User talk:Jak Rhee
General Comments
If it doesn't belong in another category, put it here
Hmm, I'm out of AP right now, but I'll ask around when I wake up tomorrow. If you get close, let me know where you are, and I can revive you if need be. The game change means all the scientists have needles laying around all over the place. --Intx13 00:33, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Well then, any potential for the hatchet? AllStarZ 15:37, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
If he reduces it to 2 x 2, there will be large gaps in between each direction you look at. Example: If you look at north, there will be a large gap in between North and Northwest that you can't look at.
Seriously, I will reconsider. Catch my drift yet? AllStarZ 05:31, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
That was an actual deformed person I think. Check out google for Brian Pepper. AllStarZ 21:26, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Please proceed to link it. Im very lazy and very busy. AllStarZ 21:31, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Regarding Slavik: Frankly, I was hoping someone else would deal with it, because I'm not quite sure what to do. It would definitely warrant a warning, but the guy's already been banned--by the sliding scale I should ban him again, and for longer, if this counts as that kind of offense, but while it was very offensive I'm not sure it warrants a ban...ah, forget it. Now that I see it on my screen it seems much more clear-cut. Ban on the way.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:17, 3 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- I have restarted discussion on suggestion alterations. Lets work on getting something established, and added to the rules - so all of us 'usual voters' can be on the same page with this issue. --Blahblahblah 18:04, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Let's call it a "dormancy" with an "abstract artist gene". --ALIENwolve 00:19, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
WCDZ
For discussion amoung WCDZ members or about stuff relating to the WCDZ
Loyal WCDZ member. We now have a media section on our page. Help the human cause by submitting something if you can, so that none can escape the fury of our propaganda machine. --Your shadow lord, Zaruthustra 06:58, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Welcome Please message us back if you wish to join. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:45, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- You're now officially in the group. You may edit your Evil bio as you see fit. Try to keep it to a few sentences. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:18, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I second that. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:36, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Go to caiger, the only reason we haven't fallen is due to the fact that our location is so out of the way the zombies are way outnumbered. we've got little to no organisation and the survivor groups that I know off here don't impress me, the zombies or anybody. Dulston has always been to safe for a good homegrown group. I'd be at caiger myself now if I hadn't some wierd sentimental attachment to Treweeke. A shame really because my mall has the potential to be one of the easiest of them all to defend if you'd have better and bigger organization and a specific plan.
O well, I've capped about 200 zombies and haven't died once yet by zombie hands at all. I should at least give them a shot at some sort of revenge.--Vista 23:45, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Imprison Slavik --TheTeeHeeMonster 17:54, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Well, his Enemies of the State profile has been updated. So he's back. What a wonderful present, and just in time for my birthday. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:31, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Hey Jack. Been a long time, huh. It's nice to see a familiar face from the old days of the wiki, but sadly i am leaving the wiki for a while so this is preety much all you will ever receive from news from a WCDZ member, since all others already left or were forgotten. The Conspiracy returned to its shadowy manners, so be prepared to implement Operation Dante when you receive the counter-password. Lets just there wont be someone like Grim to reveal us to the world *again*. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:46, 4 October 2006 (BST)
On Suggestions
In the subdivisions here wil be all discussions relating to Suggestions
Damm rules. Ah, well, at least the evil is dead now. Try and see if you can get a ban for the person who instigated that sickness. -- Andrew McM 22:07, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
On Stuff from the REAL Suggestions Page
Comments regarding my votes on the suggestions page, my comments to you regarding suggestions and sugegstions I put on the Suggestions Page
Hmm, I wasn't really looking for an apology, but thank you. I do have a problem with your behaviour (and that of the WCDZ in general), as exemplified by this quote: "If they didnt do what I just said, they deserve to be insulted". You might wish to consider we are all people, and as such, no-one has some innate deserving of ridicule. Certainly not on a wiki for a silly zombie game (cool as it may be). Consider the worst possibility: some jerk spams the main page, posting crap over and over merely to be annoying. Do you honestly think that the WCDZ getting on his case will make him realize the error of his ways? No... arguing with idiots (if indeed that is what they are) merely validates their actions. A troll on the wiki lives for the kind of responses you give... that's why they do it, to get a rise out of people. And if the person is not a troll, then you're merely offending them. I like to think that in a modern, literate, internet-using community, we can be mature and have intelligent discussion, without the need to flame each other. Stupid suggestions get voted off the front page all the time without the need to belittle the author. And simply because the author is an idiot does not mean it's ok for the more intelligent users to ridicule him or her. I think some members of the US government are idiots, but I don't make my point by writing them to say "OMG u r such a retard!!!". That doesn't help anything. And granted your grammar and english is better than that, but to many of us it comes across the same. The WCDZ is no better than the idiots they make fun of, in my opinion. (And yes, feel free to add me to your little "enemies" list for that :) ). *sigh*. I like this wiki... it's fun to read the suggestions and comment on them. Don't ruin that fun for the rest of us. --Intx13 20:52, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Be sure to sign your votes with the --~~~~, not just manually typing your name. This automatically timestamps it and adds the correct link to your userpage.
Apology accepted. To be honest, you didnt offend me though. You merely gave me a route through which i could zing you back. --Grim s 03:41, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Hey Jak, check out my response to Volke's comment on The Horror. I believe it demonstrates why he's wrong. --Daxx 12:55, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Bentley.. you are awesome. --Jak Rhee 03:19, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Jak, thank you kindly. I do what I can to stomp on idiocy in all of its forms. Bentley Foss 04:42, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
It's fine but it's like the third time that that's happened to my vote. --ALIENwolve 19:41, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I saw it. Didn't find very polite, I must say. I edited it, mostly because most people said having an option wasn't right in a better way. Monstah 19:25, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Don't worry, I didn't take any offense. -Monstah 00:07, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I agree with your reasons to kill the proposal, but the problem with headshot revision is that a lot of people will feel that removing the option isn't a big enough change to warrant for a resubmission. He did strike it out, so he's willing to learn (or to please, what is almost as bad as having an option in the first place) Voting kill on anything all suggestion that are variable and open to change in numbers etc. is something that makes me very happy. but a resubmit is a bit much to ask for every time that happens, in my opinion. Besides, think of the amount of extra work it will take if every bad proposal gets resubmitted twice or even trice! think of the children! (and your own sanity...)--Vista 21:49, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- hey you bastard :) - i did mean that suggestion (Robots)seriously (i thought that the cyborg suggestion was serious and the voters voting keep were serious.. i didn't realise it was all a big joke that i just didn't get. robots are second only to zombies in my book, and i foolishly thought that others would enjoy robots in the game too). anyways, thanks for organizing a quick and efficient spam mission to remove my suggestion and for saving me from further embarrisment on that one. (also, forgive my spelling here if it is horrible, my spell check isn't working right now)--Firemanstan 20:56, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Wasn't hiding - in fact, I don't see it customary to sign one's submission. -Skarmory 21:11, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
italics are edits I make for clarity when shufflign thigns aroudn my talk space
Knife Suggestions
Would you look at and review My Knife Sugestion? I'd greatly appreciate your ideas on the subject. Thank you for your time. --Matthew Stewart 23:31, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
This is actually about the 50 person list suggestion, thanks. That guy really getting annoying with his replies. I am not an expert but that stuff is something you don't have to be an expert to figure out. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to review the suggestion in my workshop, thank you for that. --Matthew Stewart 07:54, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Re: Tazer
Actually they do have merit. Spam is for suggestiosn that we feel are absolutely ridiculous or pointless or game breaking. In this case its not game-breaking, in my - and the other Spam voters - opinion, it certainly is ridiculous and pointless. Not worth coding in any shape or form. You disagree and thats fine. But they do have merit and are valid. --Jak Rhee 06:37, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Spam is not for suggestions that you feel are "game breaking". Spam is not a "strong kill". If a suggestion is serious and not a duplicate, it is worthy of its keep/kill vote and discussion on its merits. Everybody on that vote just voted Spam because of the recent Suggestions trolling issues, and "strong kill" tendency. In fact, if everybody used their vote correctly I would doubt the suggestion would get past Peer Rejected. Spam votes are not on the same level as keep and kill. A spam is basically saying "this has problems with it beyond the level of a normal suggestion/is intended to incite trouble/is a duplicate". You don't have the right to stop other people from, at the very least, voting the way they want, because you think something is ridiculous, pointless or game-breaking -- and then don't even give valid justification. It's unfortunate that somebody had to make things worse by taking it upon themselves to cross out your votes, as that is not his prerogative. I at least gave justification as to why the suggestion is not spam - and I often view keep and kill votes as barely requiring justification, let alone Spam.
- Anyways, sorry I'm taking up so much space on your talk page. I'm not very eloquent but I wanted to express my thoughts as best I could. Riktar 23:06, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Re: Making the Game FAIR
I was forced to vote Keep because everyone was voting Spam. I wouldn't have a problem if it was Kills, but Spam is exceedingly cruel and unfair considering the author probably spent much time writing that up while all it takes is a few angry people in a few seconds to completely Spabomb it into oblivion. Basically, I don't see the problem in allowing the suggestion to live its meagre 2 weeks and give the suggestion (and the author) a chance. --Daednabru 22:10, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I agree with you to an extent, but even considering we completely take out the human feeling factor out, there is still the fact that a bad suggestion still has alot to offer - leastways as being an example or lesson to future posters as what not to suggest. --Daednabru 22:22, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Pit of Despair
Damn. What a day. One more spam suggestion and it'll be five in a row. Running riot! --Zaruthustra 21:27, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
"please do not confuse people with your suggestions that are not rules" refers to this: [1]--Cah51o 00:34, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
On My Suggestions In Development
Talk about the Developmental Suggestions from my main page
Zombie Strongholds
Comment on Zombie Strongholds idea here
Just thinking out loud, You got ridleybank, just for bragging rights. but actual benefits aren't there for zombies other then a staging area for excursions and safety in numbers. and you've got the gingerbread men on the semi offensive. that is as close as we have it now.
We've got some suggestions in peer-reviewed that would give zombies more dynamic in stronghold play. With ransack, zombies could deepen their hold on a Stronghold/suburb. and with bile attack they could have the reason of resources to do so.
but the main problem is ofcourse that unlike zombies, humans can't really go on the offensive. the zombie attack is succesfull when all humans are dead or fled. You can't kill zombies and making them flee is so much harder because of that. So your either left with finding a way to annoy zombies enough to relocate them which in my mind is likely to be griefing or find some other way to set a human 'victory' but I can't think of anything that would work with large groups. In pure gamemechanics terms that's were the rub is. I can't think on anything on the fly right now.
flavor wise it a toughie, Defending zombies will be hugely impopular, so you'd need to copy the ridleybank dynamic. zombies not as much defending as more missing their mark with their attacks, that you could sell. Dificult to reconsile with the above bit, I know, but this is the best I can do right now.--Vista 00:29, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
The reason a zombie would want to stay at a stronghold are two-fold! One: give them advantages so they want to hang around there. Two: Strongholds would atract humans looking for easy to find targets.--Mr NoName 20:49, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Discussion with Amazing
See my Responce to AllStarZ. You're just REALLY stretching your interpritation of those Vote rules to fit your own personal wants. The text of the rules and written does not support what you're saying at all. Nice try though. -- Amazing 05:00, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
The problem with your logic in terms of the Vote rules is that you're ignoring the word "only". This means that if the voter ONLY wants it enacted with a change, they should vote kill. If they want it enacted, but would LIKE a change or thing a change could somehow make it EVEN BETTER, they can vote Keep. This is what "Only" means. I was speaking to people who would vote KEEP (this is why I said "In your Keep vote." See how that works?) not people who are voting KILL already. Especially not people who are voting KILL before they even see it. -- Amazing 05:10, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I really didn't say there was a conspiracy against me. I believe that certain people hate my guts and hate my suggestions (You know.. people say that they do.) and that's about it.
I don't care if you like or don't like my suggestion - If you'll notice I don't respond to EVERY kill vote. I respond to a lot, sure, because I will usually pick up on what I think is a misunderstanding or a blatant fallacy.
As a silly example, someone saying: "Binoculars are only for children under 10. Adults don't use them IRL!" would get my reply.
What it all boils down to is that some people actually don't get my work (Take for example the voter saying you could view 4 Suburbs in 4 AP. You understand that's not at all true, eh?) and then there are some people who are going to Kill based on thin reasons such as server load or weather or not it's needed before other things are implimented.
I reply to these people.
Some people don't like that because they want to have the final word and don't like being corrected.
You ask why people can't just disagree with me -- why can't people accept I disagree with them? The fact that bile from past fracases carries over into discussion of other topics when I'm involved just goes to show that while I may be a hard pill to swallow, there are some folks who are really enjoying the act of coughing me back up again and again for another go at it.
No, there's no conspiracy. There are just a handful of people who are total dicks. Am I one of them? Probably, but it's MY suggestion and I know what I wrote and how it's meant. No one else can correct me on the content of it or what my meaning was behind a sentence, because I know for a fact that they are wrong.
Perhaps I just need to let people make mistakes and influence other votes.. and let people rip into my work as stupid or useless or unthinking without defending myself. That certainly seems to be what some folks would like. -- Amazing 05:33, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I can understand that. I have a different view of the Suggestion system as a place to input ideas and have the community speak up on their thoughts. This seems to be less and less the case as time passes on, it's more of a collusem where the Lions are loosed on Authors. It's easy to feel persicuted when some people actually are (Moderator-Ackowledged) persicuting you to the best of their ability for having ideas and defending them in the tone that the voter sets. -- Amazing 05:47, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Heh. No problem. I've found the problem, I think.. or rather.. the point where we diverge in methods of thought, specifically.
I look at Peer Reviewed "Notes" as the place were Voters get to say what they'd change -- AND I fear "DUPE!!!" votes from a revised idea. No matter what change you make, someone's bound to vote "Dupe", especially if said person literally has enough disdain for you that it might affect their vote. That, accompanied by altruistic "Dupe" voters who are thinking they are actually helping out would kill a revised suggestion in some scenerios.
The way I look at it, if a Suggestion has merit and I'd like to see it in the game, I'll vote Keep and make not of what I'd want changed if anything.
If I think something HAS to have a change to work, then I'd vote Kill and suggest the change.
Using another silly example, "Monkeys in Trees" would get my Keep vote if I thought it worked, but would also like Lemurs.
If I totally dislike the idea of Monkeys in Trees, but would like the Monkeys REPLACED with Lemurs, I "Kill" it and tell the author so.
As I say my primary motivation for wanting to keep the "Peer Reviewed Notes" alive is that with out Revisions risk unwarrented Dupe votes (which has happened to me, exactly) and Voters are basically censored by the rules, unable to say: "I love this idea, but I think it should be a green hat instead of blue!" -- Amazing 06:00, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
