Talk:Shearbank Liberation Army

	Historical Group Talk Page
	This talk page belongs to a historical group that is no longer active. However, its wiki page is preserved to reflect the group's significance in Urban Dead history. Please do not edit this page or the corresponding group page without good reason.

"to install their own regime" -- is that their aim, though? I rather get the impression they want to depose DARIS and bring Shearbank back into the wider Malton community -- ie a place as safe as anywhere else for anyone to wander in and out of, and not a no-go area for the CoL or other such groups. Morlock 16:58, 10 Sep 2005 (BST) (and can we justify "below 10" given that people can decide they are members of the SLA and pursue its aims without telling anyone?)

The first paragraph doesn't sound too NPOV to me. I mean, they are called a "secrative terrorist organization" which has certain negativity to it. As to installing their own regime, that also sounds biased, something that would come from DARIS themselves *cough*. --Daranz 19:27, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

Well, Katthew is a DARIS member, but let's do the "assume good faith" thing, eh? I would admit that the SLA's tactics and organisation are essentially those of terrorists though -- I see them as rather analogous to the loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland (not wishing to trivialise any RL conflicts by comparing them to a MMORPG, of course). But then again, over on wikipedia you can't call anyone a terrorist without igniting a powder keg so maybe we'd better avoid it here too. Morlock 19:32, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

DARIS has control of Shearbank. The SLA is trying to depose them and replace them with whatever they wish. They are doing so by attacking the citizens of DARIS. I'd call that a terrorist organization, especially since they seem hell-bent on spreading as much disinformation and lies as they can. Or, you know, maybe Shearbank does have 400 zombies in it. And people are escaping Malton on their flying pigs, of course. If you're going to compare them to the paramilitary groups in Ireland, you'd do well to know that people in Ireland and Britain call them terrorists as well. I am completely justified, DARIS status notwithstanding, to call the SLA terrorists. --Katthew 19:41, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

Er, I agree that they're terrorists, that's why I was making the comparison in the first place -- I'd be quite happy to see that word left in, except that I've been in some of those revert wars on wikipedia. But from the SLA's POV, DARIS is an illegitimate regime that has installed itself, and since their goal is to restore the status quo ante declaration of independence (Shearbank having the same status as the rest of Malton, ie under the nominal control of the CoL with no human-imposed no-go zones), I don't think "install their own regime" is a correct statement of their goals. In much the same way as groups like the UVF wanted to get rid of the IRA because they were quite happy with the British Government being in control of NI. Morlock 19:48, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

Exactly. It is a terrorist organization from DARIS's point of view. But then, not everybody considers DARIS a legitimate government. From SLA's/CoL's/somebody else's point of view DARIS could themselves be considered a terrorist organization, as they are using violence in order to terrorize people of Malton, therefore achieving their own ends (control of Shearbank). I don't really want to start a war here (wait, there's already one), so we might as well leave "terrorist" in, if it really has to be, but I don't think "installing their own regime" is an appropriate term for the goals of SLA, for the reasons stated above. (also note the usage of words "government" and "regime". While the two have very similar means, and no underlying bias by definition, there is still a distinction being made here) -Daranz 20:45, 10 Sep 2005 (BST) (

"In much the same way as groups like the UVF wanted to get rid of the IRA because they were quite happy with the British Government being in control of NI." Yes, and they did this through murder and terrorist attacks. Whoops! Maybe DARIS is illegitimate, but so are the various "charities" and other aid groups. They do good for everyone, whereas DARIS does good for its citizens only. We of Shearbank have no time for the various alien nationals - only for our own people. It's hard enough to defend against the zombies without people seeking our protection and supplies and giving nothing back in return. We need to seal off Shearbank for the good of Shearbank, not for the detriment of others. The CoL is inefficient and serves its own purposes more than the purposes of the people, and especially not the purposes of Shearbank. Since the CoL does nothing for Shearbank, DARIS will have nothing to do with the CoL. --Katthew 20:55, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

I have sympathies on both sides of this -- I can see that the actions DARIS have taken are perfectly sensible from the POV of their own self-interest, but those actions did include a large PKing spree that the Declaration of Independence gleefully admits to, so I can see the POV of those who consider the regime a bunch of murderers who need to be put down in the same way as any other PKers.

But the POV of the Wiki is not the POV of DARIS or the SLA or any one group. The Wiki should describe the overall situation as neutrally as possible. The point is to create a guide to the game, both the Kevan-created aspects and the player-created aspects, that everyone can agree is accurate. It really isn't worth using it as another place to continue IC squabbling. Morlock 21:03, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

PS as to this bit: "Yes, and they did this through murder and terrorist attacks. Whoops!" Yes, I know -- that's my point. They used terrorist tactics to achieve their goal, but that goal wasn't to become the government. That's the analogy I'm drawing between them and the SLA. Morlock 21:13, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

I agree. We should have facts here, and not opinions. The fact is that there's a group that controls Shearbank through denying entry to humans and zombies alike, by use of force. There's also the fact that there is another group, that seeks to eliminate the first group, and deny them the control of Shearbank, and they, as well, are trying to do that by means of force. That is what we should state, at least in summary, if you really want propaganda to follow. There's also the problem with the member count: there's no official member count for SLA, so the number in the infobox is purely speculational, and seems to be purposefully lowered in order to make the group appear weaker (and since there's no official count of members, we can't tell just how strong the group is). So, I propose changing the member count to "unknown". --Daranz 21:28, 10 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'm new to Wiki-editing, but still Taking "Misinformation" down for POV.

How can that "Misinformation" stub belong there?

It is obviously an attempt by some member of DARIS trying to vandalise the page. SLA's claim is that they won't PK, but they will attack DARIS Members because DARIS Members will attack them.

And somehow that's two-faced propaganda? That's lying and misinformation? No, that's misunderstanding the conflict, and libel against an organisation. I'm taking it down.

To clarify, I'm not a member of DARIS or SLA, I'm a member of the PARA, who was just looking across Human Groups, and find the idea that they'd take their petty in-game conflict OOC like this pretty sad. --Viendin Time Unknown, 11 Sep 2005

I think that you need to calm down. What happened here was nothing more than a minor inclusion of POV. If you want to see "vandalism," you should really look at the edits Ed and Froggums have made to the DARIS page. It isn't a huge deal, and it certainly isn't worth writing a lengthy diatribe over. --ShaqFu 18:44, 11 Sep 2005 (BST)

I moreso feel it was vandalism of an ideal, than of a page. Sorry for over-reacting, I'm a bit new to wiki-edi-quette, and was caught off-guard by IC conflicts being taken onto a Wiki. I rely on Wikis as sources of balanced, NPOV information - seeing hefty bits of POV on controversial issues, and moreso, over a lousy in-game conflict, is something I'm not apt to tolerate. But I'll remove a bit of my anger from before. There, I've toned down what I said before, and left it more as an announcement of what I did and why, than an attempt to ridicule the conflict.

ShaqFu, I was pleased with your handling of the Pretorians/PARA conflict, I respect you and don't want to come off too rash. Thanks for the advice. --Viendin 14:04, 11 Sep 2005 (EST)

I agree this was relatively minor, but I consider it merely a matter of showing him appropriate respect to hold User:Katthew, who has done a lot of good work here, to a much higher standard than User:Ed and User:Froggums who are, to put it in a nutshell, twats. Morlock 19:08, 11 Sep 2005 (BST)

To put it bluntly, I was rather confused why their "manifesto" said they were going to be objective about the attacks on DARIS and not "rejoice" in them, but their blog is nothing but "WOO YAY WE KILLED THEM BUT GOOD!!!" I appreciate that my work here has earned me some standing, and I apologise if my edit was a little too abrupt, but I wanted to show both sides of the SLA rather than the "we're the good guys they're the bad guys" angle that their "manifesto" has.

Keep fighting the good fight

Those zombies/PKer assholes are nothing to the SLA. Rock them hard. - MachinaeSupr3macy 01:50, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)