UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Group Pages

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Group Pages

[Regarding whether groups should have carte blanche control of their own pages or whether they should be "controlled" by the community at large, as well as other issues regarding group pages]

Group pages should be separated into two sections. At the top of the page, there should be a section in proper Wiki format with a neutral POV analysis of the group. All users should be allowed to make changes to this section in the interest of improving the article. Below this, there should be a clearly distinguished section where group members can post barricade plans, objectives, and manifestos. I feel, however, that the following should NOT be allowed on group pages or indeed anywhere on the Wiki:

  • PKer/Revive/Do Not Revive lists- These can cause controversy and are often abused. Go to the forums.
  • Unsubstantiated claims about other groups- Relatively self-explanatory.
  • RP chat dialogs- Again, go to the forums.
  • Groups created specifically to insult or mock other groups- Confusing and antagonistic.

Overall, I think that a clear policy such as this one will crack down on the ridiculous factionalism and bickering that has begun to surface here. I would also like to remind all users that the Moderation/Arbitration page is open when these issues need to be resolved and that this would be a better place to work out group disputes and other problems, since the current system of arguing on every related talk page obviously isn't working out. --LibrarianBrent 02:06, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I worry only that the mocking groups rarely explicitly detail themselves as such, and often state other goals. Further, some groups are created for other reasons that can get caught in pure bickering, devolving to nothing but a group specfically for mocking. It can be difficult, in these cases, to figure out whether groups are there purely for insult or mocking purposes, or whether it's only tangential to some other aim.
A clear example is the recent CoL issue. It was claimed by the original CoL that the new CoL was simple built to mock them, while the other side denied this and claimed they existed to perform tasks that they felt the original CoL was not performing. Who do we believe? It is literally the groups' word against each other, and I don't see how we can resolve this. I chose to attempt to resolve it by trying to strike an accord with the two parties, and if the two parties agree, should this policy still be followed?
Further, the "unsubstantiated claim" clause has some issues too - in UD, it's difficult to truly substantiate claims. What should be the minimum requirements for substantial claims? Hell, even when claims get substantiated, there's always POV issues as well.
That said, I do agree that the four statements listed would be very useful in the group pages currently, so don't think I'm disagreeing completely. I'm merely trying to get some discussion on what we mean by the four points above (or at least two of them) -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 02:27, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I was referring to claims such as "we defeated such and such group" or "the so-and-so group has been disbanded". That should probably be made clearer were these changes to go into effect. In terms of intentional mockery, the guidelines would likely need to distinguish between groups like The Petorians or "The Real Imperium", which don't seem to even try to be serious or maintain any sort of standard, and groups like the new CoL, which are controversial but helpful. What would you suggest for situations like this? --LibrarianBrent 02:33, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Clearly this will need to be case-by-case. The silly mockers are easy to spot, and are usually pretty obvious - rarely is there any need to doubt what their purpose. They're not the problem. It's more attempting to figure out whether a serious-looking group is just there to annoy/mock/insult another group. I don't think we can be particularly black-and-white on the issue - we may just have to state "We'll look and make a decision, but there's no clear guidelines". Unless someone can give a nice, clear, step-by-step way of distinguishing between the two? I'm open to suggestions, myself.
The situation gets more muddy when you realise that some of these mocking groups are in the game, and doing stuff, though I think for purposes of policy, we'll just need to blanket-ban their group pages anyway, unless it would be a significant gap not to include them.-- Odd Starter talk | Mod 02:45, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Yeah, I think a lot of these will probably be cases for Arbitration unless someone comes up with a really good idea. --LibrarianBrent 02:59, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Is there anyone in the community that disagrees with the statements above? This is likely to become proper policy shortly if there are no objections. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:11, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I object to the baning of "PKer/Revive/Do Not Revive lists", these documents are very usefull to the survivor population, and if monitored by their authors are resonably resistant to abuse. Alexei Yaruk 16:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Considering that the vast majority of lists operated by individual groups are used almost exclusively for griefing players they dislike, I'm going to have to say that removing them is a Goddamn good thing. I've had characters killed (and not just my main, Katthew) for being "PKers" or "zombie spies" despite the fact that, well, they weren't PKers and there's no such thing as zombie spies. --Katthew 19:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
No such thing as zombie spies? How long have you been playing the game? I know zombie players who openly admit to keeping a survivor mule around so they can hunt for survivor hideouts. There are plenty of cases if you look at Molebank. I doubt zombies would willingly attack a bank at Extremely Heavy to get at three high level survivors they don't even know are in there when there's a hospital with 50+ survivors at VS down the street. If there are no PK lists, there's no reason I can't go around killing every survivor with a shotgun because there's no punishment.--TMH Ben 21:33, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I forgive your misunderstanding. What I meant was "There's no such thing as zombie spies the way that most morons think there are." Of course there are those few players who have human alts to scout out safehouses. What I am referring to is the stereotypical THEY DONE GOTS ZOMBIE SKILLS, KILL 'EM!! paranoia/hysteria that most drooling mongoloids revel in, going around killing "spies" because apparently zombies have no clue that Malls can have humans inside.
Do remember that the only in-game punishment for PKing is that you don't get as much XP. Everything else is done by the players themselves, and as far as I can see it's not all that different from PKing in the first place. However, there's a difference between a PK list run fairly for everyone (like the one on the forum) and those run for a select few that don't even bother to make them known to the general playing public. The ones here on the wiki are stupid, because anyone can edit them to add anyone. It's monumentally easy to abuse them, and the amount of vandalism they incur is stupid for what little worth anyone gets out of them. --Katthew 14:34, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Just because you had one bad experience is no reason to go around yelling that the system is being abused. Revive lists are also needed, even in the revive zone I'm waiting in now, there's 30+ zombies. It's known to all of us that there are zombies in there with Brain Rot waiting for NecroTechs to come around so they can attack them. If you say "use the forums", then go ahead and tell me which forums. UD doesn't have any official forums nor do groups or suburbs even necessarily have their own forums.--TMH Ben 21:33, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
One bad experience? Try forty bad experiences. That's how many times I've been killed for being on a list, despite the fact that I don't have Brain Rot, I'm not a ZOMBIE SPY and I've never killed anyone. However, people still insist upon listing me as a PKer even when there's actually no evidence that I am a PKer, just people who have some wacky grudge against me yelling "KILL HER KILL HER" over and over and expecting other people to do their dirty work.
But hey, if you think that the wiki lists are an AWESOME idea, then why don't I just put you on one for being... oh, I dunno, a zombie spy PKer who's a member of DARIS? Sounds just as legitimate as anything else you're likely to find, and since there's precisely no way for you to prove you're NOT a zombie spy PKer member of DARIS, you can't go bitching about it. Understand why nobody really wants wiki lists now? You'd better.
Oh, and even though UD doesn't have any "official" forums, you might want to try the only general purpose UD forum about at the moment? Desensitised has the most users, the most posts, the most threads, the most activity and is used by almost any group you could care to name. It's the closest thing UD will ever have to an official forum, and even if an official one opened up tomorrow, you can bet that months later, people would still be posting on Desensitised as much as they are today. Just, uh, don't post in Theo's. --Katthew 14:34, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Katthew, I think you are missing the point completely and, may I add, getting extremely worked up and threatening as well. Indeed, you should really apologise to TMH Ben, before he, his group and all their allies take offence and you get added to another list in a different part of Malton. This is a war game. The game is not just being fought by two sides - survivour and human, it is being fought by all the survivour and zombie groups and individuals that populate Malton. Because there are no computer generated characters, the game will reflect the nature of the diversity of the humans that play it. This means that there will be spies and there will be humans who think that anybody who takes zombie skills has crossed the line of what they deem to be human. Whether or not you agree with this “no zombie skill” philosphy or believe it to have merit, is irrelevant. It is that group's philosphy. If they then tell people reading their page, that those who do not espouse the groups creeds should be killed, well that’s their business and the business of those reading that group’s page. If you do not like their ideas, then get your own group to eradicate them in game. Failing that, if they are too big or their ideas are more popular than yours, do as Fell has already suggested. Relocate. There are plenty of suburbs to choose from. Alternatively, you could create a new character and leave the past behind. Breathe in with anger, out with love. --Celt Mac �ireann 10:08, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
what --Katthew 16:07, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Being a skill-hunter, I would just like to add that I have never fallen prey to the apparent zombie spy paranoia. The only reasons I have ever been PKed for were reasons of group affiliation - not my skills, or because of being "on a list". I find this neccessary to note because it seems (to me) that this is the standard case, but never spoken about, because it simply does not upset people, obviously. Accordingly, I find the times when people are wrongly targetted to be overrepresented. Bear in mind this is my personal experience and impression, however. -pinkgothic 17:52, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Remove the PK lists. For example, Denzel Washington has PK's MANY people in Bale Mall. When he was killed in defense, he said that he was a bounty hunter and was just following orders. This conflict leads to two groups of PK lists ,etc. It gets very old

Voting

Let's put it to a vote, then. All in favor of removing PKer/Revive/Don't Revive lists from the wiki, please vote "Remove", or "Yes". All against, please vote "Keep", ' or "No".

  • Yes, im all for this --SirKill 16:04, 12 April 2006 (BST)
  • Remove, many of these lists are confusing or represent intentional misinformation. --LibrarianBrent 19:39, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Remove, Also the evidence of such lists varies from group to group, how would the wiki determine that, and why should the wiki support something that is niether offically sanctioned and very contravesal.--Shareyja 19:59, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Remove, simply because a wiki is the last place you'd want to have lists like this. It just incites stupidity and vandalism. --Katthew 21:52, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Like blocking an ocean with sandbags, but I still say they are just fine. I know that the Imperium's at least is fact checked. Alexei Yaruk 05:43, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete If people want to post this stuff there are plenty of forums on which to do so - sites that are moderated, reviewed for accuracy and regularly updated. Unlike those forums, the wiki lists would be biased and out of date almost immediately. And why reinvent the wheel just because you don't like all the ones that have been working so far? SLA 06:46, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep List keep members of organizations informed, and people who are non-members don't have to believe anything they read in a group's POV section. (it is POV after all) Also Wikizens shouldn't have to take valid information/opinion "elsewhere" because some people are stupid vandals who can't respect another groups POV. --Contaminated 22:20, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - And this is different how to a list kept on the forums? Or even spraypainted on the walls? People should learn not to believe everything they read on the internet. --Daxx 22:38, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Remove - There's far too much potential for abuse in having lists like these on the wiki. It also makes the wiki less of a documentation effort and more of a place for various groups to coordinate their actions -- not necessarily the direction I feel we should be going in. --Chester Katz 22:50, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Some groups use Renfields as an active strategy. These players need to be executed on sight. Also, retaliation must be performed on those who PK group members. Why should the group have to go to a forum to give its members information. The group page IS the groups. As Contaminated also said, Wikicitizens (and everybody) should check who posted the information before believing it. If they don't, what they were told was a 100% Smoking Guns may turn out, not only, to be not smoking but also not to be a gun. Nah, this policy is bollocks! This game is about killing zombies and survivours. If you don't want to die, Don't play the game.--Celt Mac �ireann 08:07, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Remove - Regardless of it's utility, I feel that Group Pages on the wiki should be information about the group, not information for the group. If groups want to have information for their groups, there are many other solutions that are far more useful for them than this wiki, and are 1) more reliable, and 2) do not cause so much vandalism on this wiki. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 13:16, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • If this is your logic, how does the PLEB weather map fit in with this policy. Surely, this can in no way be construed as information about PLEB. It is a resource for the group to help kill zombies. Indeed, I'm sure zombie players in the area feel griefed that their positions are being made known for all and sundry to pop up and kill them. They're zombies not XP farms, as the anti-headshot chant went.
    • In addition, the barricade plans of East Becktown and Lukinswood are also information for the groups in that area. Have you explained to PLEB and Malton Fire Department members that, under your new legislation, these would have to be removed?--Celt Mac �ireann 09:21, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Note that "About, not for" is my justification for agreeing with the no-PK camp, not the policy that is being decided. Other "for, not about" information on group pages are not currently included in this plan, although I'd support the removal of these elements as well, since, for example, the Weather Map could just as easily be replaced by the Zombie Tracker (and I think would be by far the superior resource). Further, the philosophy we're noting here does not extend outside the Group pages, thus the state of affairs on the Lukinswood and Barricade Plan of East Becktown would be unchanged (though I'd support the relocation of the East Becktown map to the East Becktown Suburb page, just quietly). -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 10:53, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
        • I agree... if I could find someone to code a version of the zombie tracker which covered individual squares rather than quadrants, and get access to a suitable server to run it on, then that would be wonderful. As for your suggestion of putting a section of group content on a suburb page - I think that is going to be controversial.--Timothy Askins 13:00, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
          • It could be stated that Barricade plans affect more than just a group and are more than relevant on the given Suburb page. Hell, I'll even state it... -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:42, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
            • I think Tim's logic is that a barricade plan is a group's Point of View of how the suburb should be organised. And while the MCV agree with the Uniform Barricade Plan, removing these plans from a group's page and placing them on a Non Point of View page (suburb pages) would objectify them and thus give more credence to one group's point of view over another's. This could lead to conflict and PKing. Indeed, I think the inital "disagreement" between the PLEB and LXM, and the MCV's experience at Ruggervale Walk PD in Owsleybank, is evidence of where this could lead. Tim?--Celt Mac �ireann 10:20, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Remove - Lists of players have no place on the wiki unless you are listing your own groups members. Its too easily abused, as is demonstrated on Matthew Stewarts Dulston Defense Death Squad Page where he has me labelled as both a Death Cultist and Griefer, when i am neither. I have already been banned from the wiki once as a result of that list (Me trying to delete it as it was nothing but a grief list), as it has resulted in me getting pked three times when i otherwise try to be a helpful person. All lists lead to is griefing, and these individuals cannot defend themselves from the charges due to the nature of the wiki, as the person who runs the list is far from impartial. --Grim s 00:58, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Remove - Lists have no place on the wiki. -phungus420 0103, 27DEC05 (GMT)
  • Question - I'm all for removing Pker lists and such, but will this affect the RABH page? I've been keeping a list of all the Pkers we have executed. Go check it here.--Denzel Washington 01:10, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
This case, I believe, would be a removal. The PKers may have been killed, but it's still a list of users who have been deemed PKers. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 05:31, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Question: Does this suggested policy include other PC lists such a Brain Rot lists and member lists? --Matthew-Stewart 07:19, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I would assume that member lists would continue to be allowed under this policy, Brain Rot lists I'd assume probably not. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 05:31, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I am of the opinion that the less 'official' control excersized over the wiki group pages the better. Having a group list their hit/suspect list on a page does not contribute to chaos (the prevention of which is the only reason I would set controls for), and adding more rules to what is allowed on a groups page detracts from the game. I see no real point to banning the list inclusion, if the page is frequently vandalized players will learn to check the author of relevant entires or get gunned down for their ignorance. On the other hand, if you stalk a member of a particular group, or get caught axing down their barricades, and they list your name on their First To Die section, you deserve it. The more authority and rigidity you impress on a roleplaying game, the worse it gets. If this is a problem because a few people are upset about being so listed...well, having been one, it is usually not undeserved. You can always find another corner of Malton to hide in. An objective analysis of the group, then information on their goals and activities, isn't this what the wiki groups pages should be? If a group wants to claim a few special someones as particular targets, thats a valid part of their manifest.-- Fell
  • Keep As has been mentioned many times before, people shouldn't believe everything they read on the internet. Besides, knowing a group's list of PKs, Brain-Rotters, or anyone else the group has on a Kill On Sight list is valuable, to some degree, to everyone who wants to play in or around the areas in which that group operates. - RosutoEnzeru 19:39, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Maintaining a list is no different from the group saying "We'd like to kill these people", which is a perfectly acceptable POV thing for a group to say. Slicer 22:35, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Remove Too many problems. If people want such lists, they can maintain them elsewhere, like on the unofficial forums. --Shaolinzombie 00:02, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep unless policing is an issue. No one should have to be burdened unfairly with that thankless task. It's unfortunate that some people have to resort to petty and abusive behavior. But, I've found the WIKI to offer great insight into the game -- even with the PKer lists and the like. It has much to offer on the nature of politics within the game itself which exist, even if we don't want them to. I'd really hate to see severe restrictions placed on freedom of information. I realize that there are other forums out there that can provide the same services, but in my experience, the WIKI is a much more neutral forum and considerably easier to deal with than the alternate sources. The lists are going to exist whether we like them or not. THe abuses are going to exist whether we want them here or out of sight. In reality, by deleting them here and not permitting open access to what goes on around "Malton", we get to pretend it doesn't really happen, don't we? --Elizabeth Arden 00:46, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Our group uses the site as information for citizens of the suburb, regardless of affiliation with the group. --Wronghorn 08:20, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Coments
The main problem lies with verifying the authenticity of any of the claims, and the fact that innocent people can and are being targetted and unknowingly griefed in game by people who have no reason to doubt what is on the wiki page. --Grim s 23:52, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
The problem with this is that they can be worded to encourage others to kill those people, especially with trumped up charges (Which cannot be appealed due to the nature of the wiki). If you want lists, put them in your own webspace. --Grim s 23:52, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • And how exactly will this help? So instead of appearing on the wiki, for all to view and evaluate, it'll appear on a forum which we can't edit and which most users won't even see unless they are hardcore and thus more prone to PKing. So, to be clear, you're advocating the establishment of ghost PKlists by hardcore highlevel fanatics. Granted, less people will see it if you hide it away in some dark, secret forum but I would rather it was upfront and in the open so that I, and everybody else, knows who doesn't like me and why. In this way I might find out that perhaps I have done something wrong. Perhaps, I have transgressed somebody's limits. Lists are a way to know this and to create acceptable parameters of Malton society. By their existence they recursively create norms of acceptable behaviour. --Celt Mac �ireann 00:23, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think the big problem is taht people are too finicky and would "Starve to death" in the middle of plunty, if a group wants to have a Reive/Do not revive/Whatever, pieece, let them ahve it. If you are on the list, ask why and try to get yourself removed. - --Fullemtaled 09:29, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is the first step down a slipperly slope. If we ban groups from maintaining their own PK/Revive lists, what next? This level of moderation is rediculous. GreenSamurai 17:27, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Remove - I belive that to many flame wars and other junk is coming up because of the lists posted on the wiki. Many people add other people to the list, just because they have different views. If you want to have a Pker list for your group, get a forum or other webpage that isn't public for everyone to change. Then establish guidelines for who goes on that list, and require proof, such as a screen shot, of the incident. However, I don't think that brain rotter lists should be removed from the wiki. The Yagoton Revivification Clinic brain rotter list requires a profile, which can be checked to see if they have brain rot. It represents the telling of one person to another that such and such a person who looks like this, is impossible to revive. --Golddragon24 17:27, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment -The precedence here has nothing to do with proof, it is about stripping group pages as information resources for the groups, and make them articles about the group. This is stated by the moderators themselves. I believe a good group page is actually a useful resource, not just a NPOV article stating the group's existence and history. --Matthew-Stewart 19:33, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I'd note that it's more than just making group pages into "about" articles. I've had a lot of complaints about people who are added to PKing lists who feel, rightly or wrongly, they don't belong there. PK lists are an invitation to griefing. We've had at least one high profile revert war that was mainly because one person "would not stand" for inclusion in another's PK list. And to be honest, I don't see that PK lists have enough utility to justify their inclusion here. If other communities want PK lists, I'm perfectly fine with this, but I don't think they're useful here.
Further, it was stated early in the wiki's history that what we don't want is Groups using the wiki as a free webhost. That is not what the wiki is for. Admittedly, this has relaxed somewhat since the early days, but I still feel that we should resist the urge to make the wiki effectively a webhost for group pages. Thus, why I feel the "about not for" criterion is a better way to build a group page. There are plenty of free webhosts out there, many free wiki hosts even, and I'd be perfectly happy for groups to link to them from their Group page, but I think the Group page itself should be more an article than a one-stop place for Groups to grab all their information.
This is, however, just my view. Not as a moderator, but as a member of the wiki community. My role as moderator shouldn't even play a part here. The reason this page was set up was so that the community could participate in Policy forming. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 22:04, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I greatly respect the way you have articulated your view point, it shows integrety and a reasoning intellect. The greatest thing about this Wiki is it is THE best source of information about and for the game. The UD Wiki is the only site I need to come to in order to find out a wealth of information for and about UD. This site has made me a firm believer in the greatness of "Wikizenship". I do not believe the acts of vandals should should dictate policy to be taken against those who were vandalized. Our beliefs differ on what would be the best solution to stop people who resort to vandalism when they don't get what they want, but I understand your point of view even if I don't agree with the conclusion you draw from it. --Matthew-Stewart 22:33, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Being killed creates handicaps for both zombies and humans, but humans face a very severe one: it can take forever to be revived. The Wiki page on "revivification points" is indispensable for getting back into action. But since the nearest revivie point is often overcrowded with brain-rotters hogging the space, having revive lists is a necessary supplement. Remove these, and the game becomes more unplayable for humans. --VanBoom 18:33, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Applauds loudly - Yes, VanBoom. A very valid point. We have to spend, on average, around 20 AP to find one syringe. We also have to use an IP hit each time to drop the other rubbish that we find. Come on, how many GPSs, DNA extractors or books from which "You learn nothing" do we really need. Add to this the 5 AP to get from your safe house to the revive point, 1 AP to inject and another 5 AP to get back to a safe house and you have most of a days play gone on a single revive. All for the princely sum of 5XP! No wonder so few people choose to revive. It's a thankless task and far less exciting than pumping a Zed full of lead. Now add to the equation that a Brain Rot can lurch to a revive point to safely sleep the night away without fear of headshot. (Oh sorry, they no longer fear that, do they). What's more, they might even have the luck of being injected with the hard cameby syringe because the person attempting to revive can't see who is going to get the needle as the DNA extracted info isn't linked to the character's UD profile number. Indeed, this is exactly what happened during the recent attack on East Becktown at Dinmead Lane and is currenly happening at Shenton Crescent. In light of these tactics, we can clearly see why some zom...err...people do not want there to be Brain Rot or Revive lists. Their removal would clearly tip the balance in any large scale attack.--Celt Mac �ireann 13:02, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep Groups should be able to have a list, and if it's in danger of vandilization, they can move it to a different page on the wiki and request that it is locked. --Lightman 19:40, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I've found lists on the group wiki pages very helpful - the good ones give me info on what's happening in a suburb, and the bad ones let me know who's less reliable. Of course, it's my responsibility to make sure the info I find is accurate. --Amanda J 21:45, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Unless a useful alternative can be provided and official forums established for each and every group and suburb, this is the only place for it to go. --TMH Ben 21:35, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep I think the group pages are an appropriate place for role-playing. Notifying other members of the group about PKers, revive requests and Zombie spies is a valid extension of role-playing. So what if another group lists your character as a PKer? You then have a group that dislikes you. Moving such lists to unmoderated forums wouldn't solve this problem. Even now, many groups require evidence for claims of PKing and Zombie Spying. While revive lists are a form of metagaming if posted by the dead character, the names of members in need of revivification can be reported just as easily by a living member. All of these things are like groups maintaining lists in the game itself. These are functionally no different than zombie weather reports. All of them represent communication among the group that has to happen outside the game, because the game has no parameters for it. Maleficarum
  • Remove I didn't really read through the variety of votes, but I'm going to reiterate my desire to see bickering and unsubstantiated claims go to the forums. Leave group pages to describe the flavor of the group. --[[User: Brock Freaking Samson}} Brock Freakin Samson 08:04, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Remove Pk/revive lists and the like should be removed from the group pages, but I believe it perfectly acceptable to relocate such information to the group talk page. This would maintain the neutral point of view of the group pages and still allow an unrestricted post of information. -- Skabooga 08:07, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Remove Pk/revive lists are readily available through the forums or on many non-wiki group pages (eg, Yahoo groups.) -- John Maddox John Maddox 19:51, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think you forget that not all groups use offsite means, and nor should they be forced to. Besides which, they should not be forced to use other people's lists. --Lockew 19:53, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - PK/revive lists are information collected by a particular group for use by that or other affiliated groups. Several groups collect and distribute such information as part of their primary functions. As long as such lists are placed in the POV section of the group page, they should be valid and allowed content. The reliability of such information is indicative of the reliability of all POV information from that group. Challenges to such information can take place on the group's talk page. --Otona 3:05 PM, 3 Jan 2006 (Seattle)
  • Keep We should take care not to sterilise the wiki of the sort of dynamic information which keeps people coming back to it on a regular basis. The traffic generated by things like scout reports and spy lists invariably promotes its growth as a whole. I feel that this debate is really about trying to achieve a larger goal in smaller increments. I feel the wiki has already fulfilled its basic purpose, and I don't see why it should be restricted to that. --Timothy Askins 13:00, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Remove A public list which everyone can edit with name of Pk'ers/Zk'ers will most likely end in being a "Revenge" list. If I don't like you, I'll put your name up so people will kill you. And then you'll put my name, and so on. In the end, we'll have a huge list of people, which not all will be pk'ers/zk'ers, but it won't matter anymore, since their reputations will be already tainted and they'll be forced to make new characters if they want to stay clean. -- Locke.dragnarok 13:47, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep Whoever wants to use these lists does it at their own risk and responsibility anyway. Also, some of these are actually quite useful - like the Brain Rotter list at Yagoton Revivification Clinic page. --The Fifth Horseman 14:20, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep Information potentially important to the players in various parts of the city will only get spread out over countless forums and sites, buried out of sight. Not to mention that it breaks some of the game flavor --Doubler 13:48, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep At the very least, the revive/do not revive lists are useful. I don't really see how these could be used for the kind of PK accusation grief described in the most heated parts of the debate above. --Archie 04:34, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep, The PKer/Revive/Don't Revive lists should be allowed on the wiki, per group, so that a group might much easier show their friends, enemies and certain alliances that exist. To ban them would open the way for wikipages filled with links to outside sites which would have a variety of content which cannot be moderated by any who hold the game dear to their hearts and would, in fact, open the way to much more abuse than can be controlled at a place such as this. --Makitk 3:06, 8 January 2006 (GMT +1:00)
  • Keep Just a vote cos I've not much to add to various points above especially not sterilising the Wiki, and be careful not to just drive people away to another site
  • Keep my group has a small PK list that only we use and i personally maintain. its only people who have killed our characters. Any name added to it, that i havn't been briefed on is removed (this has never happened). and besides.. who's job is it gonna be to wander the wiki, reading the hundreds of group pages to remove the lists? waste of resources -- P0p0 21:13, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Remove Group pages are not the place to perpetuate your griefing. While the Brainrot list could be construed as a resource, a PKer list or Kill On Sight list is clearly intended purely for griefing specific people that you don't like. Were it possible I would vote differently on these two lists, but as this is not an option I would prefer to remove all lists than to allow certain individuals to keep an unchecked, unverifiable grief list solely to murder players they have a grudge against. --TheHermit 20:49, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep This information is critical, and needs to be displayed. If you don't get the information that there is a PKer running around the suburb, and you happen to sleep in his building, there is a good chance he'll kill you while you're asleep. And if you die, there is a chance that you will litterally NEVER get revived. I'm not wanting that to happen to me or my friends. If a few names are maliciously added, thats a price we need to pay. And if you still feel strongly about people maliciosly adding names, make it so they need to state a somewhat believable reason, thats what I do when I add names to our list.--Duce Nauks 22:36, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Captain Yar 05:22, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

  • Keep I feel that groups are entitled to indicate those people they have decided are enemies; morevoer, groups are entitled to put whatever they want (within reason) on their page. My group's PK list, and those of our allies, are the only ones I'm going to trust. As far as using some other, more 'universal' PK list, e.g the "new" CoL one--why the hell should I? How is Katthew's judgement any better than mine? If I'm going to take down another survivor I want to be damn sure that they are indeed PKing bastards and not just some poor chump who happened to be on the receiving end of someone's most recent temper tantrum.--Bulgakov 02:42, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep -- ...But with common sense enforced. The Yagoton Revivification Clinic does not publicly support "Do Not Revive" lists and the like: But we do have a public list of zombies known to suffer from Brain Rot in the Yagoton area. This is maintained largly due to the current lack of any skill that allows experienced players to detect Brain Rot, and people posted on this list can easily be confermed simply by viewing their profiles. I think the PK/Do-Not-Revive lists hould be allowed to stay IF they can provide similar in-game evidence. Namely, a screenshot of the PK in action, ideally hosted OFF the wiki (but linked next to the posting) to prevent server overload and to limit postings to organized groups and thus allow some independence of the players. Mods could be called into questions of doctored photos and the like. It'd limit reports also to people intelligent enough to figure out how to work the 'Print Screen' button. :) --MorthBabid 03:29, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Remove As was stated at the very top - keep it on the forums.--DeadMeatGF 20:41, 17 April 2006 (BST)
  • Remove Simply put - do it -- keep the flames to the user-pages or forums Walt.... 13:52, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Post-voting

It seems that removing lists from group pages is not something that the community is agreed upon. With this in mind, this policy probably needs some adjustment. So, to take it from the top:

Group pages should be seperated into two individual sections. At the top of the page, there should be a section in proper Wiki format with a neutral POV analysis of the group. All users should be allowed to make changes to this section in the interest of improving the article. Below this, there should be a clearly divided section where the group members can put up things like barricade plans, objectives, and manifestos. However, I feel as if the following things should NOT be allowed on group pages, or indeed anywhere on the Wiki:

  • PKer/Revive/Do Not Revive lists- These can cause controversy and are often abused. Go to the forums.
Personally, with almost 2/3rds of the vote against, I think that the rejection of this list policy needs to be more strongly stated, rather than a mere strike through. People overwhelmingly did not not like this suggested change and I believe it needs to be acknowledged more firmly.--Celt Mac �ireann 21:36, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Because what I wrote down was a verbatim quote, I felt that I should maintain as much of the quote as possible, and strike out any part that are no longer relevant. The struckthrough text will not exist once the policy is implemented, but since this is not my text, I felt it should remain in order that I don't get accused of twisting another user's words. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 00:30, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I understand what you are saying and the logic of why but, in the policy suggestion after the word manifestos, I think there really needs to be a reference to lists as acceptable objects of inclusion on group pages. If this is not done, I feel that we will probably end up having this same discussion futher down the line as players once again take offence to their inclusion on a list. People need to be made aware that the policy of group pages explicitly includes the validity of lists so that WHEN not IF they complain and ask for a Moderation Ruling, you can point directly to the wording of the policy.--Celt Mac �ireann 07:33, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
You are welcome to create the first draft. This is a place for all members to participate in policy making, after all. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 10:56, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Unsubstantiated claims about other groups- Relatively self-explanatory.
  • RP chat dialogs- Again, go to the forums.
  • Groups created specifically to insult or mock other groups- Confusing and antagonistic.

(from LibrarianBrent)

With the lists issue removed, do people still have issues with the policy as described? -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 07:08, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Do I have issues with them? No. Do I have questions? Yes. The first one is fairly straight forward, however what is the standard of substantiation? Second Policy, does that extend to the talk page? Third policy, I assume moderators will be the arbitrators and sole enforcers of that, also will it be individual moderator or will mulitple moderators vote/discuss before removal of group pages created specifically to insult or mock other groups?
  1. "Unsubstantiated claims about other groups- Relatively self-explanatory."
  2. "RP chat dialogs- Again, go to the forums."

Does the "Journal" Template exist for a reason? The DHPD Maintain an open air "Radio" since november 3rd as seen at Journal:DHPD. Now admittedly we keep most of our Banter on a seperate list, but our "Broadcasts" do reach a number of folk who dont use the forums (nor care to for one reason or another). If a stance is going to be taken, either existing Journals would need to be exempt (grandfathered) or RP exchanges simply allowed with regulations to be decided on size of file. Conndraka 03:34, 3 May 2006 (BST)

  1. "Groups created specifically to insult or mock other groups- Confusing and antagonistic."
Thank you for your time, and I appreciate you clearing up these few details I was wondering about. --Contaminated 21:45, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I'll let LB answer the Substantiation question, since I'm not sure what the details are by him. Second Question, I would assume that talk pages are exempt from most of this, with the possible exception of the whole mocking thing, since in a perfect world that shouldn't happen anywhere on the wiki. Third Question, No, we will not be the sole enforcers. We expect that all users will participate in the enforcement of the groups policy, much like anything else on the wiki, and insulting/mocking group's removal is likely to occur under existing Deletion guidelines (or possibly Speedy Deletion Guidelines, though I'm not so sure about that). In the event of conflicts, we will remain ready and able to assist with Arbitration, as per usual (though anyone can Arbitrate, as per current policy on that subject). -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 23:58, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
In terms of substantiation- You can't say something about another group or user that cannot be proved or agreed to, ON YOUR GROUP PAGE. Yes, this would indeed be a significant change, since a lot of group pages are currently lacking in this regard. --LibrarianBrent 00:04, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I just thought I'd point out that posting a neutral POV analysis of a group may prove to be a difficult concept. Groups make their own pages, afterall, and it would be mighty hard for most to keep neutral. I agree that there should be no silly "we are the best group ever" or "we defeated this group" type things posted in a group's description, but other than that I don't see the point in making a uniform template or standard for group pages.. I feel it would prove too tricky to stay within for most. --Aiden H. 11:52, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

A comment about "Unsubstantiated claims about other groups": What about a hypothetical group AAA web page that said "We of group AAA believe that group ZZZ are cheaters and we try to kill them on sight"? Their claim is substantiated -- it is in fact what group AAA believes and what group AAA does. So far I have found these types of group pages to be quite helpful (although naturally it tells me more about group AAA than group ZZZ). I use forums but I don't like them nearly as much as the wiki. The lists I have found here are just as useful to me as forum lists. The majority of the wiki-users should not be punished just because some users don't understand the nature of wiki or can't figure out how to check history logs. Please don't censor the wiki, simply require that group boasts/antagonisms be reframed as the opinion of that owning group: "Our group claims/believes that ...". --Tycho44 10:45, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Group_Pages&oldid=387665"