Suggestion talk:20090513 Suicide With A Vengeance

Discussion (Suicide With A Vengeance)

The whole "damage you take from falling" is overly complex and I'd also like to think a method that guarantees death should be available. Oh, and this little part: "Both players would be knocked down by the impact in a successful attack." What? UD supports falling down? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:02, 9 May 2009 (BST)

There is a method that guarantees death. It's called "not jumping on someone". Just commit suicide as usual. The only reason you'd get a chance to live under this suggestion is because you used someone beneath you to break your fall. As for the damage, it's not very complex at all. You get a chance to do damage to an opponent, like a normal attack. If you hit, you do 20 damage by falling on them from a great height. The damage to yourself is 4/5ths of your Max HP provided you make your 10% RNC to not die immediately, so if you're not at max that also can kill you right off, but if you are you incur an effect similar to Infectious Bite, but caused by blood loss instead of infection. It's easy to cure with a FAK. And yes, UD supports falling down. At least it does for zombies, I don't see why it would be impossible to do for survivors as well, and the only difference between a zombie falling down upon being killed and a zombie or survivor falling down this way would be that the HP wouldn't reset at max when they stand up unless the damage incurred killed them.--Necrofeelinya 05:18, 9 May 2009 (BST)

"Falling down" amounts to invincibility then, yeah? We can't attack downed bodies, after all. In UD, you're either standing and alive (or alive-ish, for zombies) or down on the ground and dead. Suggestions centered around feigning death get shot down for a reason. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:29, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Dealt with that more than a day ago by adding damage to "feed on corpse" and a different description for downed survivors than corpses. You may have been too busy arguing with Kamikaze Bunny and Pesatyel below about stuff that's not in the suggestion to notice. : )--Necrofeelinya 05:00, 12 May 2009 (BST)

You've added too many suggestions in one go. Grievous Injury is worth a suggestion in itself, and being able to target players outside a building is a slight breach of the X-Ray rule. I admire the flavour text addition with the suicide option though. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:06, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Number one is definitely a dupe. Number two I think is also a dupe. And number three is impossible as it is: you can't see who's outside, so how the hell can you target any of them? If you change it so that you can see who's outside, then it's X-Ray Vision. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:06, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Well, the computer knows who's outside the building, so here's how it would work. You know how the control panel presents attack options in a format of "(Attack button) (Dropdown target menu) with (weapon dropdown menu)"? Just add the names of targetable people outside the building to the dropdown target menu with an asterisk indicating that they're outside. If they're selected, the only available option on the weapon dropdown menu becomes "Suicide leap". The targets wouldn't appear in any way on the map until you've actually jumped and ended up outside, but this would represent someone leaning out the window in preparation for killing themselves fairly well. In fact, now that the notion of seeing who's outside comes up, I could see making the case for outdoor target anonymity, giving only the option of choosing between zombie or human targets to jump on, or even just total anonymity, you don't know who you'll hit because all you can see is the top of their head. But I don't know if that's necessary... it depends what people prefer. I kind of like the option of picking a specific target.--Necrofeelinya 00:41, 10 May 2009 (BST)

I'm in favour of targeted suicides, but it would probably be simpler and more fun to have an instant kill for both players on a successful hit (acc 5%). The problem is getting it to work with out breaking the X-Ray rule... wait I got it.

-Jump

-Are you sure

-As you fall to the ground, wind whistling past your ears you see Player x, Player y & Player z

-Aim for Player x/Player y/Player z/the ground

-You hit Target... HARD!

--Kamikazie-Bunny 14:55, 9 May 2009 (BST)

So, I get to make decisions mid-air. Where exactly is my character at this time, is he inside or outside? Can he be attacked or healed? What happens if I don't choose at all and just wait? How long do I have to make a choice, if the time is limited? When do the flavour messages appear to others, is it when I jump or when I choose the target? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:53, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I think some of those answers speak for themselves, don't they? I mean, for example, if I scan a zombie and I am presented with the option of reviving said zombie, the option doesn't go away if the zombie moves will I'm trying to decide to revive him or not (at least not that I'm aware of).--Pesatyel 07:09, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Funny, that's one of the questions I didn't ask. I don't think you realize the problem here. KB's suggesting that you're already committed to jumping when you click the "Are you sure?" button, but still have time to make choices, and as far as I can tell, can't go back (in order to keep it from allowing X-ray vision). Scanning and reviving is very different from this. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:00, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Yes, but it appears, to me, that your confusing REALISM with GAME MECHANICS. Your trying to argue that a person jumping out a window would not have the request time to look around, see Bob and then aim for him all while already falling. That is irrelevant because this is a game mechanics issue not a realism issue (I could argue that it would take a similar amount of time for a survivor to dna extract a zombie, read the information, take out his syringe on a "revivable" result, move around to position the syringe at the correct location and use it). The game mechanics are very simple, which is why I used the scan/revive comparison. The idea, as I am reading it, has nothing to do with how much time it takes to perform an action, but only on the mechanics of the game and what happens as a result of the button pressed. Nothing more. If I scan a zombie, the button immediately comes up to revive if I choose. If I jump out of the window (after the are you sure button is pressed) the "chose a target" (or whatever) button immeidately comes up to attempt to hit someone if I choose. Pressing those buttons (revive or hit target [X]) happens regardless of how much time in reality has passed OR how much time in game has passed, with the only stipulation being whether the target moves before the button is pressed. We can't have it be "x-ray vision" so the ONLY way to make it work is to make the choice AFTER you've started the jump. Expedience trumps virtue (presuming the idea is a good one in the first place).--Pesatyel 21:53, 10 May 2009 (BST)

And my point goes right over your head. Don't tell me what I'm trying to argue; realism isn't it. Real and game time are largely irrelevant to my actual problem with this. Ignore the "How long" question for now, and please, try to answer the other questions I asked. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:22, 11 May 2009 (BST)

AAAh, ok, I see what your trying to say now. I think I was over simplifying. Beyond that, I can't answer since its Kamizakie's idea, but I'd imagine that your technically "unavailable" for anything.--Pesatyel 08:03, 11 May 2009 (BST)

And you see no problem with someone being unreachable by anyone, while still being able to attack? With a massive 20 HP damage? But this discussion is becoming pointless since the author is going with a solution that gives x-ray vision. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:28, 11 May 2009 (BST)

I didn't say I didn't see a problem with it, merely offering a possibility since the original "idea" we are discussing belonged to someone else. Beyond that, I think we got off on a tangent since its not likely this idea will work period.--Pesatyel 02:12, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Also you seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding that you can stand and scan at an RP for whatever amount of time you want but if you jump out of a building gravity is going to make a pancake out of you in a few seconds. Unless players can float. I don't think players can float. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:29, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Fundamental lack of understanding of what? Why are you arguing realism? Did you even read anything that was said above? The scan/revive was a comparitive example of a button that occurs when another button is pressed. In this instance, the option to revive appears BECAUSE you scanned the zombie, the same way the option to land on someone appears BECAUSE you jumped out the window. I was describing a mechanics issue. What does realism have to do with it?--Pesatyel 08:03, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Woosh. Where are you when you hit the "Yes" response to "Are you sure?" when jumping out of a window? Floating in never-never land? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 08:08, 11 May 2009 (BST)

What part of it being an issue of GAME MECHANICS and not REALISM do you not understand?--Pesatyel 02:12, 12 May 2009 (BST)

I do understand it. Explain the "GAME MECHANICS" of it, please. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:05, 12 May 2009 (BST)

You HAVE been reading the discussion, right? The primary problem with the idea is x-ray vision. Thus to solve the problem, you cannot pick your target until you've made the choice to jump. So, for intents and purposes, you ARE "hovering in the air" until you make the decision which target you want to hit. Why? Because it is a requirement of the game mechanics to overcome the x-ray vision. If you go by only realism, you would have to look out the window, see Bob standing below, then jump out aiming for him. Obviously you can't do that the way the game works. In other words, the game mechanic in question is x-ray vision.--Pesatyel 05:56, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Alright. So when you jump (mid-air now), are you inside, outside, or neither (in another "room")? Can you see other falling players? Can you interact with them? Can you remain in this falling room indefinitely? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:54, 12 May 2009 (BST)

First of all, its not my job to decide those. Neither the main suggestion under which this discussion is happening is mine nor is the side idea thought up by kamakizie-bunny. I was merely pointing out that it was a question of mechanics (to which all of your questions are as well). Not to mention I don't really like this idea in the first place.--Pesatyel 08:05, 12 May 2009 (BST)

---

SA/Iscariot Voting strike thing

Really people, come on. SA, listen to the voting rules that are right next to the voting area. It is not that hard to add "I don't like it" as that's all it would take to solve this. Then you can both settle down and have cookies. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:31, 15 May 2009 (BST)

This is SA trying to throw around his sysop/'crat status knowing that not one of those incompetent fuckwits will vote misconduct for him, even though people have been escalated for this before. It's another case of one rule for normal users, and one for the rest of us. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:33, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Indeed. He wants his vote to stay (as MisterGame remarked as he reverted), he can take the extra two grams of effort to type a simple rationale. Petty, is it not? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:35, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Add his name to the list of petty sysops, to think I pushed in the group I was in at the time to elect him 'crat. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:37, 15 May 2009 (BST)

The point is that you guys are see the rules differently here. Its called a disagreement. And it is indeed petty. What are we all worrying about? Jeez. --Thadeous Oakley 23:39, 15 May 2009 (BST)

I could ask you "Why did you edit-war with Iscariot over this?" --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:40, 15 May 2009 (BST)

As much as I hate to admit it, Iscariot is right. Unjustified votes are struck on sight and can't be unstruck unless justification is being added. He's already dragged me to VB over a similar matter last month. Why he hasn't done so here amazes me especially with all his complaints about our lack of consistency. -- Cheese 23:41, 15 May 2009 (BST)

No, SA and now Cheese have decided to abuse their status for their benefit, there'll be a misconduct case tomorrow (for which the useless sysops will find them not guilty) for their actions. The rules are very fucking clear, anything else is wrong. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:42, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Erm...lolwut? I agree with you and get a misconduct case against me? Will nothing make you happy or are you just petty like that? -- Cheese 23:44, 15 May 2009 (BST)

No, you protected (thus preventing my reversion) incorrectly. Current status only applies to protection requests. You have used your status to protect the page in a (admittedly) false status. This is misconduct. The reason this hasn't gone to A/VB is because you fuckers would never convict one of your own, otherwise you'd have acted in good faith of the community and already done this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:48, 15 May 2009 (BST)

I hate you Kenny. -- Cheese 23:49, 15 May 2009 (BST)

See? Admittance of guilt? Where is the fucking A/VB case? Do we have to push for that? Behold sysops only follow fucking policy when evidence is brought to an audience. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:54, 15 May 2009 (BST)

How is that admittance of guilt? =/ That was me quoting a well-known line from South Park to show my dislike for your inability to not be a dick. -- Cheese 23:55, 15 May 2009 (BST)

I'm either wrong or right, your reversion seems to indicate I'm fucking right. Still waiting for this sysop to bring the VB case to protect the community.... I'll be waiting forever for a good faith act from a sysop won't I? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:58, 15 May 2009 (BST)

To be perfectly honest, in this case I don't think the community will give a shit. It has been sorted outside of VB due to intervention by an active sysop (me) and unless you have something further to add that is relevant I consider the matter to be closed. -- Cheese 00:03, 16 May 2009 (BST)

If it was me you'd lock it here and then drag it to A/VB for an escalation, oh, wait, it was! Yet different treatment for a serving 'crat speaks volumes. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:06, 16 May 2009 (BST)

I'll make the vandal case for you if you quit you whining.--Thadeous Oakley 00:04, 16 May 2009 (BST)

You'd do more damage than good, now, please shut up whilst those with a university education talk. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:07, 16 May 2009 (BST)

That actually makes me feel rather privileged =). You can has a brownie point. Just one mind, I don't want it going to your head. -- Cheese 00:09, 16 May 2009 (BST)

I acknowledge that you attend a recognised higher education institute as per discussions on IRC, it doesn't remotely change your incompetence and pettiness elsewhere. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:13, 16 May 2009 (BST)

An education in what? Idiocy and assholeness? Please, don't play the smart card with me.--Thadeous Oakley 00:11, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Shush, grown ups are talking. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:13, 16 May 2009 (BST)

What? Like, on the interwebs? WHERE?!--Thadeous Oakley 00:17, 16 May 2009 (BST)

'Nuff trollin' already, Thad. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:19, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Waaaaaahaaaaaa, he started! *cries*.--Thadeous Oakley 00:21, 16 May 2009 (BST)

I would rebut with your "Cry me an ocean" and "I'll do this if you stop 'whining.'" Oh wait, trollin'. Right Right. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:23, 16 May 2009 (BST)

I wasn't serious in the comment above, ya know ;). But alright. Enough drama for today.--Thadeous Oakley 00:26, 16 May 2009 (BST)

How the hell has Cheese abused his status here? Because he locked it with SA's edit instead of yours? Cry me an ocean.--Thadeous Oakley 23:45, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Excellent point. But note the "we" in my earlier post. I simply agree to this: In a disagreement, leave the post, vote, edit or whatever alone and take to vandal or arb.--Thadeous Oakley 23:43, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Leave the stuff alone? Then why did you revert and edit it? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:48, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Look at the history. Iscariot changed, he didn't leave it alone despite SA replying. I merely stepped in to return to the original form. That's where the problem is, they had an disagreement about the orginal vote by SA.--Thadeous Oakley 23:53, 15 May 2009 (BST)

SA's desires are not automatically proper wiki policy. The protection of the page by Cheese was a direct result of you and Iscariot edit warring. Your intervention has essentially escalated this. What happened to leaving stuff alone? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:57, 15 May 2009 (BST)

It would have escalated anyway, when SA would return. Iscariot could have taken him to A/VB instead. There lies the problem--Thadeous Oakley 00:01, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Policy very clearly stipulates votes must be justified. If anyone brings up a case - and not against Iscariot, against policy, as Iscariot was only an agent of said policy - it would have to be SA to have his vote counted without justification. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:03, 16 May 2009 (BST)

The page has been unprotected and now sits with SA's vote struck. Leave it as such (listen to policy Thad), and if SA has a problem with his silly little suggestion vote being struck, he can take it up in a policy argument. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:13, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Hey Iscariot, instead of trying to make everyone you don't like look bad, do some damn research. I've never agreed with justifications, never did them unless I saw the need to. If I wanted to abuse my status I'd have just banned your ass over this.

Voting rules excerpts

• Point five of the voting advice "It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion."

• Bullet three of the invalid vote section: "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote."

There's a clear mother fucking discrepancy in the guidelines/rules. In one area it says it's merely an option whereas in another area it states it is required. Has anyone fixed it yet, no matter how many times I've said something about it? No. Can I use this slight discrepancy to not justify my votes legally? Yes. It is not "clear" on whether votes must be justified, and I welcome a misconduct case, considering I have not abused any sort of power what so ever, nor my "status", considering I've fought with others over justifications before I was a sysop, or even ran the first time. The most you can bring against me is an A/VB case.

Until that discrepancy is fixed in some way, I will continue to put my vote on there as is afforded to me as a normal user. I frankly do not care to deal with you anymore, and I'm beginning to find your harassment very tiring, as I'm sure others are. Keep feeding the fire Iscariot. Just keep going.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:43, 16 May 2009 (BST)

I feel we should have a sort of policy discussion to sort this issue definitively and then follow the rules as dictated by result of said discussion. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:50, 16 May 2009 (BST)

You realize the same ambiguity makes Iscariot's vote striking just as legal? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:53, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Absolutely, to both of you. If you noticed though, I'm not the one who escalated this stuff to this point. It was outside interference that did. I was just trying to show Iscariot why my vote was still technically legal, and that he should try to fix something for once instead of making a fuss. Shows how much that worked.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:56, 16 May 2009 (BST)

You haven't tried to fix the ambiguity either. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 01:07, 16 May 2009 (BST)

I haven't fixed it because it's always suited me fine. I could still vote without justifying, and rarely does anyone actually mess with it. Iscariot has also voted on suggestions that I didn't justify my votes on before. The difference between then and now is that I'm a sysops now. Odd huh? I'll see if I can dig it up.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:15, 16 May 2009 (BST)

So let's get cracking. How about a preliminary public community vote on "Should justifications for votes be required? Y/N" to get a feel for how people stand on the issue? I'd say yes - especially given how simple rationales can be - but my opinion could very well be the opposite of the general consensus. If anything, we need a page for it. Ideas for name and location? I'm not too well versed in these areas. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:10, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Hmmmm, one is a guideline, one is a rule. If they disagree, then a rule has greater standing than a guideline. Justify your vote, please -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:13 16 May 2009 (BST)

But they're both labeled "rules".--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Indeed, one says "Advice to Voters" and the other has the header of "Valid/Invalid Votes." Advice, in most interpretations, is not hard rules. It is suggested and recommended that you justify your vote so it is not struck and is counted causing a hassle on the page. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:16, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Yet it still says rules at the top. In the passage it states that justifying is not needed, just strongly recommended. If everyone else left it alone, there wouldn't be a problem. Other wise I'll still cite the and refuse to justify my votes. And better yet, why is it that people can get away with votes like "Keep FTW! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:20, 22 May 2007 (BST)" and "Shoes for the poor --Karloth Vois RR 23:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (this was in the keep section too), which is just as unjustified as my vote was, yet not struck out? I admit, they are older examples, but I already had the tabs up from days old research.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:29, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Your vote was completely unjustified. The policy says nothing about what counts as valid justification, just that it is justified at all. Just throw in an "As above" or something and we can all move on. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:33, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Ahem. Another case of something like this happening. But being he voted keep, no one did anything about it. Besides, my vote is still justified with my Kill. It doesn't say that sayign kill only isn't a justification.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:48, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Your unstriking as illegal as it comes, you know this. Although your fellow incompetents may not find you guilty, your incorrect quoting proves you are aware of the fallacy of your arguments. Yet again you prove why no faith is given to trusted users. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:32, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Lookey here. Consistency plz.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:01, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Calm yourself bitch, as I'll prove tomorrow, sysops have always been half-arsed in enforcing the rule, doesn't make the rule invalid. Doesn't changed the fact that you know the rules and choose to disregard them. We all know that your incompetent fellows won't convict you, but that only proves me right that you're all unsuitable for the job and cover your own asses first. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:12, 16 May 2009 (BST)

It would be "Doesn't change".--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:17, 16 May 2009 (BST)

So a vote slipped through. Users (sysops included) are not perfect, all-seeing machines who live in the server. If you want, we can have that vote struck retroactively. Not like it makes a whole lot of difference. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:11, 16 May 2009 (BST)

A vote slipped through Iscariot. A sysops one at that. It only stayed because it served a purpose for Iscariot, which is apaminating the suggestion.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:17, 16 May 2009 (BST)

So since he struck your kill vote, he wants this suggestion to pass? Or is it at all possible he missed it entirely due to not patrolling the Wiki 24/7? Please stop presuming Iscariot is some kind of manipulator here. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:22, 16 May 2009 (BST)

No, he's struck it now because it doesn't further any cause of his, and it is harassing a sysops. Lrniscariot.

By the way, he cycled that suggestion as it is, it'd be rather hard to miss an unjustified vote when he had to give the votes a cursory scan to make sure there's enough.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:27, 16 May 2009 (BST)

He's not harassing a sysop. He's "harassing" someone who isn't following policy. And you, by not simply adding eight or nine letters are also being inflammatory. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:37, 16 May 2009 (BST)

And this should probably be the point where I just ignore you. I am a system operator on this wiki. Iscariot has a known issue with attacking the Sysops of this wiki. It's safe to assume that after all the conflicts he has had with the administration of the wiki that any time he has a disagreement with a member of the admin team, that (unless started by the other party, which is quite rare) he is doing it specifically because they are a system operator. I'm not being inflammatory by simply defending myself, if I were to cause provocation, then I could understand. But so far, I've done nothing but defend myself and my viewpoint.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:51, 16 May 2009 (BST)

So he harasses sysops. Prove the community's faith in you as a sysop by taking the higher ground and adding eight or nine keystrokes. You don't have to continuously butt heads with sweaty armpits over something this minuscule. In fact, this had basically become a non-issue until you had re-un-struck your vote... again. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:47, 27 May 2009 (BST)

You should take a better look into some of what he says, and his past history. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:40, 16 May 2009 (BST)

I have, thanks. He takes a strong stance and doesn't like to budge on matters and has little tolerance for idiots. Being less tolerant of Iscariot just because he's Iscariot isn't the proper solution. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:41, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Nevermind, then. I'd quote Karek, but I don't have the Karek here.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:44, 16 May 2009 (BST)

"From Liberty's talk page:

Iscariot Promotion Is the dumbest thing you could have said or done on this wiki. Have you not actually seen any of his contributions or did it just not occur to you that his idiotic ramblings are just that, ill informed idiocy that would only convince people equally as ill-informed. Just because he spews shit about how his opinion is always consensus doesn't actually make it so especially when he does shit like this on a regular basis. If you want to see what he really thinks of consensus just visit the Recruitment page and its archives._{This amuses me if only because he now claims to be the voice of it, which he's done before.}

Maybe next time understand that there's a reason Iscariot is disliked by most every active contributor on the wiki. Then again you've been taken in by this rambling sycophant before so I don't know if I should be surprised that you actually listen to his bullshit when it's about how the wiki is out to get him as opposed to realizing how he tends to abuse the rules to try and get his way. He's pretty much shown himself to be an all around scum bag, and I used to be the guy who would defend him on the wiki, not to mention the one he used to come to for advice regarding it. --Karek^maps?! 17:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)"

That quote does pretty good, not perfect, but still good. Also, it's not that he has little tolerance for idiots, he just has little tolerance for people who aren't willing to suck him off anytime he wants it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:50, 16 May 2009 (BST)

That'll do. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:59, 16 May 2009 (BST)

I realize Iscariot is disliked, for (claiméd) bias, favoritism, antagonistic and overreactionary tendencies, etc; but I am a very patient and tolerant man. He is a contributor to the Wiki - perhaps a less liked one - but a contributor nonetheless. We can improve through adversary and conflict, and while he toes yet does not cross the line of harm, I will remain tolerant. The moment he crosses it, however, I'm all game for seeing him gone. Just as I am with any other Wikian. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:59, 16 May 2009 (BST)

***YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN*** --WanYao 20:34, 17 May 2009 (BST)