These guys were cool! They deserve an award for the group that was something that will never be seen again :( --DiSm ~ T 18:01, 5 September 2010 (BST)
11. Yes --Zensaga 01:03, 6 September 2010 (BST)

    Yes - i remember --~~~~ [talk] 22:27, 17 September 2010 (BST) Voting had closed

No

1. No - I always assumed they got their page views via bots, I never thought they were actually a group. --VVV ^RPMBG 23:27, 3 September 2010 (BST)
2. No - Too much zerging and not enough actually doing stuff for my taste. --Papa Moloch 00:22, 4 September 2010 (BST)

   I'll have you know PTT handled their cheating members personally. I've witnessed their executions of their cheaters first-hand. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:36, 4 September 2010 (BST

   Then they'll have 'executed' enough people for it to qualify as genocide. Further, a far as the actual game goes, they were big but irrelevant. The latter damns the former. --Papa Moloch 14:28, 4 September 2010 (BST)

3. NO cheating zerging fucks heads. that did nothing at all in game. zero.!----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:27, 4 September 2010 (BST)

   Is there any actual proof that they were zerging? --Shatari 12:25, 4 September 2010 (BST)

   Yes. Cross reference any member with the list in the second and third posts of the Zerg Liste thread. Then use the search button to search for that character's name. All additions to the zerg liste are the result of someone submitting evidence to Resenz. It's then evaluated by the Zerg Liste staff. If someone's on that list there's a 95% chance they're a legitimate zerg. The other 5% are coincidental mistakes. The system is not perfect, but if you don't get yourself off the list you're assumed to be a zerg. As it stands several members of PTT are still on the list, and are still being listed. So yeah, they zerg and there's evidence of it. Any other questions? - Goribus 08:35, 8 September 2010 (BST)

   Ye- if 99% of them don't speak english, how do they get off? What does Resenz to for international speaking ud players? -- LEMON #1 11:56, 8 September 2010 (BST)

   That's not Resenz' problem DDR. There are legitimate non zergers on the list, but until they take the effort to go to Resenz to prove otherwise they're still going to be on the list. Also using the not speaking English excuse isn't really valid. Especially since the RDD has about 25% or more members from Europe that speak English as a second, or in some cases, third language. If the 1% of the group that does speak/read English can't go to Resenz and play interpretor for the rest of the group it's no one's problem but their own. If you want them off the liste then go and contact them and tell them what they'll need to do. Had she not taken a leave of absence I'd ask our own Asian member to go and talk to them assuming they speak the same language. Ours speaks English and Chinese, but I think she also speaks German and maybe French. She was a smart girl that one. - Goribus 10:34, 10 September 2010 (BST)

   How does this list work? Do the users compare IP addresses, or is it simply "similar sounding names"? How wide spread was the alleged zerging, and was the majority of the group made aware of it? Further, were any members of the group informed that they were on the list in a language that they could understand? It's easy to accuse someone of zerging, but it's unfair to do so without proof. Can you link to some proof please?--Shatari 17:51, 10 September 2010 (BST)

   For listing purposes a number of criteria is used. Similar naming habits, profile writing styles, creation dates, etc. Everyone that gets listed (or not) is done so because someone went to Resenz and posted a screencap/dumbwit/iwit/etc. It's then evaluated by the Zerg Liste Staff. For purposes of de-listing it's as simple as posting screenshots/dumbwits/iwits showing that the characters are seperated. In the case of mistaken identity deals the owner of each character must go to Resenz and post there for IP verification purposes. As the people that staff the Zerg Liste are moderators and admins for that purpose they can look up IPs of the people posting. From there IPs can be matched against known proxies and more or less pinpoint where said person is posting from. No one tells them that they're on it, as I've said that's not the Zerg Liste's problem.

   Had you used the link I posted you would see hundreds of names on that list. Also a fairly detailed post about how the list works, how to get off of it, how to post to it, etc. The amount of time for listing, investigating, delisting, etc. is fairly high enough as it is. How is one supposed to track down a specific character to tell them they've been listed anyway? Hmmm? As for showing you proof? Go fuck yourself. I don't need to prove shit to you if you're too lazy to do the work yourself. I can't be fucked to track down some mythical memberlist for dozens of random characters and do individual searches to prove to you that someone was listed. Sorry, but I have a life outside of this game and I'm not going to waste hours of my life to win some stupid argument on the internet because someone's so dense they can't do research for themselves. - Goribus 03:15, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   I was told it was standard to be told you were executed for zerging as per the Zerg Liste in game when someone killed a perpetrator of zerging. Do you yourself not follow this practice then? -- LEMON #1 03:35, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   Sure, when I'm zerg hunting with a breather and run into a zerg. The zerg liste copy paste is in every kill taunt. But to go out of my fucking way to randomly inform what is literally hundreds of people they're on the list? Yeah, that's not going to happen. You're being naive to think anyone would go out of their way to track down each and every person on the Zerg Liste to tell them they're on a list. Not to mention it's imfuckingpossible to do so. Go ahead, and try to track down just one random player that isn't associated in the meta-game. I dare you. See how much time and effort you're going to waste to track down one single solitary person playing a single random character. I don't staff the Zerg Liste, I hunt from it and I'm in the ZHU. ZHU =/= Zerg Liste Staff. - Goribus 07:50, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   I don't remember me saying that. Do you remember me saying that? -- LEMON #1 14:06, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   Wait, so you're accusing a group of being zergers, and then you're mad when someone asks you to provide some form of evidence? Have you ever heard of "Burden of Proof"?--Shatari 03:58, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   He already sorta linked you to where said evidence is. 04:09, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   But there's no real evidence there, just some names on a list, devoid of all context or evidence (for what little is needed to get on the list in the first place). The only evidence is that there are players in the group allegedly on the list (Goribus isn't willing to list any names, so I have no reason to assume it's true) and someone allegedly accused them of zerging at some point. Since the only way they can be cleared is to respond to some random list on the internet in a language the majority of them don't speak, it's unlikely that they were ever aware of the list. The site can only view IP addresses of people who actually post on that forum (which is coincidentally the only solid evidence that can be brought against inconspicuous zergers), so he's not even linking to real evidence. Linking to a page with thousands of names and saying "See? PROOF! Don't like it? Fuck you! Prove me wrong!" is not very convincing and does nothing to shift the burden of proof.--Shatari 06:05, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   You are the dumbest mother fucker I have ever met. Do not breed. Ever. - Goribus 07:50, 11 September 2010 (BST)

4. Was going to not vote because I had some idea that they were before my time, but I specifically remember seeing these guys with about 200 members before I found their wiki page for the firs time. This is a vote towards the fact they they've been huge for years and yet I'd never seen or heard of them in-game at all, not once. Yeah, they're cute and it's great that this established UD as an international game that transgressed language barriers, yada yada, and I won't mind if they do become historical for that reason. But I still can't find myself supporting it. -- LEMON #1 11:00, 4 September 2010 (BST)

   I don't wanna vote either side, so don't consider this when tallying up the votes, but I echo DDR's sentiment that a group that big should have had a greater in-game relevance than they did. Their impact wasn't small, but it was 99.9% based on what they were, not what they did. I'm decidedly undecided about this one but I feel that my reasoning is worth pointing out. 13:46, 4 September 2010 (BST) this was originally an abstain but historical voting policy states there may only be yes or no, so I removed the header and placed it up to the rest of voting. -- LEMON #1 14:52, 4 September 2010 (BST)

5. Murdered these guys over and over and over again. Most of their members were just standing logins. Did I mention the LoD wiped the floor with them when we only had 12 members? Oh, and I forgot the zerging thing. It's great and all they had 200 something profiles at their peak, but again, merely profiles. Where did the real gamers get to? Criminally Insane ^{Talk | LoD}
6. No - I spent ample time in Shearbank as both a LUEmbie and a PKer, and I personally never saw them do anything aside from revive a few people (mostly their own members). In fact, the only thing I really recall about PTT was the zerging. --ZiP^MH+LUE 06:04, 5 September 2010 (BST)
7. Nah, even though I remember these guys and am familiar with Shearbank, they didn't leave a real impression on me or anybody I know. --Huntress 07:38, 5 September 2010 (BST)
8. KEKEKE ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:00, 5 September 2010 (BST)
9. Didn't even know they existed --Damien falcon 22:08, 5 September 2010 (BST)
10. No but heard of them. --Blades 02:49, 6 September 2010 (BST)
11. As moloch --Papa Johnny 08:46, 6 September 2010 (BST)
12. No - Although the irony of Asian zergs makes me laugh uproariously. -- Goribus 08:35, 8 September 2010 (BST)
13. No. Their only contribution was having a large Asian-based group. --
     
    ^SDN 12:06, 8 September 2010 (BST)

    That's not true. They made wiki contributions as well! Their group page translates all the important playing references into Chinese, something that the Chinese-speaking users on UDWiki will be able to understand more easily! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:51, 15 September 2010 (BST)

14. Communing with the Cosmos for days for guidance on this vote, the Blob finally appeared before me, shaking his gelatinous head in the negative. --Dr summeroff 00:21, 9 September 2010 (BST)

Voting has closed. With 11 For and 14 Against, PTT has Failed to achieve the 2/3 necessary for historical status. —Aichon— 23:12, 17 September 2010 (BST)

The Crimson Clan

Yep, you read it - The Crimson Clan no longer operates in Urban Dead. Started in April 4th, 2007, The Clan made its first triumphs defending Dakerstown against zombie hordes - most notably Extinction. After few months of operating (and growing in numbers) The Clan took Havercroft and Ackland Mall as its home.

During the time in Havercroft (which lasted until the beginning of 2010) The Clan reached its peak in numbers (over 100 members working under the group tag) and also were among Top 10 Groups in the game. Clan also worked for keeping up the Mall and various resource buildings around it - mainly NTs - and also participated in the many sieges of Ackland during this time, gaining some reputation among the regular Mall residents. --Waak 20:16, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Too bad the Clan didn't become historic after all. But if we can't be remembered this way, I'm sure we'll be remembered in others. If anyone wants to contact the few of us that remain, our forums are still more or less active. Bye Crimson, these few years have been good ones. Rest in peace. --Jsrbrunty 22:49, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Yes (Crimson)

Definatly a name I reconise--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:21, 11 July 2010 (BST)

1. Yarp. Happy days fighting zergers in molebank. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:23, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   So this group fought zergers with zergers? That's new. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:28, 18 July 2010 (BST)

   I'm not the biggest fan of the group, but I definitely recognize them and knew of their impact in the Ackland Mall area. Think I may have even killed a member or two, now that I think of it some more... —Aichon— 20:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)

2. Aye --Waak 20:31, 11 July 2010 (BST)
3. Good times...I think we made a big enough dent to be listed.--ErrorMaker 20:38, 11 July 2010 (BST)
4. Yes, definitely. --AlexanderRM 23:12, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   I remember you from back in my days KoBB days. You were one of the more noteworthy groups in the Ackland region. --Shatari 01:39, 12 July 2010 (BST)

   Huh, I hadn't heard about the zerging before.--Shatari 05:23, 14 July 2010 (BST)

   Sure I remember them. Actually dropped by a couple of times on their forums long ago. --Thadeous Oakley 18:16, 12 July 2010 (BST) --Thadeous Oakley 23:41, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   Even I know who they were. Technical Pacifist 18:27, 12 July 2010 (BST)

5. Yeah we did a lot in and out of our main area --Vinduska 18:45, 12 July 2010 (BST)
6. Yes. I've been out of the game for a while, but I have some very good memories of the Crimson Clan, and I think we had a pretty big effect on the areas we worked in. Also, I refute the allegations of zerging below. I have tried to stay up to date with goings-on, and have no knowledge of recent alt abuse within the Clan. I'd suggest that all those below examine their sources, if they have any, rather than use zerging as a cover for in-game rivalries and deny this influential group the recognition they deserve. --LK Oddjob 19:32, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   Did you actually read the resenz thread linked below? It's hardly a matter of opinion. 19:42, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   I myself was involved in the alt controversy, but if you'd care to note, that was resolved three years ago. We worked over an area of several suburbs, and at the time thought it reasonable to have alternate characters, provided they were kept separate. I acknowledge that at times some members gave in to temptation and used more than one character in the same operation, but that was the exception. I regret my actions then, but they were restricted to a few members of the group. Yes, the clan wasn't infallible, but we learned from our mistakes, and I consider we have more than regained respect in the years since then. --LK Oddjob 20:09, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   I don't know about you, but I consider multiple alts in the same group zerging. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 09:48, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   Its not, you can have 2 alts in the same group, but you can't have them in the same suburb, or 10 squares to be safe about it. Now it may be bad form (if you do it to boost on the stats page), but it is allowed.--Raddox MurTangle 20:29, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   That's still considered alt abuse. The DEM have been villified for years as a result and eventually recanted it. It was also one of the elements that led to the downfall of the Imperium (if I remember correctly). 20:49, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   It may be considered alt abuse, but technically it is not.--Raddox MurTangle 21:58, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   There are certain things that are disagreed upon. What if your character is 7 or 8 block from another? What if the horde of one character moves a little faster than expected and hits the suburb of another? Can the human character take a look around? Must the zombie specifically avoid buildings seen by the human? There is a gray area. --VVV ^RPMBG 22:13, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   10 squares apart to be safe, If you unknowingly or knowingly bring an alt within that distance than will suffer a search rate drop and a hit rate drop. So by game mechanics you are zerging. No gray area there. --Raddox MurTangle 22:17, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   So if you make a new character who happens to spawn within those ten blocks of another, you're zerging? And it's perfectly fine to have one character find a target, attack him, flee, and have a second character finish him off, so long as they never go within those magical ten blocks of each other? --VVV ^RPMBG 22:39, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   From what I've seen, there's a roughly 24 hour time limit you need to stick to between moving out and moving in with someone else, which means that you may as well just rest the first character and AP up again. As for spawning, from my own experiences, it seems to have some kind of an effect but I don't know if it triggers a full-blown flag or if I just had some shitty luck, but the only way around it really is to just get the fuck out of Dodge and let things right themselves. 22:43, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   It is 24 hours, your right, and if you spawn a new player within 10 squares of an old one then you should move them away as fast as possible. But all this does not matter if your dealing with a proxy zerger, because they do not suffer the lowered rates. That's a different discussion for a different time.--Raddox MurTangle 23:31, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   10 squares apart, you say? I noticed this group centers around Ackland Mall. If you take a look here, it states, "Please do not put one alt on each side of Caiger Mall and claim that this constitutes "separate suburbs."" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:21, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   I'm not saying they are not zerging, I know how bad it was when I was running a group there and I already made my vote as a no if you look down there V. All I am saying is that 10 spaces is a suburb, so the rule is "keep em a suburb apart" so basically keep your people 10 spaces apart.--Raddox MurTangle 08:32, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   Also, email Kevan and ask him for yourself, the zerg mechanics will not kick in if the same IP has 2 people in the same group if they are 10 spaces away.--Raddox MurTangle 08:35, 21 July 2010 (BST)

7. Yes. I consider we've contributed a lot to the game (especially the Havercroft area) over the years. At our best, we were well known to people all over Malton, not just in our patch of ground. There seems to be a lot of argument over the zerging issue. The Clan used to zerg openly, as did many groups at the time. As it became less acceptable and more groups turned non-zerging, our founder also passed a ban on it. Despite our previous zerging, this rule was followed and the few who didn't go along with it were disciplined accordingly. That rule was made over 2 and a half years ago. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about now. --Jsrbrunty 20:08, 17 July 2010 (BST)
8. Yes. In protest to dumb policies I'm voting yes on everything up for historical voting until forever. At least that way things that may have mattered will actually have a slightly better chance even if it means voting in a few piles of crap that had an impact on their members/participants. --Karek^maps?! 00:54, 21 July 2010 (BST)
9. Yes. Zerging was prohibited. As a result only my main remained in TCC. Stormys out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormys (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

   So, wait, you knew about the zerging, and you both stayed in the group and now support them as being historical? Wow. —Aichon— 09:55, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   I was new to the game didn't even knew what not, after i found out zerging is illegal i stayed only with main in clan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormys (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

   I can understand that, given that I've known other people who made the same mistake, but that you stayed in a group that knowingly supported it is what I'm questioning, as is the fact that you're still supporting them now. —Aichon— 23:34, 22 July 2010 (BST)

   The Clan didn't support zerging after the ban was passed within the group. May I repeat that that was over 2 years ago. Since then we never supported zerging knowingly, even in the smallest way. --Jsrbrunty 23:08, 23 July 2010 (BST)

No (Crimson)

1. Against - Whilst I've heard of you guys, and I've dealt with you as a member of Columbine Kids, I fail to see anything you've done that makes you historical. Noteworthy, perhaps, worth a mention in passing, sure, but not truly historical. 20:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   Jesus God burn that zerg nest with fire. 15:09, 13 July 2010 (BST)

2. Against - User:Whitehouse 20:29, 11 July 2010 (BST)
3. Against - The only reason I've ever heard of you is because the same guy who got me to try UD told me to join you. I have never seen you mentioned anywhere else. --VVV ^RPMBG 20:47, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   And one more thing. The Clan was home to CyAdora (aka SillyLillyPilly). She happens to be a major rapist, and in Shartak, the most well known by far. This is the worst she's done in UD, but in Shartak, she definitely crossed a line, and ended up spurring one of the largest controversies in the game's history. This is just one bad apple, but following Giles's excellent train of thought, it doesn't exactly encourage us to honor the group with the title of historical. --VVV ^RPMBG 09:31, 17 July 2010 (BST)

4. Yeah, I've heard of you. --
    
    
    
    
   00:42, 13 July 2010 (BST)
5. Heard of them, but not significant enough to warrent historical. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)

   Forgot about the fact that they were massive zergers too. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:01, 13 July 2010 (BST)

6. Only famous for being mass-zerging cunts. --Papa Moloch 06:26, 13 July 2010 (BST)
7. No - Moloch's link and this discussion were pretty damning. —Aichon— 07:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)
8. So this is where the St Aden zerg army took off? That could almost be historical in and of itself. But not really. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:20, 13 July 2010 (BST)
9. Against - Sorry bud. There is a price to pay when your group gets caught zerging as part of their official policy. One of the sanctions for zerging around here is a loss of respect, and since the historical category is all about respect/e-penis I can't vote for you.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:30, 13 July 2010 (BST)
10. Nope As Giles. Technical Pacifist 15:34, 13 July 2010 (BST)
11. Negative - The whole zerg thing is the nail in the coffin. --ZiP^MH+LUE 03:36, 14 July 2010 (BST)
12. No It is the only rule in the game, no alt abuse. To knowingly break that rule in order to build a group negates any historic value that group should otherwise behold (in my opinion). Also, I don't sit well with their logic to abuse alts because "Pkers are asshats". Havercroft is a blight on all of Malton. I will never go back because of the amount of zerging players in the area. I ran a group in Ackland and quickly found out just how bad it was. --Raddox MurTangle 06:54, 14 July 2010 (BST)
13. No - Zerging is bad, k?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:04, 16 July 2010 (BST)
14. ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKE!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 09:38, 17 July 2010 (BST)
15. Against - Zergers don't deserve to be remembered... Whenever I see a zerger I take my axe and chop off their head >:] --Zensaga 13:41, 17 July 2010 (BST)
16. Against - Fuck, Cyadora had seriously managed to fool me back then. Unless she really was 40 year old with kids... --Thadeous Oakley 23:43, 17 July 2010 (BST)

    I think she really was, Thad. --Jsrbrunty 17:10, 18 July 2010 (BST)

17. No, fuck off.-- Adward  17:33, 18 July 2010 (BST)
18. Against - Zergs don't deserve recognition.--KyleStyle 01:11, 21 July 2010 (BST)
19. Against - Having looked into it, there appears to have been quite a bit of zerging going on with the CC. There have been plenty of groups that did more than you without having to stoop to cheating. --Shatari 01:05, 24 July 2010 (BST)

101st Airborne Unit

Apperentlly I have to do this because I was checking up on old memories and the 101st Airborne Unit is only listed at Inactive. The 101st was very historic. Considering in 06' and 07' we took back nummerous malls and even played a main role in taking back creedy once. I, And about 3 other people are the only surviviors of when we disbanded. We have now formed the 82nd Airborne Division and most people don't even remember The Subtle little 101st Airborne Unit. Well I'm going to change that, I nominate the 101st for historical status!-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 20:27, 15 June 2010 (BST)

Yes (101st)

1. I am Jerrel, And the 101st deserves this. Of course I'm going to vote yes. Let's just hope everyone else feels the same way.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 20:42, 15 June 2010 (BST)
2. --Dunstan 20:44, 15 June 2010 (BST)
3. Yes Vague echoey recollection. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:38, 16 June 2010 (BST)
4. Yes If I remember correctly you guys had a presence in Peppardville around 2006, meets my definition of a "known group in section of suburb where their influence was seen" - Vantar 07:23, 17 June 2010 (BST)
5. Yes Jed 8:54, 24 June 2010 (EST)
6. Yes - He is Jerrel, and that's quite enough for me. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 19:39, 28 June 2010 (BST)

No (101st)

1. Nay. The 101st what? -- Spiderzed▋ 21:42, 15 June 2010 (BST)

   Airborne Unit. ;P -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 22:00, 15 June 2010 (BST)

2. Maybe if they were the 1st, but if there were 100 others before them they can't really be that special. 21:43, 15 June 2010 (BST)
3. Nay - I would've never heard of them if I didn't make a point of maintaining the formatting of the suburb group listings. I'm afraid I've never seen any effects that they've caused or have heard of anyone working alongside them or commending them for their efforts. Really, this is the very first time I've ever heard anyone talk about them at all. —Aichon— 22:17, 15 June 2010 (BST)
4. As Above --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:18, 15 June 2010 (BST)
5. No -THE 101ST HAS OFFICIALLY DISBANDED FOR SECURITY REASONS! It is now called 82nd Airborne Division.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:23, 15 June 2010 (BST)
6. No -as Michaleson --Raddox MurTangle 22:28, 15 June 2010 (BST)
7. Spam - But thanks for helping make the point as to why "The groups leader wants it to be historical, then why shouldn't we let him." --VVV ^RPMBG 00:22, 16 June 2010 (BST)
8. No - Did nothing. --Papa Moloch 00:45, 16 June 2010 (BST)
9. No - Not this guy again. --
    
    
    
    
   02:23, 16 June 2010 (BST)
10. No - "I, and about 3 other people are the only surviviors of when we disbanded. We have now formed the 82nd Airborne Division". Those are your words, which to me sounds like there was something about the 101st that made you want to change the name to the 82nd. Personally, I don't even care what the reasons are because that tells me that the group isn't really dead--just shambling along under a new guise. And quite obviously slouching because as Aichon above, if I did not stalk suburb pages I wouldn't have even heard of the 101st. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:14, 16 June 2010 (BST)
11. No - Who? Oidar 11:44, 16 June 2010 (BST)
12. No - yet another sack of crap did nothing group. what have you unimaginative idiots done to impact the game in any way? ZERO! wow you retook some malls.. holy shit thats never been done before. GAME OVER MAN! your group page is not getting deleted. why all these turds crawling out from under rocks to get into historical status all of a sudden?----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 13:31, 16 June 2010 (BST)
13. No - As Oidar. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 17:22, 16 June 2010 (BST)
14. No - Nein. Group is subjectively not historical enough to be an historical group. --Zarneverfike 19:11, 16 June 2010 (BST)
15. No - Hibernaculum 20:23, 16 June 2010 (BST)
16. No - I never even heard of this group before. The only reason I saw this is because I was looking at the Escape nomination. All this group did was, quote: "took back nummerous malls and even played a main role in taking back creedy once." Sorry but that's nothing special. --FallUpStairs 21:23, 16 June 2010 (BST)
17. No - First, seems to me that you just changed the name of the group. And as most people here, never heard of you. Taking back some malls and a fort once doesn't make you historical. --KyleStyle 22:40, 16 June 2010 (BST)
18. I heard of you, but you didn't really do much to warrant a Historical status. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:55, 17 June 2010 (BST)
19. No - No offense, but I'm not seeing anything significant in your group's resume. --Shatari 06:19, 17 June 2010 (BST)
20. No - I remember the 101st Airborne. He was stupid. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:10, 22 June 2010 (BST)
21. No - I remember you guys, but you're not influential enough.-- Adward  16:13, 22 June 2010 (BST)
22. No - Who are these guys? --jorm 08:00, 23 June 2010 (BST)

    Seems to me like most of you are too young in this game and ignorent to even remember who we are considering we disbanded in 2007.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 22:42, 23 June 2010 (BST)

    No. And learn to format, for GODS sake. --

     

     

     

     

    23:40, 23 June 2010 (BST)

    Yeah, because Sonny, Jorm and Moloch are all newbs.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:48, 23 June 2010 (BST)

    I said MOST. Most of the people who would have supported this have either quit a long time ago, Or are laying flat dead outside the woodbourne building. And most of these "no" votes are from people who have nothing better to do than spam "no" about groups that were disbanded LONGGGG befor they even joined this game.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 00:11, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Whinge much? 00:15, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    No, it's about you trying to promote one group from a big piece of homogeneous shit demographic of groups, all of which are "1000TH AIRBOURNE MILITARY BATTALION CORPS PEACE ANTI ZOMBIE FORCE 36TH BRIGADE INFANTRY SWAT CORPS SPECIAL OPS" and never really got anywhere and no one recognises, let alone remembers. And what the fuck, even by your logic, your group doesn't stand the test of time. You cry because it won't make historical because no one remembers is and those that do aren't around to vote it in. If it were historical, by definition it wouldn't have the problem of disappearing into the pages of history without anyone remembering it. --

     

     

     

     

    05:19, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Why would you say it in response to jorm unless it was in directed at him? Don't try to weasel out now with that "most" crap. As for the rest of your excuse, I accidentally kicked a bouncy ball into another kid's head during recess on January 25th, 1993. Don't ask me why I remember that, but it stuck with me. I can hear you asking now, "why should I care about that?" Well, just as my playground mistake from 17 years ago is of no historical importance to anyone else, the same can be said of your group. If your group ever was that important, you should have put them up for historical status back in 2007. As it is, you have no room to complain since you knew what you were getting into when you nominated the group. —Aichon— 13:20, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Sure, Go ahead and call us a, what did you call it? A..."big piece of homogeneous shit demographic of a group?" I mean, I GUESS that's cool of you to do. But, Either way....-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 13:48, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Uhh...try again. I didn't call you that. —Aichon— 13:56, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Not you Aichon, Your reason was somewhat legitimate and funny. I also have question, Are we alowwed to re-nominate?-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 13:59, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    #5, at the top. —Aichon— 14:11, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    *facepalm* KK thnxs-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 14:15, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    If you re-nominate it twice more I'll vote yes--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:31, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Why? And I'll keep re-nominating it until it gets accepted.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 22:07, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Lawl. Who knows, if everyone won't bother voting no after a while, your persistence might pay off. (but really, don't do that)--Thadeous Oakley 22:22, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    I'd advise you to remember that there's already significant precedent for treating repeated misuse of nomination systems as vandalism. Give it its fair chance but don't press the issue simply to game the system. 22:41, 24 June 2010 (BST)

23. Never heard of you. =/ -- Cheese 00:02, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Escape

I was told I had to do this through here, but I'll keep it short. Escape is over - it was always designed to end on June 1, something that was heavily advertised throughout the duration of the movement. If you could pass me on this so I can go ahead and start writing my memoirs, I'd be most appreciative. -Captain Video 05:56, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Yes (Escape)

1. Yes - Definitely one of the most interesting and highly publicised events in a looooooooong time. --
    
    
    
    
   06:10, 3 June 2010 (BST)
2. Hell yes - Absolutely. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 06:22, 3 June 2010 (BST)
3. Oh, hell yes - Lots of publicity, huge turnout, unfortunate results. --TheBardofAwesome 06:41, 3 June 2010 (BST)
4. Yes - Same reasons as DDR. μ_nholy®_eign 06:52, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Yes - It was interesting and even though I did not participate, the numbers were large enough that it deserves a mention. --Travis Wells not signed properly --

    

    

    

    

   08:42, 3 June 2010 (BST)

5. Yes - Most certainly. --Thadeous Oakley 08:31, 3 June 2010 (BST)
6. Yes, yes and thrice yes - twas verily bloody good fun, m'lud. Chief Seagull squawk 09:04, 3 June 2010 (BST)
7. Yes Events do not need to be successful to be historical and anything that gathers that many brains into one big buffet most certainly counts as significant! --Honestmistake 10:09, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Incredibly Weak Yes - I'd prefer it to be a historical event, in all honesty, but I don't see why it can't be both (assuming someone makes a page for the event).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:51, 3 June 2010 (BST) Changin' mah vote.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:27, 3 June 2010 (BST)

8. Yes - Largest group on the stats page by far in a good while, lots of publicity, and clearly significant by the numbers that turned up on both sides --ORakoon 11:49, 3 June 2010 (BST)
9. Yes - Utter failure but a good try--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 12:44, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Weak Yes - Has been definitively the most significant event this year so far. (Of course, the opposition consists of the umpteenth Battle of Krinks and St. Aiden's zerg army trying to reclaim Ridleybank, so this isn't really a badge to be proud of.) -- Spiderzed▋ 12:54, 3 June 2010 (BST) Screw that, others are right. We need a NPoV page on the event and cover that as historic, not that group. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:55, 10 June 2010 (BST)

10. Yes - A historic fail, but historic none-the-less. Asheets 13:13, 3 June 2010 (BST)
11. Yes - There's a blurred line between an event and a group that sets itself a time-limited objective/reason to exist/whatever, but this doesn't count against it as a historical group IMO. Escape had good flavour (lol), a new idea, a large following and a large zombie response. Historical. Yes. Garum 13:17, 3 June 2010 (BST)
12. Without a bloody doubt, Yes - The sheer momentum it picked up in such a short space of time, and given that it came from absolutely nothing in the first place, people are gonna remember this. Anyone who was there saw the numbers present, both inside and out after the zeds came. PK'ers came, BH'ers came... it was the place to be. And for a while, there was an atmosphere of excited hope buzzing around the place, something the game had been lacking for too long. F'kin yes man. GG Escape, GG. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |
     
    14:30, 3 June 2010 (BST)
13. Yes As Kempy. Oidar 15:09, 3 June 2010 (BST)
14. Yes I don't see why not. As a group, the largest I have ever seen, by the way, it was one of the more bizarre moments of Urban Dead. It certainly deserves to be remembered, though perhaps under events as opposed to groups? --The Prophet of Life 19:01, 3 June 2010 (BST)
15. Yes - It deserves it. Mesousa 19:39, 3 June 2010 (BST)
16. Yes - Obviously. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:02, 3 June 2010 (BST)
17. Yes - Hell, I knew, without a doubt, that this would end in nothing but a complete and total zombie massacre, and yet there were enough people involved and enough interest raised that I lemminged right along. InvincibleZombie 21:32, 3 June 2010 (BST)
18. Yes - Fo shizzle homey. --Q. JuliusTBH 23:12, 3 June 2010 (BST)
19. I am Captain Video, and I was torn limb from limb for my cause. And I suppose I'm allowed one vote; I just didn't want to be first. That would have been tacky. -Captain Video 05:03, 4 June 2010 (BST)
20. Yes - Got an old fart's attention :P --Haliman - Talk 05:48, 4 June 2010 (BST)
21. Yes - Of course, not putting that event on Historical Page would be just insane. GoLookAndKill ^CFT 10:28, 4 June 2010 (BST)
22. Yes - I see the point with event rather than group, but On_Strike is a historical group, thus Escape fits in this category as well. --Cruzz 12:05, 4 June 2010 (BST)
23. Yes - Cruzz makes a good point--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 12:09, 4 June 2010 (BST)
24. Yes - It made me play again, however shortly. I've been getting a lot of game news through a friend in my hangout channel over the years, this was the first that made me want to return and be part of something, even if it failed miserably. → So pretty much what DDR said. pinkgothic 13:40, 4 June 2010 (BST)
25. Yes - I had fun attempting to escape from Malton, it got me more interested in this game. It also got me eaten. It should definetly be a historical group. -- Drunk Link2500  14:37, 4 June 2010 (BST)
26. Yes - It should remind us that bad ideas have bad endings. --Colette Hart 18:58, 4 June 2010 (BST)
27. Yes - pretty epic stuff--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 03:35, 5 June 2010 (BST)
28. Yes - It was a ton of fun and quite memorable. They came, we saw, we conquered. ^_^ --Shatari 03:38, 5 June 2010 (BST)
29. yes please! it actually gave me a reason for playing this game. Even if it ended in a massive bloodshed with dead bodies piled up to the ceiling, it still rocked :) --Jack Kolt ^Talk|Chars 05:34, 5 June 2010 (BST)
30. YES - A great group with potential to perhaps one day change the game? --JohnGGeo 05:42, 5 June 2010 (BST)
31. Yes - Great event, really shows how fun it can be when heaps of people are together. --Dorsalus 08:39, 5 June 2010 (BST)
32. Yes - We finally did something different! We tried to Escape the game. Even though it didn't work and our dreams were crushed. --FallUpStairs 13:07, 5 June 2010 (BST)
33. Yes - -- » JS talk contribs » 15:31, 5 June 2010 (BST)
34. Yes - It might not have been successful, but the effort, the fun idea and the number of people involved reminded me of the good old mass events we had when last I played, back in '06. Furniture 17:27, 5 June 2010 (BST)
35. Yes - Of course this was one of the biggest things that I have seen in my whole time playing.--Sybertronic 20:22, 5 June 2010 (BST)
36. Yes - Epic Fail, but was worth it.Noxaarmi 20:43, 5 June 2010 (BST)
37. Yes - Yes, it was a imaginative effort to do something new and fun in the game, and in that it was a big success. Marcel Swann 22:54, 5 June 2010 (BST)
38. Yes - It put some life back into the game and it was fun, I am for making it a historical event just for that reason.--Truezombieboy 05:02, 6 June 2010 (BST)
39. Yes - Although the coordination was pathetic, and many were slaughtered, it was an excellent group and event. In little over a month, this group was able to gain 400+ members. It's double the size of RRF, but only ran up until June 1st. Even though nothing was accomplished, either because the zombies had overtaken Ellicott or because Kevan didn't care, its a historic group nonetheless.--SykoKiller666 14:50, 6 June 2010 (BST)
40. Hell Yeah - I pked 3 Escapists and destroyed the generator in The Woodborne Building, and I must say, they've gained my respect, sitting ducks as they were. --Sam 2334 14:54, 6 June 2010 (BST)
41. Yes - Easily the most interesting thing I've done on UD (Admittedly it's the first major thing I've done, but meh) --Remnant Matt 15:07, 6 June 2010 (BST)
42. Yes yes yes yes --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 01:48, 7 June 2010 (BST)
43. Yes Yes, the first attempt by humans to try to change the game with lots of people that showed up. --User:Robkiller 7:19 7 June 2010 (BST)
44. Yes It was an interesting idea, and attracted the attention of many players. Plus, it's a nice tragic tale. Toffey 03:22, 7 June 2010 (BST)
45. Yes Other "crusades" in history did not achieve their goals but were even more "historical" for all that, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade --Belisarius17 04:37, 7 June 2010 (BST)
46. Yes They kinda had an effect even if it wasn't the desired one.--ZIPO/Talk/◆◆◆/CAPD 06:49, 7 June 2010 (BST)
47. Yes It was treated as a group, albeit a loosely associated one, and something did happen, even if it was a far cry from the intended result. --Austin hunt 15:45, 7 June 2010 (BST)
48. Yes I died, like many others, but it was the first time I've felt involved in something big in the game in a while. Would've preferred it if the zombie hordes hadn't arrived and eaten everything, but oh well. Since then I've been infected, and returned to zombie form twice!--Hynzytheweirdo 23:28 7 June 2010 (BST)
49. Yes I, accidental creator of Escape, would love it if it become a historical group. The group created a large movement that has in fact caused a few changes. Also, it would be really cool if something I started was forever remembered in internet history.--Superathen 01:18, 8 June 2010 (BST)

    Am I the only one who missed these few changes Escape caused? -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 05:57, 8 June 2010 (BST)

50. Oh Yes yes yes Definetly. If it's not mafde historical, then George Washington shouldn't be. --Justinbronze 03:07, 8 June 2010 (BST)
    

    Unless I'm missing something, George Washington was more person than event... Which, now that I think about it, makes him more suited as a group, wouldn't you say?  ;-) --Liche 21:00, 8 June 2010 (BST)

51. 14 Yeses On behalf of the entire 82nd Airborne division we all say yes to the historical satus of Escape. That's 14 yeses.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 20:18, 8 June 2010 (BST)

    If you could have the other 13 sign, I'd really appreciate it. -Captain Video 02:29, 9 June 2010 (BST)

52. Yes Even though it failed, it still sent reverberations throughout the game. It unified 500+ people, and is one of the largest groups/ events in Urbandead history. Just because something doesn't succeed or change things doesn't mean it shouldn't be historical - like a German land war in Russia during the winter. We all learn about that in history class, don't we?--alevins 04:49, 9 June 2010 (BST)
53. Yes The fail is irrelevant. It was an eye catching event and impacted the game. --Jesus Sante 12:56, 9 June 2010 (BST)
54. Yes - Shit was so cash--Orange Talk 03:42, 10 June 2010 (BST)
55. Yea - Definitely historical, even if only as a "Hey, remember when all stood in a railway station praying for Kevan to rapture us away?" kind of thing. Wil Truman 18:09, 10 June 2010 (BST)
56. Yes - The groups leader wants it to be historical, then why shouldn't we let him. --♥MSMD ^{(Talk) (Glitch)} 16:01, 12 June 2010 (BST)

    My fictional group has two people in it and once repaired a building. I'm the group leader. Can we be historical too? —Aichon— 21:22, 12 June 2010 (BST)

    Pfffft, your group smells like feet. My group, however, had a massive effect on the game, and should already be remembered by all. We should be historical. --VVV ^RPMBG 21:47, 12 June 2010 (BST)

57. Of Course It had effect, even though it failed, it managed to unify +400 people, so yes. --LaZaH 18:13, 13 June 2010 (BST)
58. "Definitely, yes. It failed but at least it was interesting. Actually got me back to the game. I'm still lying dead there. Waiting for the end... " Kylac 20:25, 13 June 2010 (BST)
59. Yes. it was very good. Matias Gray 18:16, 14 June 2010 (BST)
60. Yea There was so much talk about the great Escape that people from all over Malton came to the event. It may have failed, but the participants gave it their best shot, so they should be remembered. Canis Caeli 6:44, 15 June 2010 (BST)
61. Yea - the group cause the event. Which was a significant note in the timeline. Therefore, the group is historical. Much like Adolf Hitler is historical, for being someone involved in one of the protagonists in the second world war. Flawless logic, right there. :3 -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 21:55, 15 June 2010 (BST)

    Your mum is flawless logic. 21:58, 15 June 2010 (BST)

    You mean his face! Oh yeah, flawless comeback! --VVV ^RPMBG 00:22, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    I believe the word your looking for, as the flawless comeback of all time is "YOU'RE flawless logic." -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 17:37, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    More like how the Jews aren't historical, because, despite being majorly involved in WW2, they're still around in abundance and didn't achieve their aim to be not massacred.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:11, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    The Jews who died in the holocaust are remembered, and shall be for a long time, because they were the ones who suffered most due to the Holocaust. (As will the Nazis who were the perpetrators.) However, those that had less to do with the event, like the Romani and the Slavs are less remembered. Much like if one were to be asked about the event Escape, the first group that would come to mind would be "Escape", rather than "No Escape" or "That huge group of zombies that ruined it for everyone". This will probably be moved to the talk page soon. -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 17:37, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    Can we just agree that you all lose at logic because of Godwin's Law? —Aichon— 18:08, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    I was waiting for someone to realise... ;) -- Rahrah 18:12, 16 June 2010 (BST)

62. Yes - For the record I think this entire category is retarted. But my "no" vote from earlier was only with the intention of getting one of you apparently too lazy 400+ people to write a brief analysis of what happened to your group, so future generations could look on the historical page and have an idea what it was all about. The fact that a group of 400 people can't muster a single individual with the wiki-fu to properly memorialize their own passing is a shame. Sigh. But anyways I never intended to deny this worthy group of the historical status that it deserves. Good luck and I hope the extra vote helps. :) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:45, 16 June 2010 (BST)
63. Yes - A bit of a toss-up, but I think the group and event are historical, even if they failed. --Zarneverfike 19:11, 16 June 2010 (BST)

No (Escape)

1. Why? - I'm leaning towards a yes for the reasons DDR mentioned, but aside from being highly publicised I'm not really seeing any effects from the event. You know, aside from a whole lot of zombies in one place, which was funny as hell. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:39, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   I understand your point, but events this big are few and far between nowadays. In fact, that's an understatement, since as far as I know, this is the largest gathering of people I've heard of in two years, since March of The Dead and the apparent Battle of Barhapolis. In a game where numbers are declining and group actions en masse aren't as spectacular (particular in roleplaying value), I found this thrilling and exciting. --

    

    

    

    

   07:30, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Your word: event. This group was less than impressive and failed to change anything about the way the game was played. The event they were at was much bigger than just their group, which is what makes the event historical, even though the group is not. —Aichon— 11:33, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Personally I think the exact opposite. As an event it was shit, I just sat there and listened to spam and then got PK'd and died. The group is what was original. Now we are just butting heads about opinions though so let's agree to disagree since we've both made points for and against yeah? --

    

    

    

    

   11:36, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   I can agree to that. I think I viewed the event differently since I was on the outside looking in, rather than the inside looking out, as you were. For us zombies, this was the best eating we've had in awhile, and the most fun too, since almost all of the big groups showed up in force. Lots of joint strike operations and the like make for lots of fun. :) —Aichon— 11:41, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   No/Abstain - It's absolutely a historical group/event, but I'd like to see something on the page which details what happened. Now that the 1st and 2nd have come and gone, perhaps some of the people who participated can write up a little "post-event analysis". Then I'll happily vote yes.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 09:03, 3 June 2010 (BST) changing vote to yes.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:34, 16 June 2010 (BST)

2. No - I feel that the event was HUGELY significant and should definitely be considered historical (see here), but the group itself failed to change the game at all and didn't do anything of significance aside from get together in one place and get themselves (along with everyone and everything else in a 10 block radius) killed by hungry zombies. Had they actually succeeded at their objectives, possibly even their secondary one of committing mass suicide by jumping, I might change my mind, but they didn't. Also, with 414 members still active in the group, that makes it far and away the largest in the game right now, so I think it's still too early to consider the group beyond the point of actively contributing (as the rules at the top of this page require). I know that's a bit of a technicality, but it's just one reason for my vote amongst several. —Aichon— 11:25, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Typically groups made for a one-time purpose go into historical groups not events. Eg. BBB, and more likening to Escape itself, On strike. Just like Big Bash (which didn't really "change the game" besides be a horde but is still with my former examples in Historical Groups category), it's just the thing we do, I guess. --

    

    

    

    

   11:32, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   But if it's an event, then we avoid No Escape requesting the same thing. They'd both be pinned down under the same name.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:33, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   On Strike actually succeeded though, and as I said, had Escape succeeded, I may have changed my vote (likely would have). As for likening it to other events, why not the famous sieges and the like that are mentioned over here? This was essentially the biggest and shortest siege in recent history, after all. Yonnua also makes a good point about it covering all of the groups if it's an event. —Aichon— 11:36, 3 June 2010 (BST)

3. No - Like my vote up there in the yes column says, it was very weak, and Aichon's changed my mind. As Aichon, and as I said before, but with much more frowny-face. >:( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:28, 3 June 2010 (BST)
4. No - This seems more like an event to me, and didn't actually change anything within the game. I supported the effort, but I don't think it deserves enshrinement like this given its eventual lack of any impact. 15:24, 3 June 2010 (BST)
5. Hahahahahahahaha! Oh, wait. You're serious? Let me laugh harder. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! - They didn't do shit other than get trolled to death. And they certainly didn't accomplish anything. And like Aichon said, the event might be historical, but the group isn't. The group is just a footnote on the event's historical page in my opinion. - Goribus 21:23, 3 June 2010 (BST)
6. No - Event, yes. Group, no. --Papa Moloch 00:28, 4 June 2010 (BST)
7. Event - I worry that No Escape will be left out otherwise, and they played a big role. Besides, I infected DDR, one of the most eventful attacks of my career. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:29, 4 June 2010 (BST)
8. Fuck no - As a group, their only virtue was numbers. They did everything that a group could do wrong and that's including them not achieving their stated goals. The amount of fail in Escape as a group is immeasurable with currently manufactured equipment. As a historical event? I'd give it a second thought before voting "no" again. I'm not knocking it as something fun, just on every other possible level. --Papa Johnny 05:51, 4 June 2010 (BST)

   A whole mess of people died? That doesn't count? I mean yes, it was a failure, but it was pretty spectacular. Like watching a rocket blow up on the launchpad. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)

9. Fuck No – As JB, Aich', Moloch. (See also: Bandwagon? :P) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:07, 4 June 2010 (BST)
10. triple massive fuck no as above. since when do we reward massive fail? maybe as an event. this needs to be forgotten.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 17:51, 4 June 2010 (BST)
11. No - Escape as a group failed as already mentioned, all they had were numbers and an idea. A huge part of what made the event fun was the zombies and PKers who showed up, and they are given little mention on the Escape group page. You're glorifying the failing element of a much larger thing. Make an event page, tell of all who were there and all that happened. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 18:06, 4 June 2010 (BST)
12. No - As Moloch! --Akbar 18:23, 4 June 2010 (BST)
13. No - If you actually went by the original intent of the Escape page, you should have walked away from the game as of June 2nd. Since you are here requesting that the page be put up for a historical group, it's obvious that you didn't quit the game. As such, we shouldn't reward a tantrum with Historical status. I did make a template for the occasion. Enjoy. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:40, 4 June 2010 (BST)

    No, I concede failure with no clauses. I simply believe this deserves to be remembered. As Goethe put it, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Which would make it a Historical Event and not a Historical Group. Even then, I will still vote against, as the members who participated as a protesting survivor were not actually going to quit the game, thus making the whole exercise a giant circle-jerk of futility. If you and the others had actually gone through with it and someone else put up the event, I would have considered voting for, as it actually did stir people to do things. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:26, 11 June 2010 (BST)

14. No for being one of the whiniest and zergiest "groups" since the Children of the Darque? Bugger off--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:43, 4 June 2010 (BST)

    Prove whininess. Prove zerging. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Wish Granted! As for zerging, consider it Proved. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:35, 11 June 2010 (BST)

15. No Massive incompetence and stupidity does not qualify a group for historical status. Even the event itself was ill conceived and not really all that significant. --Grogh 22:41, 4 June 2010 (BST)

    Actually.. - User:Whitehouse 11:48, 5 June 2010 (BST)

    Haha yeah, no reason to make another mistake! --Grogh 02:35, 6 June 2010 (BST)

16. No It's all been said. The value was in the event, not the group. If we're going to recognise anything, we should recognise the correct thing. -- Bisfan 00:23, 5 June 2010 (BST)

    But there isn't a separate category for that. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Category:Historical Events much? —Aichon— 02:51, 9 June 2010 (BST)

17. No As Aichon ♥ Moonie ^{Talk | Testimonials} 08:53, 5 June 2010 (BST)
18. No - It's more of an event. The poor coordination showed by survivors lessened the feel of a "group". The arrival of Zombies and PKers from practically every big group in the game was what made it an event. Suggestion - Let's get a decent event page sorted.-- Adward  11:23, 5 June 2010 (BST)
19. I'm pretty sure that it was stated on the Escape page that they weren't really a group. - User:Whitehouse 11:48, 5 June 2010 (BST)
20. No Akule is right on the spot. I say no, it's a historical event. -- I'm just adding on here because I don't know where else to say this :3 Something you guys should think about was this was just a big fail bandwagon (Escape, I mean), everyone just went "baaa" and sheeped over to Ellicott Place Railway Station. It's no historic group --S _{e n e r g y} ^T 17:42, 5 June 2010 (BST)
21. No It was a pretty large event but as a group Escape failed to accomplish anything whatsoever, unless you count being delicious. --Globule13 02:33, 6 June 2010 (BST)
22. No No Escape ruined the group and prevented them reaching the stated goal. If No Escape didn't be ignorant dicks, they probably would of reach their goal. therefore, yes. No Escape should be "honored" for being the group that ruined it for everyone.--Lonercs 06:05, 6 June 2010 (BST)

    Could you be any more bitter? The break in that resulted in your downfall was 13 zombies, at first. 380 survivors failed to dump them. Any "ruining" is down to the failure of the survivors concerned. Not all of them, but the vast majority of them. And ignorant dicks? We just happen to go where the food is. :) -- Adward  12:54, 6 June 2010 (BST)

23. No Was less of a group and more of a hangout for people. Doesn't fit criteria. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 09:09, 6 June 2010 (BST)
24. No - Like others, more of an event than a group. --Dr summeroff 17:35, 6 June 2010 (BST)
25. No : 'Twas an event, 'tweren't a group. --Liche 18:47, 6 June 2010 (BST)
26. No As whoever linked me to this page. --Shank Case 18:59, 6 June 2010 (BST)
27. No Same reasons as Aichon and Yonnua. --Justin 19:25, 6 June 2010 (BST)
28. No Same reasons as Aichon --Sazzacomae 8:09, 6 June 2010 (BST)
29. No Unless this nom is for most epic failure....--Agent Sandman 03:07, 7 June 2010 (BST)
30. No I would love to say yes, but I'm afraid despite all the fun, energy and attention, it simply wasn't a group until the tinychat started. Even then only one in ten of the people supposedly 'in' Escape got involved. If more people gotten involved, and helped achieve of the aim of reclaiming Ellicott Place on June 1st, I would have said yes. As it is, this was a fun movement, a massive event, a great laugh, but not an Historical Group. BOSCH 03:32, 7 June 2010 (BST)
31. No - As Snowball II --Amber Waves of Pain 01:13, 8 June 2010 (BST)
32. No - As Snowball II --Jorm 01:16, 8 June 2010 (BST)
33. No - No it was interesting thats all --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 01:23, 8 June 2010 (BST)
34. No - And I even sent my Sheana alt along for the fun and had her join up. But nothing... happened, and besides the few folks who stayed around for the hell of it and didn't, you know, stand up... it was a massive failboat. Sheana ^{T / TMZ} 08:13, 8 June 2010 (BST)
35. No - Add another mark to the "Event" tally. Nominate it where it belongs, and you'll get a begrudging yes vote from me. --ZiP^MH+LUE 20:44, 8 June 2010 (BST)
36. No - Why should failure be met with reward? --Skoll 06:53, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    I'm going to throw in a quick counterargument here:

    1. Events and groups are treated the same in the system (see, On Strike, The Big Bash, etc.). I think everyone who argues Escape's elimination from the historical record on the grounds of semantics is therefore a bit off.

    2. I sort of get why people didn't like Escape (even though it would have tipped the game's balance in the favor of the zombies and allowed the living to 'win,' thus satisfying both sides) but does the fact that you disliked the group really disqualify i?

    3. Escape is still the largest group in Malton, meaning that member characters, while forgetful, were and still are active in Malton. Inactive characters idle out after five days. This was real. Botched, but real.

    4: Does the fact that the group failed truly eliminate its significance? I mean yes, a win would have been nice, but there's a difference between losing and not mattering. Escape was big enough that in drew a huge horde to a railway station and turned a green suburb red. I'd say that was entirely significant.

    5: "They didn't do shit other than get trolled to death" isn't really an argument. And don't think I'm saying that because I'm a whiny survivor. I'm actually dead and loving it right now. I just think anybody who wants to give me flack for being lame should put as much work into telling me so as I put into one of those radio broadcasts. It's only fair.

    -Captain Video 02:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Gotta say I concur. 1. BBB failed too, so what? 2. It's a shame that people from no escape are so quick to vote no because they want some recognition. Escape thought of the idea. Escape was original, you just added no at the front and griefed them. Well done, but too bad, Escape was the catalyst. This is the biggest and most talked about event in 2 years, 2 fucking years guys, the fact that the zombie players vote against en masse just because it was on the other side, and the zeds won, is a joke. And voting against it because it "should" be event just because they want to be included yet there's no event page as much from them as from the organisers of Escape, and it should be entered as a group anyway. Sigh. Having said that, I'm only disappointed that it won't be historical when IMO it should. Shit happens I guess. --

     

     

     

     

    02:38, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    I think it's about time we nullify the policy that created Historical Groups. The whole purpose of this category was to preserve groups of worth while Crit 12 was around on A/SD, but now that Crit 12 has been nullified for some time, the only purpose the category serves is to create excess drama and waste everyone's time with these e-peen contests every few months. Historical Groups shouldn't even exist any longer. In fact... —Aichon— 02:55, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    I don't think we should eliminate them completely, but removing the entry criteria is not a bad idea since they don't really mean what they used to. --

     

     

     

     

    03:24, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Sorry to burst your bubble DDR, but the zombies were what made it such a good time (albeit a failure, but still a Historical Event). Kevan was most likely not going to do anything to the "Escapees", and if damn near every big zombie group int he game hadn't turned up, it would have just been a huge circle jerk for a couple of weeks. As it happens, a fun time was had. Also: It's rather shitty to assume that zombie players are all voting no for some recognition, or because we were on the other side. We came to Owsleybank because brains were there. We are voting against it because the group itself was a failure. Unless your name is FedCom, failure isn't criteria.-- Adward  17:44, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    It still sounds like you're just voting against this because you're a zombie. "If the other side hadn't showed up" isn't a valid argument in Malton. The other side always shows up. There were plans, other than getting eaten, for what would happen if we weren't spirited away. They're right on the Escape page. -Captain Video 23:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Dont' forget Ron Burgundy? --

     

     

     

     

    03:01, 10 June 2010 (BST)

    Hey, don't blame all of us No Escapers. I'm quite happy to vote Yes, since the event itself revolved around Escape. As long as Escape is remembered, we'll be too. And more importantly, the group really does deserve recognition for getting 500 delicious brains all in one place for us to eat. ^_^ --Shatari 19:02, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    I did enjoy you guys. -Captain Video 23:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    DDR please explain how BBB was a fail? it crushed every criteria for an event.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 09:05, 11 June 2010 (BST)

    It's been a while since I read it, but I seem to remember the BBB failing in their conquest of Blackmore... --

     

     

     

     

    10:06, 11 June 2010 (BST)

    umm we held it for over 3 months when most died in a few days sleeping in ridleybonk. and it passed voting into historical events. but you weren't there.. so right it's a fail.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 22:19, 11 June 2010 (BST)

37. No Others are right, it's the overall event that matters, not that group. What we need is an NPoV page about the event. And if only to motivate others to write and contribute to one when Escape fails to be regarded as historical group. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:57, 10 June 2010 (BST)
38. No Escape itself failed to complete its goal, and then failed to stay as dead bodies after June 1st. and don't say that's not a valid reason, that was the point of escape --4Zio^'TJ! 19:04, 12 June 2010 (BST)

    You do realize that the 'staying dead' part was completely optional, right? Quite a few people chose to do so, but it was only one of several options for them. --Shatari 23:59, 13 June 2010 (BST)

39. No The event was historical at best, the group weren't. --TouchingVirus 18:17, 14 June 2010 (BST)
40. No It would’ve been a historical event, but the event never happened. It was a historical meal, nothing more. --Marinus 19:06, 14 June 2010 (BST)
41. No All already been said. --Karek^maps?! 01:23, 15 June 2010 (BST)

    No I agree with others. The event was historical, but Escape as a group was just a mass of mostly feral survivors in a building waiting for something to happen. The collective Zombies and PKers of Malton made that something happen. We brought conflict, gave Escapees something to do during the wait. We even gave you the most logical ending of all. All Escape accomplished was having a mildly interesting idea and feeding a massive horde of zombies. Write up an unbiased event page detailing the events of Escape with all the major contributing groups (Zombies and PKers included) and I'll wholeheartedly support it as a historical event. Dolly Departed 05:58, 17 June 2010 (BST) Voting was over. —Aichon— 18:50, 17 June 2010 (BST)

    Four Zombies In One is right. Escape failed in its goal of actually escaping Urban Dead.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 17:01, 17 June 2010 (BST) Voting was over. —Aichon— 18:50, 17 June 2010 (BST)

Voting ended. With 63 for and 41 against, Escape has failed to reach the 2/3 necessary for historical status. —Aichon— 18:50, 17 June 2010 (BST)