User talk:Insomniac By Choice

Things from long ago

Thanks for the revert. Shadowstar 11:04, 26 Oct 2005 (BST)

No problem.--Insomniac By Choice 12:04, 26 Oct 2005 (BST)

Nice job with your mini-dissertation on The Many. I'm not completely sure it belongs on the wiki, but it's great stuff.--SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel 21:22, 29 Oct 2005 (BST)

Insomniac, do you mind taking over Undying Scourge updates? I just can't keep up with everything at the moment. --Bananafsh 21:33, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Love the work you're doing on the Wiki. Hope you keep it up. --General Maddox 0355EDT, 27 Dec 05

C4NT

*stares at Talk page looking for a heading to put this under* Wow, you've been around a while! Anyway, thanks for stopping by the Channel 4 News Team page. I'd like to ask that you keep personal comments to the Talk page instead of posting them on the main page, but that aside, thanks for the comment! :D Stay Classy! --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 09:02, 5 July 2007 (BST) (at present filling in for the absent Ron Burgundy)

Tactics

Nah, don't worry about it. Actually, I love discussing strategy w/ people, even (or perhaps especially) w/ those who have more experience on the other side of the "lifeline."

Yes, you're right about LUE encountering no significant resistance and about the "River Tactics" thing. Personally, I'm no advocate of any particular style of tactics, whether River or Dam; I just try to adapt to the situation at hand. Of course, you're right in that the whole point of the game is to have fun--I'd rather die in an epic last stand than spend the rest of my life "rivering out" everywhere :p

Anyway, to answer your question: Assuming an ideal situation where I knew that everyone was going to follow orders and no one retreats, this is probably what I'd do:

To be honest, after some thought, I'd probably sacrifice the Mall itself to the zombies in favor of holding the nearest NecroTech Building. For one thing, it's much easier to defend a single-square building against a zombie horde than it is to defend a four-square Mall, since in the case of the latter a single weak point can doom the entire building. Against a Shacknews-pattern horde, the only real way to fight then head-to-head is to have enough numbers to absorb the initial blow and then repel it afterwards. For another, despite the ease of access a Mall provides to many different supplies (ammo, FAKs, etc.), most of these a survivor can do without (if with some difficulty); revivification syringes, however, are of paramount importance, as they allow survivors to return to the fight after they have been killed.

Next, I'd institute a "one-revive-per-day-per-person" policy--unless the revive queues are empty or simply full of Rotters, everyone is responsible for reviving at least one person per day. Devoted NT support staff should spend all of their time either reviving or searching for more syringes. Any organized groups would be encouraged to organize "bucket brigades" so that they can get their whole team up at the same time; as long as one person on that team survives, a decently-organized "bucket brigade" should be able to get the entire team back up and running. Dedicated NT groups could perhaps combine the "bucket brigade" technique w/ dirt-napping (which is explained somewhere on the Wiki), cycling members of the team in and out when they run low on syringes.

Also, I'd modify the standard "Cade-Heal-Kill-Dump" siege procedure to a "Cade-Kill-Dump-Heal" one. Again, it's largely a matter of the way the opposition is constructed--with a Shacknews-pattern horde, the more of them we can give Headshots and put back on the other side of the barricades, the better our chances, since Headshots and barricades are both big AP-wasters for zombies (although, now that hammering on 'cades gives you XP which can be used to buy more skills, part of the point of that--"frustrating" the horde due to the lack of XP gain--is a bit weakened). Furthermore, unless "supply runs" can be safely arranged w/o compromising the overall defense of the building, FAKs are going to be in fairly short supply anyway.

Finally, efforts would be made to figure out the horde's regular strike time (through in-game information only, not through forum-spying; if done properly, all you'd need is a screenshot and for the taker to tell you what time he took it at) and for a fairly large percentage of the defenders to be online at the time in order to try to "seal the breach." Obviously the horde could counter this tactic by regularly changing up their strikes, but if it worked--and that would be a big "if," of course--not only would it prevent a lot of damage that would otherwise have occurred, thus buying more time to prepare for the next wave, but it would also undoubtedly send a nice big shockwave rippling throughout the horde--I was there at the Battle of Santlerville w/ my zombie alt, and I can tell you that one of the most frustrating parts of that fight was to see the 'cades go down, try to enter the building, and see that the 'cades were going right back up again before you could get inside. It was a rather exasperating circumstance--which, I suppose, was something of the point :p

At any rate, I hope you find this little exposition of mine to be interesting and informative. I'd really like to try something like this someday--and I'd be absolutely thrilled if it were to actually work--but unless enough survivors can be convinced to make a stand somewhere, the chances are we probably won't see it happen. Anyway, it was nice talking w/ you, and if you have anything you want to point out or discuss further, I'd be more than happy to listen and / or offer my opinion. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 20:41, 6 July 2007 (BST)

Just thought I'd comment on this, cause I can you know? Anyway, Back when ransack was added/changed many members of the RRF told survivors it was time to abandon the malls for the NTs, they were ignored then but now it is generally considered a consensus among most survivor groups that NTs are best place to stage a defense against a zombie horde, hell it that hadn't been done in the Battle of Santlerville the mall probably would have fallen in a matter of days instead of lasting over a month (I know that was only one of the things survivors did in that siege but it is also one of the most important). That being said, if anything holds out against LUE it will be survivors hording in a single building, that way once LUE go inactive the survivors can barricade, and for 24 hours work on recovery and revival instead of spending time shooting at zombies only so they can come back in for 7 AP, it means something like 37 to 67 AP wasted by the zombie who wants to come back in, in that type of situation 200 some zombies in the building would be a minor and very fixable break, but in a mall odds are it means a ransack and a complete loss. On a side note I've been wondering why Dump gets placed after kill on the essentials list, especially since the change to how dump works. It's 1 AP per zombie and that means more survivors need to work on dumping to keep the whole group alive, it just seems more important than killing cause it effects the zombie when they get on and stops them from standing to kill survivors when they do, personally I'd always dump a body over shooting up a zombie any day, and healing only really matters when zombie are on if you have a good revive system set up.
P.s. there are multiple zombie groups which have been around about as long as the RRF, MotA would be one of those, I believe the Eastonwood Ferals would be another.--karek 04:55, 7 July 2007 (BST)

I know it's unconventional, but I'll answer the last question first, since karek's doesn't really demand a lot of effort to answer: Personally, I have no idea why "Kill" is always listed first. I always try to dump the body immediately after I kill the zombie myself, so I've never really given that issue much thought. Interesting point, though.

To return to Insomniac's questions (left on my talk page): I don't think there's really any single specific"ideal" location in Malton to set up such a defense, but speaking generally, I'd pick an NT that is near a Mall, that also has a number of other resource buildings (PDs, Hospitals, etc.) within easy reach, and that is located in or near an area that generally has a fairly high survivor presence. As for how many would be required to absorb the initial blow: Again, in the absence of a concrete figure, I'd say roughly half again to a little over twice the size of the strike group at least (maybe 400-500 survivors, given the figures you've used), although "the more the merrier," as they say. At any rate, you'd need enough to do three things: Enough people to act as "meatshields" to soak up the initial onslaught, and then enough people left standing to barricade, revive the fallen, and kill-dump any zombies that have broken through. In effect, a proper siege on any scale is generally a battle of attrition to see which lasts longer--the survivors' defensive cohesion or the zombies' patience.

Finally, to address the reason for the Lime Brigade's success: First, the Mall Tour had nowhere near the coordination of groups like Shacknews. It followed more the pattern of a traditional horde--some dedicated strike teams and a few death cultists, but largely (if not predominantly) ferals. Second, the Lime Brigade largely consisted of Shacknews veterans (but you knew that already ;) ). They were familiar with the inner mechanics of a successful zombie horde, which meant they knew what to expect, and they also knew the benefits of coordination. Furthermore, IIRC, the Mall Tour started out relatively small and gained momentum as time went on--it was only when they were able to gain enough momentum to stirke at both Stickling and Whippey that the whole thing started to come apart. Of course, if a zombie veteran who was there can correct me from experience, he's more than welcome to do so, since I was only able to see things from the defender's PoV. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 08:33, 7 July 2007 (BST)

Format

WRT to Stanbury Village, then what is the convention? I thought it was that we were all on UTC and posted accordingly... Stinerman 22:08, 3 July 2007 (BST)

That's true, it was my mistake. I probably ought not have dated it like I did because I wrote it about the events of the previous day which was why the dating was off. The events happened whenever they did but by the time I said something about it, it was already the next day in GMT (I just didn't realize it because I'm in Central time in the United States). It was my fault for the misunderstanding, but it was put in the right section as far as what was intended.-Insomniac By Choice 00:16, 4 July 2007 (BST)

Suggestion:Lie Down

I saw you've put a suggestion on the Talk:Suggestions page. Do you reaslise that that page is a the Developing Suggestions page? If your suggestion is ready for voting on, go to here and follow the instructions there. 'arm. 21:39, 7 July 2007 (BST)

You got it. I just added ---- at the end to seperate yours from the previous one.
Basically you just copy and paste the code in the box that is just above your suggestion, and put it in the right place It's this:

===Suggestion Name===
{{suggestionNew|
suggest_time=~~~~|
suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.|
suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.|
suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.|
<!-- PLEASE LEAVE ALL DISCUSSION **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
discussion=<font size = 3>'''Discussion'''<br></font>
<!-- PLEASE LEAVE ALL DISCUSSION **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->}}
----

Then you just replace the appropriate text. Which you did perfectly. Along with putting it in the right place. I've no idea how you got Keep/Kill/Spam to appear in the first place though, to be honest! 'arm. 23:43, 7 July 2007 (BST)

Oh, I figured out how you got the Keep/Kill/Spam to appear. You missed out the final pipe (this thing: |). But I changed the format of the code in the box (on the page) so that that problem won't occur anymore. 'arm. 02:45, 14 July 2007 (BST)

Well, as I changed the format of the code, it no longer needs to be placed on the end of the description. Noone even needs to remember it now. :) 'arm. 03:11, 14 July 2007 (BST)

Please, don't answer on my talk page question that regards your suggestion. suggestion pages also have talk page for a reason, right? i'lkl answer concerns there --Duke Garland_T^{LCD SSZ} 12:52, 15 July 2007 (BST)

Sure i'll see it faster when it's on my talk page, but suggestions should be discussed by whole community, not with every voter personally --Duke Garland_T^{LCD SSZ} 13:07, 15 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks, but...

Thank you for your recent contribution to the Mall Information Center. However, please remember to use the "user=" field to sign your updates there. I've fixed it for you this time, but if you've any questions regarding this matter feel free to contact me here. Thanks, and have a great day! --Pedentic 03:17, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Hmm?

Uh, what comments? I don't even have radio operation yet. If you're referring to comments on the wiki, am pretty sure that I've only been updating status on the sieges and have never insulted LUE. --Raja Ram 08:59, 12 July 2007 (BST)

I was reading my recent edits, and the closest thing I found was the July 1 update I posted in reply to Vito Mortis. I guess I should clarify a few things. I misunderstood what Vito posted, read the damn thing too fast and thought he was talking about the radio log I posted in it's entirety, and not just the first four broadcasts. Just figured out what he meant now. I had no intention to insult LUE or Barhah Betty. I was under the impression that the entire radio log was a hoax. I apologize for offending LUE. --Raja Ram 08:59, 12 July 2007 (BST)

Oh, that. All the same, my apologies. Thought it was pretty funny at the time though, most zeds I ever saw in one place at a single time. Probably should avoid trenchcoating, if that's what it's called, and just save my AP for mall defense. And please don't come to Santlerville until I level up some more. Heheh, I suppose I'll see you guys soon, judging by the way you've been so methodically ransacking malls around Malton. Well, I shall make my stand at Dowdney! Take care, pal. (Note that the last sentence does not apply when you are sieging a mall I occupy, in which case I shall go down with my shotguns blazing in the spirit of good fun).--Raja Ram 12:50, 12 July 2007 (BST)

NT Updates

Hi. That's a good thing you updated the nic and keep this, but one thing: please sign your updates! -- goebi oo oooo   12:17, 16 July 2007 (BST)

Nroooooo Romblem

Reee rarrg frillinggggg rinnn frooo ureeeeee.--ZmobieToffile 03:26, 17 July 2007 (BST)

Yo.

Do. Not. Edit. The. Survivor. Security. Zone. Page. Thank you. --Benigno ^{SSZ RCC} 00:04, 25 July 2007 (BST)

God forbid a crucial weakness of the concept be included in the main article. Murray J. is a smart guy. Of course, people do prefer to learn the hard way.--Insomniac By Choice 01:02, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Well, we can talk on both our pages if you want. I'll quote myself first .... That's fine, put it on the talk page, not the main page. And the NSZ has already been discussed, and we're actually implementing the idea into the larger SSZ plan. And unless LUE is coming back, you don't stand a chance of taking down all our resources again.

Of course, since I wrote that, you guys announced that you are indeed coming back through. That's fine. We'll rebuild EVEN FASTER after you get done again. Like I said before though, put it on the talk page, not the main article. And MJS is a smart guy, I have simi-regular correspondence with him. The fallacy in your thinking is the assumption that we consider the Malls to be the most important in the zone, when in reality we take all resource buildings and their proximity to each other into account. We already have defense networks around all of our NTs. We have dedicated areas for many of our groups, who do regular patrols and report all the intel to each other. This is just stuff you don't know because we don't go blabbing about it everywhere - we'd rather you underestimate us. Now that that's happened a couple times, you guys realized that it takes a zombie group with the size and co-ordination of LUE to bring us down, and nothing short of that will do the job. So bring it on, I don't care. We'll just rebuild it again, and again, and again, every time becoming stronger and more connected. --Benigno ^{SSZ RCC} 02:26, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Sure. But I'm not underestimating you, I just know you guys really have no idea what you're doing. I don't have to "bring it on". You're going to try to hold malls, those malls will fall in short order, and everyone will die. And then yes, you'll rebuild again. But you wouldn't have to rebuild if you based your defense around NTs as the primary resource building instead of malls because they're not large buildings who spread survivor resources over four squares instead of just one, and they're far more important to long sieges. But hey, you've got a stick up your ass about it, so why am I even bothering to talk about this?--Insomniac By Choice 03:04, 25 July 2007 (BST)

The SSZ page isn't a group page, it's a tactics page. Which means he can add to it and you don't own it Benigno, now you could ask for some type of discussion on it but you have no right to refuse to let him edit it.--Karek^maps?! 03:28, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Ok. --Benigno ^{SSZ RCC} 07:43, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Roywood / Quarlesbank

Roywood was red, check the history - June 23 til July 15. Quarlesbank not up to red yet because of the Calvert Mall. When mall is smashed (we just started to attack it again today, after taking all NTs) then we will put it red. 'arm. 21:55, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Additionally, Jensentown should also be red, from what I saw with my other zombie today. I'm going to do a proper scout tomorrow. 'arm. 03:11, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Just a concerted effort by zombies and our selfless zombie spies (one died last night). We like to see suburbs are Very Dangerous as much as you do. Arguably, zombies don't truly 'own' a suburb until they are rated as such. And we at Extinction want to own a great deal of Malton real-estate. 'arm. 16:52, 6 August 2007 (BST)

Updating

Thanks for the reminder. I haven't been on the Wiki much lately. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 23:11, 31 July 2007 (BST)

HAVERCROFT SAFETY UPDATE BY TARUMIGAN

Yes, I'd be willing to say Havercroft is Safe. The streets are empty of them, and I saw nothing but bodies even though I walked all around outside today. Highly unusual. --Tarumigan 20:40, 7 August 2007 (BST)

Alright. If I don't see you change it, I will later in the day.--Insomniac By Choice 22:06, 7 August 2007 (BST)

Really? When I was floating through there, I spent about twenty AP just to find a non-EHB place. I guess someone fixed the problem within 4 hours, or UD was bugging for me. Oh well, no harm done, right?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:08, 7 August 2007 (BST)

Thanks

For taking care of the Speedy delete part of the vandalism. I'm way too sick to be cleaning up after these fools. Though faggotry isn't the word I would have used, it pretty much gets the point across. Thanks again.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:46, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Suburb Information

Oh, I'm not at all saying the fight is going good for survivors in Shearbank. Rather like every other invasion horde in the history of the game LUE will get around to everything. The August 10th news item was just that, a report that Whippey and Stickling had fallen, but there are plenty of resource buildings to keep the fight going (unlike some Mall Tours who did level the suburb in about two days). If you noticed, more recently I posted an update on the status of Edmund General, key to resistance support in the immediate Shearbank area. It's falling, obviously, but was still in give and take mode the last I was in there. Glad you're not gloating, I saw you guys take a burb a bit over a month ago and was more impressed then, I think you guys are losing steam as the summer winds down. Anyway, hope you're having fun in Shearbank.--The Envoy 19:37, 11 August 2007 (BST)

Oh, I see. You're gripe is with something I said in game. While wiki info and game speak are both "in character" for me, there still a line between the info/news stuff I do on the wiki and the actions of the character I play in game. News items from the Envoy are the sorts of things that'd go into a "Janes Defense" update if Jane's tracked zombie outbreaks. In game, if you've read my page and the USIT page you'd know that The Envoy is a wheeler/dealer of info and always trying to get into other people's buisiness for reasons only known to his superiors. Besides, when I dropped my line at Ranahan it indeed was like LUE didn't know southern Shearbank existed. Remember, off the wiki and in the game, 99% of the info that comes over the wire and even from people's mouths is complete b.s., on the wiki the ratio's more like 72%.--The Envoy 21:30, 11 August 2007 (BST)

Battle of SantLUEville article

I further subdivided because 1) I wanted the Hall defense on August 2nd to stand out and 2) there were a ton of paragraphs that seemed to go on and on and on, so I wanted a section to break that up. I can't stand articles that have like 97 paragraphs in each section. I know it looks kinda bad, and we can try to make it more concise if you want. Also, get your ass on RRF IRC, and we'll talk about this in real time. --Sexy Rexy Grossman 00:26, 12 August 2007 (BST)

West Becktown

Re the danger update, I certainly don't mind it if the danger level is red, it's definitely extremely dangerous in the north and central but last I heard there's a working NT on the southern border and its free run backs onto the survivor stronghold of Molebank. East Becktown is in worse shape although the south is also holding out there for the moment. It could have all changed in the last reset though so feel free to update on the run. Also, regarding your update to the UZM groups it's all rather informal and of the groups listed only about half have taken it up, MoB for instance hates Extinction and Jorm can't stand me although he never got back to me about whether I should remove MoB ... Zombie politics is a beaudifal thang :-) Cheers --Zeug 10:12, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Timeline

Good idea adding the entry about the malls. I don't think many other people would have thought of adding that in. --  T   21:21, 22 August 2007 (BST)

A few things about Extinction

Hi Insomniac, great thread on barhah.com, if you or anyone else is perhaps interested in my censored contribution the screen grab can be found here. As a web dev I see things in rather functional terms and as far as social networks go RRF/CRF/MoB/Gore Corps is a one forum, 3 alt meta-grouping - if you have an alt in each there is going to be networked coordination. The only difference with Extinction/NTJ is the stated belief that this inherent functional coordination isn't "specifically" emphasized ... which means the only real difference is a vaguely qualitative one. As far as I'm concerned the entire RRF argument is as logically flawed and elitist as Jorm's censorship.--Zeug 12:48, 24 August 2007 (BST)

In response to your essay, and funnily enough this is the third long essay I've received from RRF supporters in the last 24hrs after my censored post on the barhah.com thread:

"Playing as a single unit" = zerging which is simply not the issue here. Nor is sentinel abuse. Having an alt in Extinction's NE force around Calvert Mall, another alt in the Caiger force around Molebank and an NTJ operating in the survivor freeruns around Yagoton is not zerging and functionally no different from having an alt in MoB ransacking Pimbank, another in CRF holding Caiger and a Gore Corps operating in the survivor free runs around Yagoton.

In both instances you'd be using the same forum, and accessing different sections of that forum with different user privileges, and interacting with fellow Extinction/NTJ/RRF/CRF/MoB/Gore Corps players. The only difference is that the RRF/CRF/MoB/Gore Corps is nominally "not one group" even though it is actually a meta-grouping inhabited by the same people from the rather elitist closed shop RRF culture who swap alts between them. This is a "qualitative" difference, not a particularly substantive one.

You and others insist this is a radical difference however due to the distributed leadership amongst RRF/CRF/MOB/Gore Corps as opposed to the "centralised hierarchichal" structure of Extinction's "chain of command". But there is no "CoC" in Extinction, as Gkiller pointed out it is a remarkably democratic and egalitarian even chaotic grouping of people who love to argue a lot but keep it fun. Everyone is their own leader in Extinction and the various groupings are constantly in flux and led by whoever thinks up something to do and then convinces others to join them - whether that's a squad going to Dakerstown or back to Calvert, the NTJ, Nocturne or the morning crew (me). We don't like the RRF or MoB "papa/prophet" model of censorship, neophytes and arse licking, we think it's all a load of moralising, patronising, hypocritical bollocks. Most especially given that the worst trollbaiting we get is not from survivor groups or other zed groups but from the closed shop of RRF/CRF/MoB/Gore Corps elitists like Jorm or The Grimch who all share their own forum and alts between one another.

All you've done here is "qualify" a "qualitative" difference in group structure that in the end amounts to nothing other than a poor excuse to label Extinction as "cheaters" and yourself and your associates in RRF/CRF/MoB/Gore Corps as "honourable". The hypocrisy as I said, is truly beautiful. The self serving delusional logic isn't.

Extinction does not hide behind nominal sub groups, it's a mess of differences of opinion and groupings all united by one strategic abstract gameplay goal - The extinction of revival in Malton. You don't need to reduce this debate to what I consider a hypocritical moral elitism. We can actually just agree to disagree on the unitary goal which is what actually distinguishes the two groupings, whereas the group structure itself is functionally indistinguishable. --Zeug 09:35, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Hi Insomniac, you say: "You don't think you can win without using multiple characters to do it. That's all. And that's what everyone will think as well which is why your group's legacy will ultimately be a poor one."

Win what? The extinction of revival, as an abstract gameplay concept, is not something that can be "won" by a UD group. Extinction can set up certain strategic plays to choke survivor supply lines and build non revive zones but the only way we could "win" is by disseminating the concept of Salt the Land and exciting enough other groups and showing ferals how to do it. The gameplay itself would have to become an IDEA disseminated virally.

You seem to think multiple alts means ... what? That we need the silly OEM? notion of NT sentinels? Or ... how do you see multi-alts as a "winning" strategy? I'm genuinely asking here cos I don't know wot you're talking about mate.

I personally could not care less how many characters a player chooses to play this online game with and whether they do it in a Wiki defined group or not. I'd encourage everyone who does have alts to donate at least once, and not just for the IP advantage but to support an online resource and its development. As far as I'm concerned alts have nothing to do with "winning" one way or another, most of us at Extinction just think the whole one alt policy is a load of boy scout bollocks and if any UD group or player likes playing with several alts then go for it. It's not a part of the game plan, we don't make it a requirement of membership, it's just we agreed not to be the sort of group that tells members how they should play. Sentinels? No. Zerging? No. Multi-abuse as in an NTJ healing its zed alt? No. Any cheating whatsoever as defined in the UD FAQ? No!

Not being a tool and getting all moral wheezy about how other people play a game without cheating. YES!

You obviously have some sort of weird moral hang up about that which is a pity. I really don't think it will matter to most players except for the RRF/MoB trollbaiting us about being "zerging scum" etc. which is actually where the problem lies ... in your ridiculous insistence that FU aren't cheaters and Extinction are while RRF/MoB etc use multi-alts on their own forum! It's this kind of non-sensical bollocks that's the problem.

Makes no difference to me though and I like your wiki style and have absolutely no reticence in working with you here if anything arises. That is unless you intend to take the "high moral ground" in which case, in the immortal words of Duke Nukem - I'll rip you a new one. :-) --Zeug 21:06, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Hi again insomniac, you say "Funny how your tone has change from the discussion on zerging to what it is now. Before it was 'show us the evidence'".

I thought we'd already agreed this wasn't about zerging? It's about multi-alts. If you have evidence of zerging then "show me the evidence". As in someone rushing a building's cades then taking out all the survivors with a bunch of alts. Or using sentinels, or anything like that. Extinction agreed at the beginning that relying on a few players to maintain the rage using a mass of alts would be a stupidly inefficient way to go about things, what we need is a mass of players which is why recruitment through forums, tagging, the BLR and Taccon is so important to the group. We just don't restrict players with artificial rules on using alts if they want to play the game, they just have to make sure they're in different parts of the city ... just like someone who has an alt in the CRF holding Caiger doesn't have their alt in a MoB squad running through at the same time as their Gore Corps is pk-ing in the mall.

The stupid thing about this whole debate is that Extinction's game plan is the polar opposite of a few players with a mass of alts. We rely on getting as many people as possible in the non-meta game to follow us, ferals as well as registered members (forum membership is approaching 300 now, active at 150+), and from that base coordinating with the more active forum/shoutbox members and then the IRC crews which are the X:00 heart of Extinction. Network comms are the basis of our gameplay, our tactics have evolved around the comms, and mass comms are there to pull in an many players as possible. That's how we've grown so quickly in 5 short months.

The other stupid thing about this debate is how offended people like your good self get when faced with logic you can't pull apart. I'm rather good at using logical argument if I do say so myself, and while it can be infuriating I can assure you it's not an emotional or vindictive fight for me. It's a game, and that's also why I enjoy playing the game with Extinction. We have non-stop game play debate about structure, tactics and strategy on the private forums but they're all in good humour cos at the end of the day ... it's a game!

So if like Murray J we could just agree to disagree about your "one group one alt" policy and leave it at that ... in good humour ... cool. Just don't expect this to ever end if all you are reduced to is "zerging scum" trollbait about "unethical" behaviour that is in fact not zerging, completely ethical and not even close to cheating. Your rules are not UD's rules, your rules are your own and I have no problem with how you play the game at all. Just stop telling other players how to play ... it's pointless and patronising. --Zeug 09:10, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Heh, you say "you'll have something to refer back to without ever wasting breath on argument again" ... as you might have noticed I very much enjoy a good argument and if it never ends that's totally fine by me! But cool suggestion about Kevan's talk page, I'll put it to Extinction. Would be a good way to really ramp this up :-)

You also say: "You said you have lots of members, suggesting strongly all characters you had were a separate person. As with Brainz's response to my question, I found this quite dishonest in light of your actual policies" - There you go again, Extinction's actual policy is not to put artificial constraints made up by others on how people should play the game. Our policy is actually more honest than RRF/CRF/MoB/Gore Corps pretending they don't have multi-alts across a one forum closed shop meta-group and then trollbaiting others for being "cheaters".

And also: "As for patronizing, I do believe Extinction has some of the most patronizing members in the UD community because if you don't think using multiple members as part of the same group is a valid tactic you're a boy-scout/scrub/hypocrite" - No, being a boy-scout/scrub/hypocrite is making your own rules for your own groups and then patronizingly trollbaiting other groups about it. Extinction doesn't care how you play the game, I don't care how you play the game, just don't expect to get away with trying to tell us how to play the game by your rules - it truly is pointlessly patronizing.

"And most importantly, if the RRF was operating in Darvall Heights while the CRF chomped on Chudleyton and MOB attacked West Becktown and you had a character in all of them, I would have a very big problem with that. But if you notice, they don't do that and apparently, you wouldn't have a problem, either" - Ummmm ... no, like I said Extinction could care less if RRF/MoB etc stick to a 10 block/suburb separation or whatever. Not our concern. But I'm not sure what you mean here anyways as I'm assuming anyone with a CRF alt either withdrew it from Caiger when their RRF alt came through and then returned when that RRF alt moved through to Molebank ... which is what they do. So for you it's "honourable" to have an RRF alt attacking Molebank, which Extinction considers the key to helping CRF hold Barhah Mall, so long as the CRF alt is 2 burbs away? Or is it 3? And for Extinction it's awesome to have both RRF and MoB keeping Barrville and Ridleybank red cos that's the eastern buffer we're relying on for Caiger and the NW Extinction Zone.

Our strategic goal has already factored in not just CRF in Caiger but MoB and RRF and Eastonwood Ferals doing what they do best, they're already coordinating with us whether they like it or not, just not at the group leadership level. Which is fine by me as all zombies are equal in the eyes of the UD game engine when it comes to the extinction of revival.

Awesome debate here by the way and many thanks for helping Extinction air these differences in public beyond the censored trollbait of barhah.com --Zeug 10:25, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Hey Insomniac, now I'm not trying to troll you, I actually really like your style, but I just had a brilliantly stupid idea! What would you say if I edited the NTJ sub-group template to make it a separate wiki group then copy pasted the Extinction wiki article and edited its group template to another group article, say Extinction Guardians. Each group leadership could be assigned to the current leaders of those factions within Extinction. They'd each have admin control of their group forum section on the current Extinction forums and would all institute both a one alt policy and sign on to the Extinction Alliance which is a meta-group Salt the Land alliance.

That way the current Extinction group and its ideology would retain its essential structure but as an actual wiki compliant meta-grouping. Extinction would remain as the IRC strike team "OFFENSE GROUP" along with their low level Food on Us (FOU) followers and mass of ferals. Extinction Guardians would be the current "DEFENSE GROUP" and the Extinction/NTJ would be ... well ... the NTJ.

The Extinction Alliance would be structurally identical to RRF-Gore Corps/CRF/MoB who all swap alts on barhah.com and they'd be reduced to the utterly ludicrous position of arguing that Extinction and any of its its allied groups are "cheating" by collaborating together "too closely" to Salt the Land. I could then offer to start up a Pure Zombies of Malton anti-Salt the Land meta-group article and invite all the barhah.com groups onto it to unilaterally proclaim that: Any and all zed groups in Malton that collaborate together to Salt the Land will be considered by the Pure Zombies of Malton to be "dirty zerging scum fux" and reported immediately to Kevan for liquidation of their UD accounts and wiki groups.

It would take me probably 30 mins max to do all the wiki edits. It could also take Extinction to the next level of Malton Wide coordination by opening up the option of any number of groups signing on to collaborate with us. It could form a multi-group Extinction Movement not limited to Extinction and its forum.

What do you reckon? :-) --Zeug 22:13, 27 August 2007 (BST)

You say "people would have to choose one or the other as far as Extinction zombie or NecoTech Junkie".

They would be two separate and distinct groups as they actually already are within Extinction. The Extinction Alliance expressly denies one group interfering with another group's policies beyond those defined in the Extinction Alliance Treaty so it would be up to the individual leaders to decide.

"And there's no overarching strategy for barhah so each sub-group of Extinction would actually have to have complete autonomy. That means all the leaders can meet and discuss policy, but if one disagrees, it can't be contradicted by someone else"

Ditto to the above, that's the whole point of Salt the Land which is the idea and the Extinction Alliance Treaty which is its formal incarnation with autonomous signatories who can leave at any time. No one can tell any group leaders in Malton what they can or can't collaborate on, it's up to the individual leaders themselves. --Zeug 23:01, 27 August 2007 (BST)

Duke needs to update more NPOV

Sorry, but i didn't wrote those lines, Kevan generated them. And i think they are absolutely NPOV --~~~~_T^''' 09:17, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Info on LUE movement

Hi there! I have a feral zombie character and he has been trying to find LUE for the last three days. He went to the Joachim Mall, but judging by the numbers of zombies around LUE has already gone somewhere else. Do you think it may be worthwhile to show the current location of LUE on the group page? I suppose it would make it easier for feral zombies to follow you. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 08:48, 26 September 2007 (BST)

Embaressing? quite the oppoisite

Insomniac, I find it sad that you get offended whenever someone criticises zombie horde. I ve noticed your posts every time there is a human victory, announced on the wiki you make comments and edits to lessen that victory. Btw I didn’t think our defeat was embarrassing at all. The only reason we were overwhelmed was the massive help you got from Feral zombies, and also the massive use of pking tactics. we lasted what 4 days maybe more against LUE and the other ferals recall the day when the horde could take a mall down in a single night and then dare tell me which side was more embarrassing

Ps. Why do you never the mention the fact that you’re a member of LUE? Perhaps to hide your obvious bias to the zeds.--Weekendwarrior 17:27, 19 October 2007 (BST)

Yo

Im a complete dumass please forgive me. Sockem 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Big Bash & BBC

Hello, I'm Kate Adie from the BBC News Team. I was hoping to get an interview with you with regards the Big Bash II and the attack on Pole Mall. It can either be done Q & A style here or on our forum or real time over msn/etc, either in character or whatever. Anyway, let me know. --Kate Adie 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I got your message, thanks for the advice.--Kate Adie 14:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks For The Heads Up

Thanks for the note. I got out of Havercroft alright, even managed to shoot up some guys while making my way out. On my way to have tea and crumpets with the FEZ. Care to join me down there? --Blanemcc 19:46, 11 June 2008 (BST)

You could always bring the horde. Im sure there's more than enough supplies. Maybe you could get some more (if needed) from Marven Mall on the way down? --Blanemcc 16:46, 12 June 2008 (BST)

The Dead

I updated your article on The Dead seeing that it should probably be written by someone that was in the group. It's unfortunate that you didn't know the actual history of The Dead vs. The Wiki, but I touched on it in the article. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:18, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Warning

Please do not alter signed section of text unless removing them entirely for accepted editorial reasons. Such a concern was raised at here in regards to a recent edit you made to this wiki. Continuing this behaviour may lead to your editing privileges being revoked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swiers (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 June 2008 (BST).

I have backdated it to the time the majority was reached, for fairness. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:06, 20 June 2008 (BST)

Editing the Axes High discussion page

Would you mind explaining why you deleted sections of our discussion page? There was some rather important contact info, as well as some comments that we hold quite dear.

Any further unwelcome edits will be referred to Arbitration. Thank you, Hardcore Rockabilly, Co-First Among Equals, Axes High --Hardcore Rockabilly 12:15, 31 July 2008 (BST)

AH editing

I appreciate your effort to establish an archive, though I've already made one, but the problem is that: 1.) You deleted a comment left for us by another group which we chose to keep. What comments we prefer to keep on that page is our choice, not that of an unaffiliated player.

2.) You managed to further perpetuate a myth that the Axes High of old is a different group than today. AH has had no break in continuity since its formation, and the group as it stands today in the DEM is exactly the same one that has been around since 2005. AH did not disband, only to have a group formed within the DEM under the same name. Rather, its entrance into the DEM was a decision made as a result of majority vote of its members at that time.--Hardcore Rockabilly 23:13, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Howdy

I should have probably did this on board 402 while the last topic was still up, but better late than never. I'd like you to join the MH forum over on barhah.com. I am not trying to persuade you to join the group or anything, but you were in an integral part of LUE and you know your shit when it comes to the wiki, so we would certainly like having you around. PM Zombie in Pajamas over there and I'll set you up with access if you're interested. --ZiP^MH+LUE 22:03, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Nice

--xoxo 12:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)