UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Blood Panther vs Donathin
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Blood_Panther vs. Donathin
ok. the basic problem here is with danger levels. i belive the suburb is safe enough to get a "moderate" level and donny thinks is should be "dangerous". i tried to be civil and talk to donathin before coming here but after the arguments started getting more and more heated i asked the danger-level page to be protected, thinking it would help our talks. it didnt. now this is the only option left open to me. i would gladly accept any Arbitrator.--'BPTmz 07:21, 27 June 2007 (BST)
Evidence? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:51, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- I can't see any either way. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:52, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- here are some screen shots taken by Vantar. User:Vantar/Ketchelbank, as you can see, the highest group of zombies is 10. no were near the 50+ needed for Dangerous level.--'BPTmz 07:56, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- Just for all the sysops/arbies here. here BP responds that the resource buildings are not survivor controlled. Since it's an if or thing this would be a dangerous suburb.--karek 11:11, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- You can see reports from a scouting of the suburb here, it includes every resource building in the suburb.--karek 12:02, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- here are some screen shots taken by Vantar. User:Vantar/Ketchelbank, as you can see, the highest group of zombies is 10. no were near the 50+ needed for Dangerous level.--'BPTmz 07:56, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- To note is that Vantar's screenshots do not screenshot the most dangerous and zombie infested section of Ketchelbank (though you can see the edges of that mob where you see the groups of 10). There are over 50+ zombies in a short proximity - it is curious that those screenshots are of the least infested areas of the suburb, and avoid those most infested areas. Karek's screenshots above show an accurate state of the resource buildings. The non-resource buildings are not really in better shape than the resource buildings - a scouting report on those would yield similar results to Karek's above. The suburb is dangerous, pushing very dangerous. To reach a level of security, you need to have one of the required conditions - not all. In this case, there are no 150+ mobs within a short proximity, but there is a very large 50+ mob with consistent destruction in every section of the suburb. The real state of the suburb is that there are simply very few survivors even left in Ketchelbank, because 10+ have been dying on a daily basis. I've never been involved in arbitration, but BP's player has not tried to deal kindly with me at all, since the time that I arrived in Ketchelbank around a month ago, as a new player to Urban Dead. He has harrassed me and my posts (when I was brand new here, he took advantage of really nit-picky guidelines to continually delete my suburb/danger-level posts), and has threatened me several times over. He has also -lied- in a very extreme way, and even manipulated screenshots to try to solidify his case. The truth is that he is, for some reason, obsessed with trying to make Ketchelbank and the Malton Zookeepers look good, despite the fact that Ketchelbank is a wasteland right now. I'm sorry this had to come to arbitration, but I hope the arbitrators can look at Karek's screenshots and get an idea of what is really going on here. Thank you. Donathin 09:00, 27 June 2007 (EST)
- In all of Karek's screenshots, the single largest mob is 11 strong. Providing some proof of image manipulation would come in handy, as would evidence for all of your fairly grandiose claims. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 15:14, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- The suburb is dangerous. If the survivors don't control any resource buildings, the suburb is dangerous no matter how large the mob sets are. I hate that fucking criteria (no offense, hagnat), because it's never accurate. The MOB doesn't clump into "groups of 150" but we damn we can raise an *entire fucking suburb to the goddamned ground* in less than a week. Mostly because we don't clump up *and* we hide indoors so you can't see our numbers. My basic "don't be a dumbass" criteria is: If you are very likely to die by being in the suburb, it's Red. If there is an off-chance you might die while indoors, it's Orange. If you need to sleep in doors but are likely to be alive in the morning, it's Yellow. If you can sleep outside, it's Green. I don't care how many people are there or what the barricade average is (and those are usually strafed anyway). This is stupid. Why are we even having this conversation?--Jorm 16:46, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- Are you replying to me? Your indentation is a little confusing... I'll assume you are.
- I agree with you about the shittiness of the criteria, but this case is dealing with what we've got right now. Under the currently accepted criteria, the suburb is not "Dangerous". I'd be right behind you if you went ahead and proposed the criteria you've outlined there, but we can only work in the here and now. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 16:55, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- Actually i am not the complete responsible for the suburb ratings. I merely drawn them from the previous (and completely flawed) system, improved the interface, tweaked things around and then asked for feedback. People seemed to like it as it was, then it stayed the way it currently is. I did said i was responsible for it in the past, but i think i might have misunderstood your question back there. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:53, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- To note is that Vantar's screenshots do not screenshot the most dangerous and zombie infested section of Ketchelbank (though you can see the edges of that mob where you see the groups of 10). There are over 50+ zombies in a short proximity - it is curious that those screenshots are of the least infested areas of the suburb, and avoid those most infested areas. Karek's screenshots above show an accurate state of the resource buildings. The non-resource buildings are not really in better shape than the resource buildings - a scouting report on those would yield similar results to Karek's above. The suburb is dangerous, pushing very dangerous. To reach a level of security, you need to have one of the required conditions - not all. In this case, there are no 150+ mobs within a short proximity, but there is a very large 50+ mob with consistent destruction in every section of the suburb. The real state of the suburb is that there are simply very few survivors even left in Ketchelbank, because 10+ have been dying on a daily basis. I've never been involved in arbitration, but BP's player has not tried to deal kindly with me at all, since the time that I arrived in Ketchelbank around a month ago, as a new player to Urban Dead. He has harrassed me and my posts (when I was brand new here, he took advantage of really nit-picky guidelines to continually delete my suburb/danger-level posts), and has threatened me several times over. He has also -lied- in a very extreme way, and even manipulated screenshots to try to solidify his case. The truth is that he is, for some reason, obsessed with trying to make Ketchelbank and the Malton Zookeepers look good, despite the fact that Ketchelbank is a wasteland right now. I'm sorry this had to come to arbitration, but I hope the arbitrators can look at Karek's screenshots and get an idea of what is really going on here. Thank you. Donathin 09:00, 27 June 2007 (EST)
- Mobs do not have to be in one square, but can be within a few squares of proximity. So, with a two or three square proximity, including the ransacked and destroyed insides of buildings, there is a huge mob in Ketchelbank. Beyond that, most of the suburb is destroyed and there are very few living survivors there to defend it (far less than the number of zombies). I wasn't accusing anyone of image manipulation - I merely stated that Vantar's "screenshots" purposefully avoided the section of Ketchelbank where the mob is most strongly congregated. Kalek's screenshots show that as of today, almost every building is razed. How can you call the safety level moderate? This issue spans beyond just the argument of whether or not Ketchelbank is moderately dangerous - it is an issue of personal harrassment that BP began with a month ago (when I was a new player) and has continued on with. He's obsessed with making Ketchelbank seem stronger than it is - can we just kill this argument? If you stay in Ketchelbank overnight, there is an very high chance that you will be dead before you log back on. If you need resources, you will not find them in Ketchelbank. It is Dangerous. Can we shut down this arbitration now and get someone to unlock the danger report? I'm not bitter enough to pursue any personal quest against BP to admins, but there's no reason for this to have ever gone this far... because the situation in Ketchelbank is black & white. BP's the only one who has claimed that suburb to be safe in any form, what-so-ever. Donathin 5:29, 27 June 2007 (EST)
- i disagree according to our current guide lines the suburb is not dangerous. change the guildlines if you feel it's wrong.--'BPTmz 23:03, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- EDIT here are some screen shots taken moments ago showing ketchelbank.
- http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m85/blood_panther/MulockDriveRailway.jpg
- http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m85/blood_panther/Hordermotel.jpg
- http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m85/blood_panther/BurltonBank.jpg
- http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m85/blood_panther/trickmuseum.jpg
- http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m85/blood_panther/junkyard.jpg
- http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m85/blood_panther/doutchtowers.jpg
- http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m85/blood_panther/clubLazenbury.jpg
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blood Panther (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- i just moved my character to ketchelbank. Just because of this arby case. It's dangerous. I just ransacked a NT building after earting the one and only brain that used to live there. The pictures above, they prove nothing. There is no single resource building shown in there, and there is only ONE building shown with more than one survivor inside a barricaded building, which makes any mob of 4 zombies a life threatening invading force to any building. Ketchelbank should be kept at Dangerous. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:18, 28 June 2007 (BST)
- do you have evidence of this? and are the zombies inside the resource buildings?--'BPTmz 00:42, 28 June 2007 (BST)
- after reading karek's posts i came to an understanding. yes most resource buildings are open. so this means the suburb is dangerous, even though the zombie numbers are pitiful. our current danger-level system leaves alot of holes, i feel we need to fix this, and make it more stright forward. someone may unprotect the dangerlevel page, i wont change it until the resource buildings are in survior hands. regarding Don's talk of "bulling" i really have no idea what he's talking about. i did not break any rules, and even tried to help him learn about how the wiki works.--'BPTmz 01:15, 28 June 2007 (BST)
- The, now, bold link above shows every resource building in the suburb, this suburb is very borderline VD(my opinion) but is Dangerous according to the current criteria. On an interesting little side note I think the brain Hagnat ate was mine. As for danger levels, numbers for zombies really don't matter, it's more of a ratio thing between how many humans, how many zombies, and how effective the zombies are.--karek 09:16, 28 June 2007 (BST)
- after reading karek's posts i came to an understanding. yes most resource buildings are open. so this means the suburb is dangerous, even though the zombie numbers are pitiful. our current danger-level system leaves alot of holes, i feel we need to fix this, and make it more stright forward. someone may unprotect the dangerlevel page, i wont change it until the resource buildings are in survior hands. regarding Don's talk of "bulling" i really have no idea what he's talking about. i did not break any rules, and even tried to help him learn about how the wiki works.--'BPTmz 01:15, 28 June 2007 (BST)
Is this resolved now BP? Further discussion about modifying the danger levels should probably be done elsewhere -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 09:31, 28 June 2007 (BST)
