User talk:J Muller

Your Vote

Sorry, I should have been more clear. You can just remove the strike on your old vote and change that, instead of making an entirely new one. Cyberbob  Talk  19:41, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Permaban's are Orwellian?

So you're voting yes on a policy that permabans another user who hasn't earned one to let another off who did? You can hate permabans all you want, but this policy is nothing more than trading one person's permaban for another's. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:14, 21 October 2006 (BST)

"…entirely respectable possiblity…"? You have no idea who Rueful is, do you? He formed GANKBUS, a group who's sole purpose was to grief Amazing's group. He has, amongst other things, accused Amazing of paedophilia (unfoundedly, and repeatedly) on top of PKing Amazing on numerous occasions. He also has a differnet ISP and resides in a different city to Amazing. I'd say it's a safe bet he's not the same person. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:06, 21 October 2006 (BST)

3% for Chips

3% isn't very high, true. But you'd only need to find a single one each time you're alive and you're set. Also you'd find them in the process of searching for syringes, probably several. You could keep the spare ones in reserve for the future. They'd be what newspapers are to first-aid kits but actually useful. --Jon Pyre 10:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah blah…

I take it you're not going to hold a vote about whether the cops should shoot back if someone is hosing the area down with small arms fire? The most someone can be inconvenienced by a incorrectly handed down permaban is about as long as it takes other mods to check their email. Typically a day at the outside, usually less.

One other thing; you've basically said we're wrong because we're in the majority. The majority ain't always right, but nor is it always wrong.

The reason I say there's no reasonable discussion to be had is because there isn't; you are trying to ram this down our throats. People voted overwhleming against the ban reviews policy because it is a waste of time, now you're trying to work in a review before they're banned? Excuse me bud, cops are allowed to lock up criminals once they've been caught for the good of the community at large, then they get a chance to go through a trial. The same principle here; the mods block vandals, then there is M/M and the possibility of an all-users-vote poll to reverse unpopular bans. You've already got your arrest, your trial and your appeals process, what more do you want?

Worse yet? Your idea does exactly the same bloody thing as our system does, only with more work, more room for abuse and reducing the deterrent for all but the most heinous cases of vandalism. Finally, there is always the sockpuppet problem to look at; it's pandemic. There are absolutely no redeeming points to your idea. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 16:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Law Enforcement

Here's how it will help reduce PKing. Let's say a PKer loads up on enough ammunition to take out four people. Normally they'd bust into a building and kill four people. But let's say they escape after killing two cops. They can risk killing another person but then they might be captured and forced to fight again, with too few AP to make an escape. Many might value their own hides over maximum carnage and make their escape. This should end up reducing PKing overall by allowing people to impede PKers in their escapes. Plus...other people can attack the PKer while the PKer is delayed killing a policeman or two. It gives the other defenders a chance to respond. --Jon Pyre 04:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If they kill an enemy of yours you can let them go. --Jon Pyre 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They can still escape in half an hour, or finish the rest of their turn searching in the building, or attacking another PKer. There's nothing that bad about sticking around to explain your actions. --Jon Pyre 07:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Forts

Thanks! I haven't gotten a chance to see a fort yet but I hear it's a bit like what I suggested but with other stuff too. Kevan never puts in suggestions (well, rarely) exactly as they were suggested, there's always some change or addition. I look forward to finding out what it is. --Jon Pyre 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiate of the masses

According to the wiki, "opiate of the masses" is a mistranslation. Opium of the people, where people is used as the masses, is the proper translation. Don't know where anyone got opiate, I've always head "opium of the masses"... Yet everyone on this wiki is saying opiate... -.^ -Certified=Insane^☭ 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Opium, opiate, probably an acceptable substitution, truth be told. Does it really matter if something is opium itself, or merely a derivative? They're usually close enough. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Moderators and Sysops

No current sysops would be limited in any way. They just have the option of taking moderator duties in addition to their current sysop duties if they want to help the people of the wiki work as well as the pages. The only thing a mod in this set-up would be able to do that a sysop couldn't is arbitrate cases. I think requiring those that those who judge disputes to be civil and avoid catfights is reasonable. --Jon Pyre 07:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be confusing to have voting for different positions. I view the voting as simply an expression of trust in whether the person deserves editing powers. Then the mod/sysop should be able to operate in the way they prefer. Otherwise if they ever wanted to switch it'd require a whole new vote, and if someone would run for sysop people would argue "no, run as a mod and vice versa. It's just simpler if it's basically a code of a honor a sysop can choose to take. --Jon Pyre 07:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, if a moderator has no special powers they're just a polite guy. Why bother having them elected when people can just act nice without being appointed? Putting the neutral and fair-minded moderators in charge of arbitration gives them a reason to be elected and giving them sysop powers lets them step in when an argument turns into an editing war, or a user vandalizes someone else's page. --Jon Pyre 07:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions Page

Just came to say that you're doing some funny shit there. Keep up the good work, eh? I need a good laff. --Cap'n Silly 11:32,12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Yourself

Huh... must have hit the wrong username. Well, now I feel silly :P --Gene Splicer 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Zerger Preventing GKing Alteration

I like waffles too. But seriously, what's your objection? This doesn't stop GKers from using firearms to still destroy generators easily, it just makes it harder to zerg. And it's logical that metal weapons against generators would be a bad idea. --Jon Pyre 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mod Strike

Don't remove the mod strike from the page. I left a note on everyone concerned's talk pages. It's ok. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 03:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

X:00

The X:00 page has been heavily updated to reflect that X:00 is rolling into a new "active test phase". If you have a zombie you can use in Riddleybank, please join in. There will be some metagaming involved (obviously, otherwise you would not get this message) but it will be for the purpose of testing in-game methods of attack coordination. All required communication can be done through the wiki. If interested, please also visit and use the X:00 User Registration page. --Swiers ^X:00 18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You

Still around? I haven't seen much out of you recently. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 04:12, 19 May 2007 (BST)