Talk:The Pretorians

	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	This talk page belongs to a historical group that is no longer active.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.

Remember Remember the 5th of November

Good soldiers and civilians of Malton, I speak to you with the desire for freedom and liberation. Where is my heart set, my desire bound to be let out? Ridleybank, brothers and sisters. Please remember the 5th of November, the day all of Malton shall take Ridleybank back from the evil menace. Tell all you know to join your flanks and charge!

--Codename V 09:39, 4 May 2006 (BST)

A civilian fireman was in the northwest corner of the mall, barricading it upon collapse. I have a journal here on the Wiki. --Fuzzytek 17:21, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

What's their official stance on this whole Praetorian vs. Pretorian thing? Maybe they should add something about it? --Raelin 23:23, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

Why the edit to the most recent Pretorians page? From the discussions around DARIS, I thought that group-pages were POV-OK.--Jeff 06:59, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

It's okay to have POV stuff, as long as it's obviously POV stuff. DARIS' declaration is obviously POV, because it's an over-the-top document with articles and whatnot. Nobody could mistake it for actual information. The operations, however, apparently detail actions taken by the Pretorians. I wouldn't allowm DARIS to put "we have successfully killed everyone in Malton twice" without proof, and I don't allow the Pretorians to make unsubstantiated claims that they have things they obviously don't. --Katthew 07:03, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Er... and the Pretorian's claims to be compiling an archive of audio recordings of frightened survivors of The Many attack, etc, wasn't? It seemed no more or less over the top than DARIS' silly posting of the constitution and their flag. In the past, SA folks said that The Many wasn't part of the old attack on Giddings, and the pages were edited accordingly for the sake of accuracy. Now, everyone realizes it was a badly organized first-wave attack. The Pretorians (who is Roops? Are he and Stankow are part of the 29?) post a blurb about compiling proof of The Many's attack. What's so hineous?--Jeff 07:20, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

That wasn't their claim. I shall paste exactly what they had put:

"Operation Texas Memo involved painstaking collection from various internet forums, chat rooms and audio interviews with traumatized members of The Many who participated in the attack."

The Many has one (1) forum. The Many has one (1) IRC channel. Entry into both is restricted. Not to mention no self-respecting member of the Many would ever give an audio interview to the Pretorians. Not to mention the whole bullshit about being "traumatised".

It is no secret that I hate the Pretorians stupid operations. However, it wouldn't be becoming of me as an admin to let personal preference affect the way I moderate. So I restrict myself to simply making their entries NPOV and otherwise ignoring them. --Katthew 07:39, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Until this point, the rule has been 'POV is OK in group pages.' Your comments on the DARIS page seems to have established that clearly. Perhaps it would be becoming of you as an admin to post in a central location what exactly the rules on POV vs NPOV are. So people can avoid their edits being deleted because you don't believe them.--Jeff 07:50, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I would have thought people would know the difference between the kind of NPOV that is "here is our declaration, we are awesome freedom fighters" and "We killed the Many and we can prove it." If they can't, then I guess I'll have to amend things. --Katthew 08:29, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

After the intro, group pages are group-POV. As I've repeatedly said I think that's a stupid policy, but it's what people want. I think the fact that the "Operations" were fairly POVvy is the best argument for your unilateral merge. But the Pretorians' claims are no better or worse than, and just as verifiable as, the big list of people DARIS say they've killed. Morlock 12:44, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Good journalists never rely on only one source. None of the Pretorians write for the National Inquirer, or are ever likely to be featured as ALOD. Reconstructing the fateful events of those APs at Gidding's Mall require thorough research. By pulling together details from threads of different factions, be they Penny Arcade, Something Awful, or the general soup of the original Urban Dead message boards, the truth can be ferreted out from heaps of adolescent chest thumping. For a true account, a non POV account, our post-mortem of the attack of post-mortis must not rely on a single source. That aside, your claim that 'The Many' only have (1) forum and (1) IRC channel isn't technically true. During the event of Operation Hurricane Katrina (note: not a Urban Dead event), the home of the Many became fragmented. While the Something Awful Games forum is the primary forum home of the Many, it has not been the only home. Nor is it true that entry is 'restricted', unless 'restricted' means a threshold of $10 US in your bank account or credit line. As to IRC, there were multiple channels before the collapse into #secretundead, and in fact, there remain multiple tiers of channels. This can only lead one to question whether your claim of singular sources to be duplicitous or merely ignorant. As to the audio interviews, they will be posted shortly, at which time the full account of Operation Texas Memo will be revealed with relevant excerpts. If you don't think it's possible that a member of the Many might be disillusioned and upset after the glory has left the room, you might be reading too many of your own edits.--Roops 08:24, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

What? Seriously, what the Hell are you talking about? Also stop making stupid edits to the Pretorians page, it's getting kind of tiring to have to keep NPOVing them. --Katthew 08:29, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

The stuff the Pretorians are saying here is fine. Group pages can be POV, remember? The operations originally needed to be NPOV because they were their own pages, not affiliated with either group. Now, though, since it's on the Pretorian page itself, they can say what they want about their operations. Edit that stuff into the controversy page if you really want to. --LibrarianBrent 13:35, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I've removed the "Pretorian journalism" note temporarily, because Katthew has got a point that the current versions are his (although really trying to claim ownership of a Wiki page is missing the point somewhat). I suggest that someone from the Pretorians rewrite them however they like and restore the note, now that they're in the group POV section. Morlock 14:51, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'm not claiming ownership, I'm simply saying that putting that those summaries were written by the Pretorians is a complete and utter lie and therefore has no place on the wiki. The Pretorians seem utterly incapable of writing anything that isn't heavily biased in their favour and utterly unprofessional in terms of journalism, so putting anything to the contrary shouldn't be allowed. --Katthew 14:57, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

But now that it's in their POV section, they can be as biased as they want if they rewrite it. And a joking claim to have high journalistic standards ("really, really good at this kind of thing" -- come on) within that POV section is just as OK as, say, TZH's asinine wibblings. (This is precisely why I think all this sort of stuff should be somewhere other than the wiki, but I've accepted that I'm outvoted on that one.) Morlock 15:04, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

The problem is they take baseless claims and present them as fact. This zombie group was the Many, we did kill two dozen, we did this and accomplished that and it was successful. Even DARIS' POV section has "List of People Claimed To Be Killed etc."

While I don't mind the Pretorians pretending to be far more important than they actually are, presenting things which cannot be proven (or that can be disproven: I am in the Many and never saw anything of these "operations" or their after-effects) as 100% truth is not what should be in this wiki. The latest one, "Texas Memo", was utter bullshit until I edited it. They have audio interviews with members of the Many? Jesus Christ, who would actually believe that rubbish? It's one thing to write a declaration of independence, quite another to just fill a wiki page with lies. --Katthew 15:13, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Katthew, I suspect that "audio interviews" is actually meant to be the IC description, not what they actually did. I suspect what they actually did was do some shout-outs, and recorded what people said back to them. Considering it's the POV section, I'd recommend not taking what they say quite so OOCly... -- Odd Starter 15:25, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

The "claim" parts of the POV section of the DARIS page are in section titles. I think that's important for clarifying that those sections are still POV. All of the Pretorians' claims are within a clearly-labelled POV section. --Morlock 16:31, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Also, if we're going to have POV sections at all demanding provable 100% truth is pointless. Screenshots can always be doctored, eye witnesses can be accused of being sock puppets. We'll none of us ever be able to "prove" anything happened in-game to the satisfaction of someone determined to dispute it. As long as we have POV sections, I don't see any point in disputing what people write in them except in other POV sections. --Morlock 16:34, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I believe that's an open invitation for everyone to add as much retarded crap as they like, to be honest. You may regret this decision. --Katthew 16:39, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

You mean like a four-screen Declaration of Independence, list of PK victims and List of Martyrs? You go ahead and defend your group page from vandalism and let everyone else defend theirs. The POV-on-Group-Pages idea was approved by the majority of people who cared enough to comment on it a long time ago. --Stankow 16:44, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Better vast amounts of clearly-labelled "retarded crap" than endless tedious revert wars as everybody tries to impose their own POV on everybody else's POV sections. If the Wiki is going to serve as cheap webspace for groups as well as a reference guide to the game, which is the rationale given for POV sections, then we have to accept that some groups will use their webspace for posting retarded crap. We also have to accept that one person's retarded crap is another's unbiased reportage is another's hilarious joke. --Morlock 17:29, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

Should we delete this? Looks like long-winded egotism to me... --LibrarianBrent 12:16, 9 Sep 2005 (BST) It's amusing, and adds to the game. Let them have their fun. --Spiro 12:30, 9 Sep 2005 (BST) - From the DARIS discussion page. C'mon, so long as they stay within the bounds of truth I say let them do their operation write ups the way they want (although it does look much better merged into one page) . --Amazing Rando 17:31, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

The "Unbiased" Note

In favour of the "totally unbiased" "NOTE": if we're going to let groups say whatever they like in their POV sections, to the extent that The Petorians consists entirely of made up stuff about ninjas bringing about world peace for the sake of taking the mick out of these guys, then I think the note is harmless enough and should probably go back in. --Morlock 17:05, 22 Sep 2005 (BST) PS Let's not do any more reverting until there's a consensus, eh? --Morlock 17:08, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'm a little mystified as to why this note is causing so much consternation amongst other editors of the wiki. Perhaps they could explain why they don't believe it to be an appropriate addition to a groups' POV section? --Caballista 14:51, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Note was removed again by an admitted member of the "Petorians." --Stankow 18:14, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

Really, what's the hard-on these people have about this disclaimer? This is petulant. --Caballista 18:16, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

This has to be the lamest revert war I have ever seen. The consensus is that group page POV sections belong to the groups. If you have a coherent argument against that general principle or specifically the note even in spite of it, make it here on the Talk page, don't just keep reverting with no explanation. If necessary, I will protect the page to make sure that happens. But Pretorians -- please don't make needlessly inflammatory statements about the people removing it. --Morlock 18:23, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

Will do. --Caballista 18:25, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

This note's being re-added by the Pretorians? I assumed it was some other group being angrily sarcastic, and that it's making the Wiki look bad. We don't need it, whoever's writing it, and the same goes for the DARIS page. --Spiro 00:19, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yeah, it's self-mockery. As for "making the Wiki look bad", I think the entire idea of allowing POV sections inevitably leads there, but I lost that argument. But if you've got a suggestion for a rule about what sort of material is appropriate for a POV section, I for one would be delighted to hear it. --Morlock 00:33, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

Just "consistency", really. One paragraph of over-the-top sarcasm in an otherwise fairly seriously-written page just looks like vandalism that nobody - least of all the group members - have bothered to delete. But fair enough if the Pretorians are happy with this. --Spiro 00:55, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)