UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Pure Group And Suburb Act

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

new

Tell me what you like about 2.0 and what you don't like. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a reason to make group numbers mandatory. It seems to me that the stats page, and the confirmed groups list, already let people see if a group seems to be padding. A note on the talk page to say that the listed figures are out of date seems preferable (to me) than a formal rule. Paul Brunner 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
DORIS is on the stats, then isn't, then is, then isn't. We don't make people put DORIS in our profile. However we do have proof of membership. Some groups don't have any proof. RRF had 900 members total but like 200 active. So those that can't use the stats page as an accurate number use that. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This seems like an argument against what the policy currently says - that anyone can fix group numbers. If only people within the group have an accurate count of the actual membership, they're the only ones who should be making the changes. Paul Brunner 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Given this view that proof of membership is only verifiable (and thereby easily fabricated) by the Group, what's the point of making this a policy? Of course a Group can list its count, anyone else would be considered a vandal.--The Envoy 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there an accurate and useful definition of "power to control" de facto or de jigeur or whatever you called it? Coming from Shearbank, where there were recently a LOT of groups, and overlapping groups, active but what seemed to be an even greater number of unaffiliated types, I don't know what "controlling" a suburb really means. I think in the big picture "control" of space may not so much be a ridiculous claim as a ridiculous claim. Perhaps instead of "control" groups should be encouraged to say what they actually do in a given suburb. Maintain barricades according to DEM or their own policy, hunt zombies, maintain the communications infrastructure, whatever. It just seems "control" is such an empty claim to worry about, and thereby a dubious claim through which a group can establish any sort of editorial authority.
The whole "purity" angle of this policy troubles me greatly. I can see why some people invested in the maintenance of the UD wiki would want the representation of the environment to be all neatly organized, but UD is a far too freeform environment beyond basic combat and search math to be fairly marshaled that way. Yes, stupid and/or out of line things wind up on wiki pages, but I don't think this policy does anything more effective than the case by case methods currently employed. Rather than creating a "pure" policy for Groups, groups should be able to maintain their pages any way the group wants. Challenges to veracity are what discussion pages are for.--The Envoy 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
De facto De jure
When zombies are overrunning a suburb they are obviously in "control." When a group of 100 survivors are the ones obviously holding out against the zombies besieging their Mall they are obviously in "control". So it should be allowed to say that they have control. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the problem is a given suburb being "purely" controled by zombie or humans is pretty rare, I think. Most suburbs are a mix, contested at best. Furthermore, one group holding out against the zombies in a Mall, or anywhere, is incredibly rare. Such stances and maneuvers are usually done by coalitions; and elements of these coalitions may be antagonist with each other and disagree with each other on who the "real" power in a burb is. I'm sorry suburb pages are messy, but the society of the game is very messy.--The Envoy 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Didn't see your glosses for my querry when I was following up, thank you for linking me definitions of "in practice" and "in principle" (by the way, most rhetorical formulations I'm familiar with that try to gussy themselves up with these tend to employ them in the reverse order you're using, maybe something to be said for your employment of them). By garbling your "de Latin", I was merely trying to point out that they're both very much "de whatever" since practice and principle are not as easily separable in this game as some "purist" moderators want them to be since we're talking about conduct within a fiction.--The Envoy 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we add something about crap claims in general? Like ones imply victory? i.e. "We've got your barhah right here" being on the CMS page when they have lost, unless they'd want to be historical. - 343 U! 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All group pages are allowed to say what they want. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so groups control their group pages ... does this need to be codified as a policy, since this is pretty much common sense and the de facto operation of the wiki anyway? The reasons for this policy seem dubious, common case by case sense seems to work better than this policy you're trying to codify here.--The Envoy 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This policy just doesn't work in so many levels. Based on personal experience on this very wiki (which you, Sonny, might be aware of :P) this policy would allow larger groups with a sympathetic mod(s) to do anything they wish on the suburb pages. This is ensured by Groups with the power to control an area or a suburb are allowed to claim it as theirs. As long as they have de facto control, or de jure if they did have de facto control once. and Mods are allowed to punish someone who vandalizes a page claiming it was ridiculous when it clearly wasn't. (To stop trolls who abuse this policy) rules. Specifically the ... As long as they have de facto control, or de jure if they did have de facto control once. part means that any group that was part of the big bash (or some similar event) with more than handful of members can say what they want.

The problem boils down to the definition of a ridiculous claim and the definition of the power needed to make claims, both of which are more or less impossible to solve. Then there is the de jure thing which might be even more vague...

In summary. While the problem of griefing is real I think this policy is way too vague and controversial to be enforced as a solution. --Bonefiver 08:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

2.0 is a better revision although it still slightly vauge as to how someone can offer proof of their claim and so on. Apart from that I am all for it as the recent situation with suburb pages has been stupid and it needs to be stopped. Infact looking at the rest of the comments I feel this policy would be fine. I voted for once and I'd do it again gorram it.Pillsy FT 11:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. To show proof you have game stats, forum numbers, character links, signatures, etc. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 21:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think done this way, you're begging the existence of some sort of group number audit procedure. If such a procedure were thought necessary and made policy, a lot of the shakiness of this "purity" policy would have something to be predicated upon. Heck, we could have audit procedures not just for group numbers claims, but any claim in the game (kills, service, leadership, etc.). But again, this is a game of among other things, social chaos resulting from an apocalyptic metaphysical breakdown of the boundaries between life and death. Thus, the clear transmission of information is de facto woefully broken despite the de jure desire of reasonable people to have something more concrete and factual.--The Envoy 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gage, if I'm reading the logs right, made this edit to 2.0, "Groups with legitimate control of an area are allowed to claim it. Groups that once held control but now do not are still allowed to make claims." While it does clean up some of the de facto de jure peacockiness, and appreciate it that for stylistic reasons, it now sounds strange for different reasons. My objections on whether suburbs are generally controlled by any particular group and my view of this policy as policing for the sake of imposing a non-existent order aside, let's say the group no longer in control is no longer in control because they were vanquished (one of the few black and white change overs of control). They'd really only have authority over historic claims; but the logic of policy now seems to indicate that as long as a group once had a claim on a region, that group has some sort of claiming right. When and how is it determined that a group is out of touch with the suburb to the degree that their claims in the suburb can no longer be considered reasonable.--The Envoy 21:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but aside people carving out their own private fiefs, what purpose does this serve? I think the ridiculous claims are interesting, and would rather see a section of each 'burb page be devoted to claims, ridiculous or otherwise, and let the reader/player make judgment on their own. I think it's ridiculous to 'legislate' something like this...do we _really_ have to resort to sandbox behaviour? Daniel Hicken 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. While the 'nuts and bolts' pages about game mechanics (object usage, searching, etc.) are up to "wikipedian" standards, the location pages, whether the wikipedian-spirited UD wiki users like it or not, are in fact (duh phactoh) fictional supplements to the game that suffer from questionably reliable narrators. That is, there are mechanical pages that ought to be kept up to wikipedian standards, and are, but location and group pages are more for interactive storytelling. Sure, things that are "out of line" or "ridiculous" rise up, but these things are policed by the community just fine from what I've seen (notice the smack down neo-nazi groups tend to get). Again, this "purity" policy is fantasizing some perfect fiction where all the stats of the game can be communicated on the wiki without any noise. That cannot happen unless we all leave and Kevan himself sits down for 8 hours a day to maintain this as the Urban Dead Chronicle.--The Envoy 13:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

old

I'sa like! -thumbs up- It'sa very gooood! -thumbs up more!- --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan. It needs to be tightened up to stop this kind of thing from turning into the kind of wars we had over Danger Reports. I'm not sure what the best way is though. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's only a rough draft. I'm just tired of small groups claiming control of suburbs. When I was leader of the AoG there was a group of 4 telling me if the AoG did not join their group that they'd kill use all. They claimed all of Pitneybank was theirs and we should all disarm ourselves. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not.--J Muller 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This works well for absurd claims, but not everything is black and white- some areas are genuinely contested (Caiger Mall, the day before it fell; Roftwood, where zombies control the mall but nothing else; Havercroft, where the mall changes hands every week). What are we going to do about them? If we just say they're "contested," which seems proper, then we need to define the limits of the term. Any attempt to do that is fairly arbitrary. We also have to ask ourselves what it takes for a group to properly claim a suburb that isn't contested. Ten guys could claim Richmond Hills and there's no one who would really oppose them. Finally, we've got to ask what it takes for a suburb to change hands- and that's a big question. --Ron Burgundy 06:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but agree with Ron. What counts as a valid claim to ownership is far too subjective to be converted into an applicable set of editing rules.
Personally I think we should ban all claims to ownership completely (at least on the wiki anyway - spray tag claims I have no issue with). It simple, straightforward and easy to apply - it also cuts out all the unnecessary arguments, edit wars and vandalism claims. –Ray Vern phz •T 12:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. We'll have two categories. De facto and de jure. Let's use Caiger as an example. It's the de jure capital of the CMS but the de facto capital of CRF. Using those words you say who controls it but who also has claimed it but has the power to back it up or once had the power to back it up. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That works, but how do we decide which is which? The Caiger Mall case is farily clear cut right now, so there's not much to be gained from looking at Caiger if we're worried about less obvious cases. --Ron Burgundy 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
To make a claim the group must be on the stats page or proof outside of the stats page. (Like the RRF zombie list since all 900 signed up members are not active) So if a 1 member group claims Roywood (doesn't exist) we can clearly say now. For like Blackmore it is de facto territory of harmanz and de jure of the RRF. Pretty simple. Dulston would be de jure capital of the Dulston Alliance but right now it is contested with the arrival of DORIS. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 04:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Groups with power cannot claim anything without being targeted while groups with no power can claim. " Free and equal speech exists? STOP THE PRESSES. :) I kid, I kid. There is a valid concern here. I'll be the first to confess that each suburb page gets filled with a bit of...asshattery? Sometimes the "news" presented gets turned into long ambling personal discussion pages. But this doesn't have ANYTHING to do with 'power' or 'ruling class' or whose in charge: It has to do with the seperation of emotion, bias, and facts. I think Ron touched on that well, as did Sonny/Saromu. My own home of Yagoton occasionally has to be edited to turn multi-day 'conversations' into more condensed and factual momentos: And even I'M not sure if thats a good thing. I often find myself moving certain things to the Yagoton Talk page, while keeping the basic 'Just The Facts' info that was presented. Often just acknowledging that a fact is contested avoids the nessesity to adress the contest itself: You only need to link to the parties in question, and their own sites provide the info. --MorthBabid 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is undisputed that the harmanz in Yagoton run the suburb. But when one of the well know and powerful groups say they control the suburb it is removed for POV. But some backwater suburb has that all the time. Why? No one cares about those places so that sort of thing is allowed. So why is it ok when a small group does it but with a big group it isn't? You cannot deny big groups having power. Denying a group that has no evidence of any members' existance is reasonable. So with this policy it would allow POV as long as it's reasonable, can be backed up, and not lies. Groups must also give an accurate number of members. Also if someone edits a group or suburb to fix the POV or accuracy it is not vandalism unless it is bad faith or inaccurate. (EX: I edit the military group to show they really have 3 members, not 500. Or: I edit the suburb page to show the military group does not control the suburb since they have 3 members.) --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!


Better Examples?

I've decided this idea deserves its own section since it deals with a particular part of this policy rather than the entire policy itself. But the editing suggestions in this policy seem...biased in and of their own?

1. The 369th Infantry Regiment sets up shop in Old Arkham. They say "This suburb is now our property." However they have no other members besides the leader. A regular wiki user spots this and edits it. Good ol' General of the 369th get's mad and throws a hissy fit. But our regular user is safe from vandalizing because of this act for preserving the truth.

  • How? By editing to say instead "OMFGD U GUYZ AR LIARS?". No. Perhaps a good way to edit this would be "<Timestamp> The 369th Infanty Regiment has declared today that <suburb> is now their property. Some local residents of <suburb> have countered this claim by pointing out the distinct lack of a massive military presence even being present in <suburb> at all." This would let the FACT that a claim was made be present, while at the same time showing that there is a FACT that this claim is also questioned in its validity. Just because something is contested, doesn't mean it shouldn't be made present. By linking within the news post to relevant sections for more info, we could ensure that the suburb sections wouldn't have to bear the burden of personal battles.

2.Another example would be the Federation of Multon claiming they control the whole city. Users would be allowed to edit the page to get rid of the ridiculous claim.

  • Again, how? If the 'Federation of Multon' made the claim...what of it? I can claim to be the living incarnation of the Watermellon God, and that is fine...but you're also free to disprove that.

This policy needs to re-examine what the TRUE root of the problem is; And I'd think we'd agree that it isn't something as flimsy and immaterial as power, but rather the contestion of claims of value and truth. --MorthBabid 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The user does not need to say the 369th claims it controls it because it's hogshit. The Malton Confederacy right now claims all of Malton and taking down Caiger by itself. Doesn't mean we have to put up with these lies. If a noob or prick claims to control something we all know he doesn't we should be allowed to fix it to keep the truth.
2. Claiming it is a waste of wiki space, clutters the page, contradicts other claims, and creates problems. If it is removed then there is no one going to it later and thinking "This group runs the suburb, I better contact them."
I had problems with this when I ran the AoG. We'd see a group claming Paynterton so we'd contact them to find out they had 3 members. It's a BS claim that they own the suburb. Cause they don't.
If this policy were to be passed the only problem would be people removing stuff claiming "it was an unreasonable claim". Which at that point the mods can call it vandalizing. An example would be Caiger Mall right now. Someone may call saying it's Barhah Mall is unreasonable. But a mod can see that Caiger is in zombie hands and that the person was only trying to grief them. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can see the inherent problems in the very idea of "unreasonable claims", right? You're going to need a LOT more clarification of EXACTLY what terminology you're using. And keep in mind, our Wiki isn't JUST a by-the-facts guideline. In many ways, its an expression of RPing and Metagame fun. So wouldn't it just be BETTER to allow EACH aspect of the game voice themselves in a FAIR way, rather than letting EITHER side dominate over the other? The survivors involved may feel that the zombies are griefing just as much as the zombies feel the survivors are, after all. It'd be far easier to allow both to voice their opinions in a...journalistic fashion, rather than letting one side or the other dominate. --MorthBabid 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wipe

I spoke to Gage and he told me it shouldn't be in voting since I didn't start the voting and instead someone else did. Since it was still in discussion and I was getting new ideas. Now I can't add to it cause someone jumped the gun. I got to go now so he's wiping the votes for me. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There were some good points in the against section so could some of the mods who has (at least should have) access to the source of earlier pages paste them here? --Bonefiver 07:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to discussion...

Not sure by whom, but anyways, nothing has changed. Allowing people to write "Good ol' General of the 369th get's mad and throws a hissy fit" is giving a context for people to do a bad faith edit. Such claims should simply be removed, or ignored. At worse, people can add a note under it pointing out that the group has but one member. And for god's sake, allow "classified" group numbers! No matter what junk and propaganda people put on their group's page, no one should be allowed to touch it! -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I really think this should apply only to suburb pages. Allowing other people to edit a group page (which was never supposed to be NPOV in the first place) is just asking for trouble.--Gage 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree; A non-member editing a groups page is a form of griefing. But we're talking about suburb pages, mostly, like Yagotown's. I've always viewed those as a way where people try to sum up whats going on, regardless of how they feel about it or how they're associated with it. Their feelings and views go on their group and personal pages...right? --MorthBabid 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If I remove groups would that be cool? But at a cost of classified groups cannot make claims since there is no way for them to prove they have any control. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous claims of control, hissy fits, and other propaganda add flavor to the game. That's all I have to say. Asheets 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It also adds drama. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Good! This is a role-playing game. Drama, storytelling, humor...its all in the good fun! From C4NT to the Church of the Resurrection, I'm amazed at what people produce. I enjoy seeing the well-thought-out stuff that comes out of this. I'm a bit worried that your policy is really stemming from some sort of aggression your DORIS group has with the Confederacy of Malton, espcially given what I've seen in Yagoton and your recent postings to the 'Speedy Delete' pages. The fixation on "Who Really Owns What" really seems to underscore this. Now, I can understand you being annoyed when such claims are made on the 'factual' areas, like Suburb news pages and the like...but trying to make distinctions of "pure" groups, and trying to place values on what is "good" and what is "crap"? Those are in a very large part subjective distinctions. There HAS to be a way for two highly interesting and amusing groups to co-exist and express their views...even if they are trying to kill each other in-game. :) I know I for one wouldn't want to see EITHER group banned on the premise of them being "stupid" or "crap"...because I personally don't feel either ARE. Don't you feel that your policy is really just...trying to do too much, too broadly? It reminds me a lot of the Ashcroft policies that tried to do good things in far too restrictive fashions. Do you see where I'm coming from with this? --MorthBabid 21:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Your idea of logic would make a grown man cry. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 21:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay! I can accept that. But then lemme use an example thats close to home. :) DORIS says this: "Article 10: The Populat recognizes Yagoton as the rightful home of late Steve Irwin and will evict all who stay." How is that any more or less factual than the stuff you propose to remove? I personally think its funny...but can you see how someone may think thats just "stupid meaningless crap"? Couldn't your policy be used to remove your own interests...just because a larger group comes by and says they don't think your ideas are "good"?--MorthBabid 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is allowed on group pages...did you read my policy at all? --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and its the Group comment on your revision that I'm refering to. I should have been more specific earlier, my bad. Heres the part I'm refering to in my comments and examples above, taken from the 'Groups' section of your revision: "...they will still be put up for deletions and then voted on if the piece of crap is worth keeping." I'm guessing you're refering to the "vote" being done on the 'Speedy Deletion' page, yes? But if you examine the requirements for a page to even be VALID for a 'Speedy Deletion' vote, you'll notice that ""community standards" isn't one of them. Closest you could get is 'Off-Topic'. Your policy REALLY reminds me of this particular court case you can see here. Note the unique Supreme Court split on the idea. I guess what I'm really trying to say in the end is: There are a number of plausible, less restrictive alternatives to the policy you are proposing...and I don't want you to shoot your own group in the foot, really. --MorthBabid 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No voting occurs on M/SD. Voting can ONLY occur on M/D. No good reason is needed for deleting a page on M/D. I could get one deleted for being "too pink" or "too annoying". As long as it gets the votes, it goes.--Gage 22:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
* Group numbers showing ridiculous claims or "classified" are allowed to be edited. Look, basicly, a group with under 10 members cannot claim a suburb, so classified or not, it is the "confirmed" status that matters here. And anyways, once a group gets "confirmed", anyone can look up their numbers on the stats page. Now, as I said, no one should touch group pages, even if they claim to control every damn player in the game and have numbers of 9999999999, they shouldn't be touched. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. You are not allowed to edit a group's page but if they want to make a claim they need to have proof of their numbers. So a group that claims 500 but doesn't even have 10 members to show up on the stats, cannot make said claim. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see having guidelines for suburb pages, because they're shared resources for everyone who plays. But in my opinion group pages are different, and I just don't see the justification for changing the numbers on them. (If I read the revised policy correctly, that's still permitted.) If Malton Power & Light wants to include stockholders in our figures without requiring them to put the company name in their profile, I don't see why anyone should stop us from doing so. Paul Brunner 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. I removed the group part. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that certantly solves some problems. But can we use better terms than asshattery and ridiculous? Lets just flat out specify so there isn't any debate later on. The implied can always be questioned far easier than the exact. --MorthBabid 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude, seriously. Look up what ridiculous means. Something beyond normal. An extraordinary claim. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 21:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, thats the thing. An extraordinary claim according to who? If someone posted "Morth Babid is a PKer reported In South Yagoton, I've seen him kill people including myself and nothing was done, pretending to belong to a society called YRC, which as far as anyone can determine consists of himself and a bunch of zergers"....How would you determine if that was ridiculous or not under this policy? What forms of proof will be valid? You've got a good draft of WHAT you want to do; What I'd like to see is the HOW. Define the proper forms of proof. Define the methods to determine "legitimate" control. Tell us exactly, because these questions WILL come up. Getting rid of the vaugeness would REALLY help the sucess of your policy. Use my example to help it: How would I disprove my PK-status and show that I have a legitimate influence with my group, and that my group isn't just me? --MorthBabid 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope your happy. You killed all my brain cells. You are responsible for the brain cell genocide. You're going to jail. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, what does that mean? That you can't answer basic questions that your policy is going to present to us? If thats the case, doesn't that mean your policy is flawed? Or do you just need help in defining it and implimenting the specifics? --MorthBabid 20:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it means you're being a retard. If you do not know what a ridiculous claim is then I don't know what to tell you. It's like trying to explain why colors are colors. Why happy is happy. Why wood is from trees. Seriously, read the fucking dictionary. A ridiculous claim is fucking ridiculous. Want to know what is truly ridiculous? You. You and your whole argument. No stop with your stupid shit. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think MorthBabid had a very good point that maybe "ridiculous" and "asshattery" aren't the best word choices for a policy (nor is "stop with your stupid shit" among other ellocutions, the best way to cope with an effort at constructive criticism, but I'll speak to your policy and not your personality, as one should when discussing policy). The problem is sort of the opposite of your de rigeur de jure / de facto fetish. Instead of employing latinate phraseology to make the policy sound all legal and really hashed out logic-wise, "ridiculous" and "asshattery" contain too much of the policy-writer's original emotional response to the situation which the policy writer believes creates need for the policy. To your readers, "ridiculous" may not be a cut and dry term. Quite a few people in the world, perhaps even you with this "purity" policy, have had their hard, and perhaps peer supported, work deemed ridiculous, and were thus subject to ridicule, by some arrogant bullying authority or arbiter. So rather than some sort of objective assessment of someone's truth claim, readers could easily see it as an arbitrary demeaning dismissal, perhaps more to do with personality and association than any sort of truth of the matter. When I was learning to teach writing, there was a "nuts and bolts" section where we got "practical advice", these sorts of aphorisms to guide our conduct outside the pedagogy and theory. The one that always stuck with me was "never write 'bullshit' on a paper, even if it is." Even though I don't see myself ever behind this policy, I do think that this aphorism should be kept in mind in its further fine tuning.--The Envoy 05:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
...Er, more or less. ^_^; I was just trying to point out that the concept of a "ridiculous claim" is really based on ones point of view, and isn't a universal truth or anything like that. Sonny obviously disagrees, and I'm sure a few others do as well, but thats just how I view it (See my examples above). Using FAR more specific terms and specific examples would only make this policy stronger AND safer, and increase its chances of passing a vote. --MorthBabid 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think what Sonny is trying to say is this would only be use in really absurd circumstances. Like when a zombie group of fewer than 200 members claims to be 900 strong and control three or four suburbs. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 05:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Then lets SAY that; If we're going to play the numbers game, we'd better put down a set score so there isn't any room for debate and needless bickering later. List the forms needed to prove and disprove these claims. How many people make a 'group'? What qualifies? Thats a good example you've used there, but IS it what Sonny is proposing? The fact that we only 'think' we know whats being stated only underscores the need for clarity. --MorthBabid 05:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


My Personal opinion

In the few weeks that I have been playing the game I have come to realize that players who have played the game over a long period of time have come to “believe” that they have a level of “control” in the game, when in fact they don‘t. They believe that they have the power to do as they please. They have become power hungry. The views and believes of these players soon effect younger, “less experienced” players. When they effect a good amount of people they get them to form groups and “take over” a building, Mall, or Suburb. Some have even gone as far to say they have control over the city.

Such actions should not be tolerated by groups who do show a level of control, and will not be tolerated by freelance players such as myself. I believe this act will weaken the “Power” of the more controlling players. So As such I ask that anyone and everyone who wants to see a stop to the fooling around caused by groups like “The Confederacy of Malton” and “Iocane Powder”, should vote for this act. I also suggest that the true controlling groups like the “Upper Left Corner” and “Dunell Hills Police Department” should vote for this act because they will finally be able to remove dangerous material form their pages, and the rest of the wiki. --Apex 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous votes

Good points were mentionned so I brought it back here. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 16:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Policy is currently under discussion.

For

  1. I like it. --SirensT RR 07:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sounds good to me. --Pillsy FT 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. My policy. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Nine 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Worthy of an annoying signature!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Votin' for. --Xyu 20:45, 14 November 2006 (GMT)
  7. Indeed. --Bubba Pain 20:49 Nov 14
  8. Agreed. Arainach 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Against

  1. I'm for most of it but I like having "classified" group numbers or other stats. It adds a touch of interest to the game and helps further build the "world" of Urban Dead. ~Tahoe Nov 12 9:22
  2. I think that there needs to be a more structured form to the Suburb Page itself, but as for the specific Suburb pages, I say let the crazies make the claims they want, it does add color to the game. You have to figure that similar would happen if this happen in real life. Daniel Hicken 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is exactly how the system is already (you can remove garbage to ensure NPOV, rewrite it, etc.), it's just next to no one is doing anything about the mess. –Xoid M•T•FU! 18:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Also this doesn't mention bullshit claims made by "groups with the ability to back claims". If they are not going to back up their words and enforce the claim the "lesser groups" like Federation of Multon here should be able to remove/edit/whatever the claim. --Bonefiver 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. This is how the system works already.--Gage 20:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Whoa- it's into voting already?! Sonny, you still haven't defined the limits of what is and is not a "reasonable claim." There are so many gray areas ambiguities. When do you move from "de facto" to "de jour" control and how does that relate to vandalism? Look at Havercroft, for instance. The mall changes hands every few days, but the low-key buildings around the mall are pretty safe. Suppose there were three people, one who says "survivors control Havercroft," another who says "zombies control Havercroft" and a third who says "Havercroft is contested." Only one of those claims is correct, but there is a case to be made that the other two are not so incorrect as to make them "unreasonable." --Ron Burgundy 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Needs more clarification as to what the "editor" can do. I don't like anyone touching my group pages (other than members). Classified should be perfectly legal. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Conceptually I like the idea, but unless some objective way of phrasing the policy is presented, I can't vote for it. Specifically, what constitutes a "ridiculous" claim? Obviously, the case given with a group of one claiming ownership of an entire suburb qualifies. But where is the line drawn? The current phrasing of this policy is way to subjective, and perhaps leaves editors with a false sense that they won't be pursued for vandalism when deleting disputed claims. Also, I am in agreement with several here in support of groups who wish to keep their numbers secret. There are several that discourage or ban their members from adding the group affiliation to their profiles. -Phoenixshade 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. There's no real way to confirm the numbers of a particular group that are present in an area at any one time - so any group with reasonable numbers could spread out across Malton and claim every suburb. You can't base the numbers on in-game sightings and DNA extracting (too open to false claims or too resource intensive). You might base it on activity (Radio broadcasts or wiki contributions), but those can be maintained by a one man band easy enough. Make the whole thing easy and ban territory ownership =) –Ray Vern phz •T 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Pure_Group_And_Suburb_Act&oldid=1370921"