UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 02

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

February

User:Katthew

Not vandalism, you want to pretend to have a group page for us, you should be ready for whatever we decide our logo is instead of stealing a random image off a forum. --Laughing Man 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow this DoDH's stuff is keeping a/vb busy...more promotions perhaps? *wink*--xoxo 08:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh. For who though?--SeventythreeTalk 09:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We can handle it.--Karekmaps?! 09:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
True. Mind you, what with this new ciy being started, for however short a time, we're going to probably have an influx of new people. Might be an idea for the sysop team to have some new blood. Not neccisarily just because of nasty stuff, like vandal banning, more for other suff, like helping new users out, repairing accidental stuff and just generaly perfoming sysop stuff.--SeventythreeTalk 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm more worried about the lack of any sort of Project Refinery for all the things that are going to come up, such as avoiding issues on the new wiki pages that we have on the old ones.(See South Monroeville) Then I am about not having enough Sysops to do the work, that is now that the majority of places that were neglected get dealt with quickly and efficiently(and thus more Sysops free to deal with stuff like A/VB)--Karekmaps?! 09:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Even so, It's always good to have new blood. Maybe it's not absoulutely vital, but that's not to say the wiki wouldn't benifit! Anyway, is there anything that needs doing right now with the new city? I figured that it might be best to wait before starting on anything, what with the usual chaos at the start of any new project.--SeventythreeTalk 09:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Description pages for the new location types and Cameras. The new building types do have flavor to them, for example Woodlands hide you so that no one can see you unless you are on the same block. The new groups need categorization(See Category:Monroeville Groups), and some other basic information changes need doing, specifically updates to the Monroeville page to include the very essential information about how it's different from Malton. --Karekmaps?! 09:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What a fucking surprise, Karek's burying the posts of everyone who is against him. Could have sworn there was something about this not too long ago. --Laughing Man 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Karek Welp. --Gregarious Instigator 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So let me get this straight. There hasn't been any other admins to approve or deny any action, so you felt you'd just do it all by your merry little self despite? --Gregarious Instigator 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt anyone is surprised by this turn of events. Are there any mods out there who are not corrupted by their authority? --John Fraker 01:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
*Puts up hand* Me me! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you were corrupted before you ever got authority ;) --Honestmistake 10:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah....my bad. I can't help it I'm like a plague.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's really easy for you guys to say that we are corrupt when we have to live with all the shit Katthew and her lackeys has already done in the wiki. All their edits were made in bad faith, always flaming this community users, Most of you guys being in here is not healthy for this community. If you guys are not going to show respect for others, there is no need for the administration team to be lenient with you guys, even in the most trivial cases. If not by some few users that i know and respect that came from the SA forums, i'd love to see all of you banned from here. You can call that corrupted by the power, i call it for the good of the urban dead community --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I like how all of these new mods have forgotten all of the work Katthew did on this damn wiki when it was first made and wasn't a circlejerk. But wait that doesn't matter because they banned her pointlessly then too and pointing out the fact that she is no longer a mod is supposed to hurt her feelings. Also LOL at no need for us to be treated fairly. We'll just get back to the cotton fields now.--DCC 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We weren't the ones that started this. Conndraka did his little deletion workaround dance for the doDH page and when he got called out on it you all acted like it was okay. Then when we tried to make our own page, you personally kept redirecting it to the bullshit workaround. This whole affair is entirely your fault. But instead of accepting responsibility, you blame others for your own problems, ban people who question you, and keep banning them for no reason. You aren't doing this for the good of the community, you're doing this for yourselves. --Laughing Man 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You really shouldn't come here if all you want to do is argue, go to Arbitration, they love that there. And, be advised that bending to your will is corruption, not doing so when you're knowingly, willingly, and purposely attempting to break the rules and abuse the wiki is something quite the opposite.--Karekmaps?! 16:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
bending to our will LOLZ Your little fuck buddy, hagnut, already said we won't get fair treatment. Stop saying we are breaking the rules when all of this shit was started by one of your fucking mods. Deal with him first! Then ban yourself because you're a whiny little bitch that power trips all over the fucking place.--DCC 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is by far the most amazing thing I've heard from you people yet. You've actually summed up exactly what is wrong with you and somehow tried to project it on us, all without any sense of irony. It is a thing of beauty and should be saved forever as a memento to just how poorly run this place is. --Laughing Man 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you pop out of existence when you posted this? Seriously, doctor, heal thyself. --Kid sinister 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It runs O.K when it's used O.K. Arbitration is the place for this. --SeventythreeTalk 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just wanted to say that "All [our] edits were made in bad faith" a a really ridiculous thing to say, hagnat, and as somebody who chose the responsibility as a sysop you should be mature enough to separate the actions of separate members in a group rather than even considering anything like a blanket ban. This whole issue has been resolved in a somewhat less unacceptable fashion even though these A/VB cases are obviously ridiculous and will stand as such in the archives so I'm done here for now. --Riseabove 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Riseabove

Not Vandalism Addison Strack 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Not Vandalism It is our group's right to maintain the pages how we see fit, under your own admissions. --Gregarious Instigator 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And no, that's not at all what I said.--Karekmaps?! 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And I quote:
  • Exactly that. You don't. Once a user decided to create a page about your group, it's there. There shouldnt be censorship in a wiki. --hagnat talk! mod! fuck the rules! 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Who said anything about karek? I didn't say anything about karek. I admit I worded my statement badly, but the point is, the page has been created - BY MEMBERS OF THE GROUP - and you are deleting it and then redirecting to a different one. Stop being fucking cocks.--Gregarious Instigator 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was replying based on your indentation. --Karekmaps?! 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So what ? if they were offensive in any way towards your group, i'd be happy to change the page or even delete it... but since they kept it NPOV, there is nothing you guys can say to justify this page exclusion... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This is my justification.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
.............\.......... _.·´
 ............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Gregarious Instigator 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey hagnat, I never edited the DHPD category page you seem to be referring to (as I'm not a member of the DHPD), only redirects outside of the DHPD category which fall under my group. I'm not clear on your justification of this or how I can avoid further warnings for editing my own group's page to not redirect to a source I didn't vandalize. --Riseabove 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Problem is, you have broken the redirect to a page whom had information about your group. If you dont want your group's page to redirect to that page, you either provide info about your group in these pages or STFU.
You guys seem to not realize what you are doing right now... last month several muslim followers tried to delete Mohamed image from wikipedia, saying it was against their beliefs to have an image of their noble profet. Yeah, right, it might go against their religion and stuff like that, but the vast majority of wiki users dont follow the same beliefs as they do, and it's against wikipedia spirit to censor the online encyclopedia in favor of distinct groups, and so the image was kept... over here is ~a little~ the same... you guys are trying to forbid access to useful information about your group because you simply dont want a page. If you dont want to have fancy stuff written about your group, that's fine, but if any user writes something in a NPOV way about you guys, it has place in the wiki, and you guys shouldnt be able to edit this section. If you think that what it's written in this page is wrong and offensive to your group, you can try to write it differently, or ask the opinion of a third party in A/A, --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet there seems to be great difficulty in you all accepting that typing in "the dead of dunell hill" and hitting the SEARCH button instead of the GO button reveals their masterful article. They can, also, easily link their article to other more high profile pages where the information is relevant.--Gregarious Instigator 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And its the first fucking result, over our own page.--Gregarious Instigator 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Peddlesden Village/News Archive. This is the first hit i got after searching "the dead of dunell hill"... i didnt even knew we had a burb named peddlesden village :P --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should take all this to arbitration or something, if it's an edit conflict over groups and stuff. Might stop you getting warned and banned and clooging up the vandal banning page with somehting that just doesn't need to be there.--SeventythreeTalk 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My bad, with an s at the end. [1]--Gregarious Instigator 21:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Words alert: This isn't a freedom of speech issue, you're missing the point entirely. The point is I didn't vandalize or edit the DHPD category page, it remains in its original form. I simply edited my group's page to not redirect to that page as it's a misrepresentation which has already been deleted re: the rules of this wiki. This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a wiki about a browser based zombie game and as such groups represent themselves. It's quite obvious if you read any group page on this wiki that it's not written in an encyclopedic form as this is a game wiki and only encyclopedic re: pure game mechanics. Does it ever occur to you that there might be players who feel their group is best represented in a minimalist fashion? If you don't want to do your job and delete the non-DHPD pages for my group when we all agree they should be deleted that's fine, but I still don't see how editing my own group's page is vandalism. There are very clear lines here, we are in charge of the content of our group pages and Conndraka is in charge of the content of his group's "information" page. By classifying what Katthew and I did to edit our own group page to not be a redirect you're extending the boundaries unreasonably and giving Conndraka control over the content of our group page outside of his DHPD space. This shows a blatant disregard for the rights of groups to self-represent on this wiki as it's not an encyclopedia for any other groups.
Once again, since you can't seem to acknowledge it: We did not edit the page DHPD put up about our group, we only edited our own group's page to not redirect there which is entirely within our rights as members of the group. That's really all I have to say about that, it's amply clear you either still don't understand what you're ruling on or you're coming up with ridiculous reasons to not follow your own rules. --Riseabove 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Not going to argue here anymore. Move this to A/A, write something decent in your own group page, or STFU. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course you're not, you have no leg to stand on and you know it. I don't want to fuck with arbitration if vandal banning is already so biased in favor of whatever sysops say but if I have to revert my group's page from an inaccurate redirect again I will. I won't blank it but I will change it as I see fit otherwise. --Riseabove 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If you actualy want to get this sorted then arbitration might be your best bet. And if you're realy that concerned with bias or whatever, well, most arbitrators aren't sysops. Well, that and two sysops actualy agreeing on something completely happens once in a blue moon.--SeventythreeTalk 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Katthew

Not Vandalism It is ironic that the creators of this page (created, by the way, to work around the fact that the original page was successfully voted for deletion TWICE) are invoking their "ownership rights" to create a page for another group in their "private" space, redirect a search of that group to their private write-up of that group, and say whatever they want. They invoke "ownership" rights? What about the rights of the group to be able to edit their own page and control its content, if they so choose? You people are shameful and abusive. Addison Strack 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
DEM Roster anyone?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This is pathetic ... if I type in "the dead of dunnel hills" it should NOT automatically redirect to a DHPD subpage. No fucking chance ... that should not even be an issue, people, it's a no-brainer for fuck sake. That being said, to reword what hagnat and others have said... provide some content, even minimal content, a dummy page, what-fucking-ever, for the dead ... and you won't have this issue. EXERT YOUR OWNERSHIP of the page in a concrete way, or forgo the right to bitch, simple choice... If you're not willing to do that, well, that's your self-made problem, so STFU. --WanYao 08:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, it doesn't any more, does it? -- boxy talk • i 08:03 26 February 2008 (BST)
It hasn't for quite a while now.--Karekmaps?! 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Officer Lirette

What the hell? O_o It's like he took a mallet to it, newbie style and fucked the entire page up. How on earth did he mangage that? -- Cheese 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Take a look at it now. Does it look right to you?--SeventythreeTalk 20:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I think everything's back the way it was. :S Looks like he deleted every space between sections. Maybe not vandalism, maybe just a plain newbie mistake? -- Cheese 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Novascotia

It's possible that these two are friends, with Novascotia sometimes using Zinker's PC to go on the wiki. View User_talk:Zinker#This week for (not entirely convincing) evidence. If they are both young, it could also explain the similar writing styles. That's not to say that they definitely aren't the same person, just that it's not the only possible explanation. --Toejam 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

we are not gonna have another jjamesfaxi in here... if they are friends who share the same computer and/or ip, and one of them vandalises, it's their fault... they are going to be threated as a single user with multiple accounts, like Codename V and his main account. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a sensible view. --Toejam 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So...he's the same guy as he reported the other day then? :S -- Cheese 13:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it. --Karekmaps?! 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean they get the ban hammer? It'd make my day that much better, I could tell you that.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeseman, please stop spamming on the main A/VB page. We have a talk page for a reason. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. I shall bear that in mind in future. -- Cheese 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ioncannon11

Yeah...its erm...not a pretty sight. Makes you want to scrub your eyeballs but if you really want to, the link will be here ---> [2] -- Cheese 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't link to the actual site because I assumed everyone knew what Meatspin was by now. Very creepy/disturbing/pornographic, hence vandalism.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Neither did I. :D I've just set it to go to Google. Its bound to have about a million search results for it. -- Cheese 23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
See? Even the old man agrees with me. V& his ass already! :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
O_o I'm not old. -- Cheese 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oldest recorded edit: 19:32, April 1, 2006. You're old by wiki standards.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair nuff. :P -- Cheese 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not... safe to assume it's malicious? Harmful? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. You really don't want to know whats in that video. Trust me. You can probably imagine to be honest. -- Cheese 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to lie to you. Very pornographic. It's a trick shocker site. Want me to describe it?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

off all them sites meatspin is pretty tame – Nubis 01:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be tame(is is) but, it's still pretty much vandalism.--Karekmaps?! 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What Nubis said. Harden the fuck up, UDWiki. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Karek

Not vandalism - it seems like funt has a personal agenda here, whiney ****? --Memoman 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought only sysops could rule on vandal banning...?--J3D 10:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And you would be correct, J3D. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Now to become a sysop so i can rule vandalism on karek...--xoxo 09:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Xela798

He's a noob. He's got some good ideas. Just needs to learn how to do it right. I have faith that this noob can be redeemed. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
He's not a noob. He's leaning more towards n00b, I think. The annoying thing about all these pages is that they all have the exact same thing on them, except that the group box is slightly different. Everything below the group box on all of them is the exact same list of what each building they "own" is for...funny thing is, I think there's about 3 of them in total. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You're talking as if I don't know about these type of groups. Yes, he has no idea what he's talking about. Sure he doesn't have a clue how to use the wiki. I know he's a noob, I hate using 0's. Just keep yelling at him and get a mod to warn him a few times. Eventually he'll learn. He'll either do a 180 or bugger off. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol. I think he's already on two warnings for editing other groups pages. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh...well...he's most likely fucked. I can see it now. He'll log on one day and see he was banned and a puzzled look will come upon his face. He'll say "Why did I get banned?" And it will never occur to him that he was warned several times. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Meh. Probably not. While we wait for a mod to step in, how's Ridleybank these days? -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 22:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Dead. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 22:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Good good. :P Can't be many bra!nz over there though? -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Velo2

You're no fun. Now, I will say "Ni" to you until you bring me...a shrubbery! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Burgundy

Have we got nothing better to \do today? This may be funny (sort of) but its basically just a dupe of the deathcards type stuff that went through the talk page (and possibly voting) a while ago. The flavour is vaguely amusing but I think he probably did put it up as a "serious" idea. In essence its no more a humorous suggestion than Christmas Trees and Halloween masks so taking this to A/VB seems a bit extreme!!! --Honestmistake 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A/VB for suggesting a humorous suggestion is actually in the suggestions rules and was voted in by community majority vote a long time ago. It's always been there and is even listed in the cycling instructions for suggestions. And also, it reads in no way serious to me, the point where he says they stick them on passing zombies or survivors is where it goes way over the line of seriousness.--Karekmaps?! 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Ron's been the victim of a mistake here. He says he is SERIOUS. It was my understanding that a humorous suggestion is one where no one has any intention of it being enacted. He wants this to be enacted, and it's incidental that it's humorous. Am I wrong? Any serious suggestion that's funny gets a vandal report? How dumb is that? For the record I'd probably vote against this one, but I think you guys were a bit heavy handed here and he should not have been warned. Sounds like maybe DUPED - but not taken to Vandal Banning - am I reading the rule incorrectly? I thought the rules for WTFCentaurs and their ilk, not real suggestions for flavor that just happen to incorporate humor. Like, I think it's kinda funny that you hurt yourself when you fall now. If I wanted to seriously as for "nut shot" as an attack option, I'd get sent to A/VB?--Squid Boy 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a SysOp decision, it is deemed vandalism to suggest a humorous suggestion, we have humorous removal to remove them from the system, and in this case it was pretty clear that it was of a wholly humorous nature, as it was voted, there are some more serious suggestions in Humorous Suggestions. But yeah, the suggestion was humorous removed, thus the warning.--Karekmaps?! 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I for one don't agree that it was a humorous suggestion... it is a poor suggestion with very humorous connotations but it is no more ridiculous than christmas trees or horror masks! --Honestmistake 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Rons suggestions are perpetually walking right up to the line on humourous. In this case it walked right on over the line. Every sticker suggestion was a joke, amd sticking it on people was just silly. You may not agree, but its done, the decision has been made, and thats the end of that. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Sticking Stickers on zombies isn't more ridiculous than Christmas trees and horror masks?--Karekmaps?! 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you waste time looking for a christmas tree in a zombie apocalypse? Well maybe, but putting on a mask and yelling "boo" at the zombies is ridiculous???? I agree that this was a pretty rubbish suggestion but it is very much in the theme of other event themed ideas and think a warning is a bit much for such a petty thing. Its done though and as he can't be bothered defending himself he probably was doing it as a joke! (just noticed that he has defended it elsewhere!)--Honestmistake 09:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron is a cool guy, i like him and wish we had not to warn him. But this is a humorous suggestions created in the main suggestions page, therefore vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Honest, please stop using exclamation marks at the end of virtually every single sentence. You sound like a little kid. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please describe a process, under existing rules, where I could seriously submit "nut shot" as a suggestion without getting sent to A/VB? If one doesn't exist, I question if there might be a process flaw here? Why wouldn't I:
a) have a right to have "nut shot" heard by the community - why can't I seriously want to kick a zed in his rotting seeds and see a flavor message like, "The zombie doubles over and moans as you kick them squarely in the groin..."? and
b) Not only have it dismissed out of hand by some draconian fidelity to misguided rules, but further I would wind up being disciplined for it?
In asking, I have tried to be funny, but this is a serious question. Feel free to attack me personally in your answer. Also, use small words because I can be rather thick-headed. Please just have the meat of your argument be ruled by unassailable logic.--Squid Boy 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There probably isn't a way to suggest a "nut shot" under the current rules. The whole concept is just too ridiculous/funny/stupid. Even if you wouldn't intend it as a joke, the suggestion itself is humorous. Ron's suggestion is a pretty clear cut case as the only effect it would have on the game is the "funny".--Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm too busy these days to play crusader on this one, and my ass is still sore from the spanking I justly received on the Parody thing, but I hope this strikes the rest of you as odd. That there is no room for "the funny" as Midianian put it so well. Worse to me though is that its worthy of discipline and ultimately would threaten wiki access.--Squid Boy 13:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, no. There is room for funny, but it shouldn't be the sole purpose (or effect) of the suggestion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't. Your suggestion is silly and will make people laugh, so it should go into Humorous Suggestions. Just saying "This is a serious suggestion" doesnt make a silly suggestion less humorous. If there was any serious reasons for your suggestion to be voted, you need to write a lot about why it's needed, where it could be used, and what would be the effect ingame of it's implemention. The tone of your explanation also should be considered, since using silly examples will prolly shoot down the suggestion as humorous. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly hear what you are saying, but I think it was nicely demonstrated above (trees, masks, hats, clothing, candy) that not everything in the game is "needed" or has any effect other than flavor. It just sometimes seems that the policies of this wiki are more designed for the ease of the managers than for any other reason. "It's hard to deal with, so just disallow it." In the end it's not like any baby seals got clubbed, except maybe Ron in this case - but even then not that badly.
For the record, if I were to suggest nut shot, when using it on a survivor, there would be a 10% chance on a successful hit that the receiver would become infected from ruptured cohones.--Squid Boy 13:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking here... is it really necessary to forbidden humorous suggestions with the system we have today ? This was created when it was hard to mantain the suggestion page, but with such an easy to mantain system we have today this is a piece of cake to handle. If people think a suggestion is humorous and not worthy of being discussed, we could instead allow people to vote in them as humorous in the Spam/Dupe section of a suggestion. Enough humorous votes move the suggestion to the Humorous Suggestions page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Do not start this again. We have a clearly marked humourous section for a reason. Humourous suggestions go there. The reason we have the no humourous suggestions rule is because we were getting almost daily deluges of them. Similiarly, thats why they were explicitely defined as vandalism. There is a place for humourous suggestions, and that is not the main suggestions page. As rules go, it has been one of the more successful ones in discouraging the abhorred behaviour, that doesnt mean it should go away. Example: A warning about a hole shouldnt be taken away just because people stop falling in it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking pretty much the same thing, then i considered how bad 90% of the real humorous suggestions are I decided that I didn't want the pages merged. The thing is though that stuff like Rons might be funny (it wasn't though!) but it might still find a place in the game. "Nut Shot" might be a better example; imagine if this theoretical skill caused freerunning to be switched off and all speech be translated into death rattle until you recieve medical aid. Thats a plausible effect from recieving a knee in the balls and actually might even be a workable skill, in fact call it "crippling strike" and it might even get through voting, however with a name like "Nut Shot" it would be thrown out as humorous cos lets face it seeing your enemy keel over and groan would be funny. Horror Masks would have been spammed into oblivion or more likely moved to humorous and a warning issued... I think a lot of people here forget that this is a game about ramming bananahz into granmothers --Honestmistake 14:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny stuff gets through, but something like Nut Shot would get removed as humorus, it's the least used vote type for a reason, it takes a special serving of extra absurd and ridiculous to get a humorus suggestion removed as such and be brought to A/VB for it. Also, if it's holiday flavor it usually gets dupe removed or spammed because we have holiday flavor and most everything along those lines has been suggested by people who don't realize we have holiday flavor.--Karekmaps?! 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say, I AM SERIOUS. I am very serious. I think it would be a fun addition. Sure, it's humorous in nature, but I seriously am suggesting that it be implemented, thus it is a serious suggestion which is not vandalism. Unless you guys want to spell out a rule against writing suggestions which make people smile, there is nothing wrong. I'd appreciate it if you retract this "Warning" thing and put the suggestion back. If you don't like it, vote against it. --Ron Burgundy 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just change the name to "Cripling Strike" Ron.--Squid Boy 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, man! Intention is like 90% of the law. That's why we distinguish between negligent manslaughter and first degree murder. I'm sorry that I broke through that harsh, cold exterior, Mr. Grimch, and tried to bring some levity to your world. I'm sorry your heart is 3 sizes too small. But if it's 3 times as dense, you probably make out evenly, right? Why don't you buy bigger shoes? --Ron Burgundy 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not really up to us, the voters deemed it humorus, they also deemed such things to be vandalism. Don't like it I'd recommend going to Category_Talk:Suggestions and starting a vote to change the system.--Karekmaps?! 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There were all of two votes! Come on, man, that's ridiculous. --Ron Burgundy 21:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure it was three actually, if you count the remover, four(as I'm pretty sure he didn't vote). Out of about 5-6 votes. I'd also note that while there are very few things that have ever been humorus removed, most all of them have been done with 3 or less humorus votes, with maybe one or two exceptions that had a lot more.--Karekmaps?! 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Three Humorous votes plus boxy didn't vote when he removed it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There were 3 humorous votes; 4 with Boxy's removal... there were also 4 keeps and if my browser hadn't crashed (stupid work computer!!!) there would also have been a kill vote as well. That is hardly counts as saying "the voters deemed it humorous" I have no doubt it would have failed but it certainly was not universally voted down. In all fairness the justification for the Keep votes was universally idiotic though. --Honestmistake 22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is exactly the reason why Humorous suggestions shouldn't be in the main system. People are going to vote based on the funny and ignore the actual effects on the game. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That holds about as much water as the Keeps are anti-dupe votes style arguments from a while back. Read the votes that were made, they're absurd and humorous themselves.(I went back and checked the suggestion after making the above comment)--Karekmaps?! 22:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm...*raises hand* I posted a Humourous Suggestion on the main page a while back by accident and Grim kicked up a fuss then and I didn't get a warning as it was seen as a good faith mistake as I was about to move it myself before Grim edit conflicted me. Could that be taken as precedent of sorts? -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC) BTW: I mean the Main Suggestions page back when it was all on one page. Not the Main Page... -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, there's been much dispute over this rule, generally coming from Boxy and Vista, If what you are talking about is what I think there was considerable drama over the lack of enforcement of the rule. Also, it should be noted, Boxy is the one who filed this report.--Karekmaps?! 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Vista illegally added the good faith part to the equation when ruling on the case for the purpose of letting you off. Good faith is merely used for determining what is and isnt vandalism. When you do something that is puublicly and expressly defined as vandalism, good faith or no, you cop the warn. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Rule ten (emphasis added): "Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and treated appropriately by sysops. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page." If the suggestion was genuinely created with a purpose beyond "satire, insult, or comedy" and into improving the game, then I don't think it qualifies as vandalism under rule 10. (I do appreciate concerns about joke suggestions having the potential to flood the system, and it being difficult to show what an author's intentions were when they made a suggestion.) For background information, here's where the rule was formed. --Toejam 00:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)(More to be added fairly soon)

Prove it, show what it does aside from satire, insult, or comedy, everyone who has complained about it being removed has so far failed to do that. If the suggestions isn't valid for humorous removal that should be pretty simple. Also I changed your link to remove the Edit command.--Karekmaps?! 01:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That suggestion was entirely a joke. The fact that Ron is fucked in the head and genuinely wants the joke in the game changes nothing about the nature of the suggestion, which was entirely humourous. Other suggestions of his have barely managed to scrape by that rule because they had some form of obscure use in the game. I dont see why we are arguing here, except possibly because of the fact that Ron is both popular and charismatic. If it were anyone else, no one would care. This argument is as pointless as a ball. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Look out - Ad hominems off the starboard bow! Man those cannons, boys! --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

VI

Seriously? A vandal banning case over posting more than one suggestion? The Suggestions Dos and Do Nots doesn't even cover it, and that is supposed to be the guidelines. As for "rule 9" isn't that under a section called Advice before Making a Suggestion? The suggestion page really needs to have a section called guidelines or rules that clearly spells out what is allowed, what is not allowed, and what will get you in trouble. --Akule School's in session. 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well. That 1 suggestion per day thing was a suggestion policy from Gage that was passed. We're suppose to move the latest one to the talk page or something like that. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Then can we revamp the suggestion's page so it doesn't look like a confusing mess? Something where the rules for the pages are clearly outlined and then the links to the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots for help in the actual suggestions process? Oh, and perhaps soft warn VI instead of an actual warning so he'll realize that he broke a rule, but not punish him because the page is jumbled? --Akule School's in session. 21:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you are suppose to add {{Multi}} and treat it as a Removed suggestion.--Karekmaps?! 05:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_02&oldid=1091724"