User talk:Poju
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Zerging
The rules are quite clear on the issue, collaboration is not not allowed between alternate characters. It's not a matter of opinion The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:03 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The rules are not clear to everyone. Everybody does not interpret them the same way. There are many threads in many forums where people disagree about this. This attests to the fact that there is considerable disagreement within the community about this subject. Some people feel that it is not against the game rules to collaborate on a meta-game level since it does not raise any zerg flags. Some people consider that as long as the characters stay in different suburbs or a good distance from each other, then it is okay. Others feel differently. The rules can be interpreted, and are being interpreted by many, in different ways. In a heated debate such as this, the wiki should provide a Neutral Point Of View, which in my opinion is that different people have different criteria as far as what they consider to collaboration.--Poju 10:16, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- In the case of game rules, the wiki is not open to interpretation. Your characters should not collaborate, they should lead completely separate existences. There is nothing ambiguous about these rules The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:23 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The wiki should provise a neutral of point of view. It should be an arena where different interpretations are aired. It should not be used to pass one interpretation of the game rules off as the only interpretation. People have different opinion on this subject and the wiki article on zerging should reflect this.--Poju 10:28, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Stating what the game rules are is neutral, giving (bogus) interpretations is POV The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:32 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The article in question does give interpretations. Thus it is POV. I am trying to change it to NPOV--Poju 10:40, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Nonsense. Using multiple alts in conjuction is clear zerging. Just because you can rationalise a twist doesnt change the base facts at all. --The Grimch U! 10:43, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Hey grim, you obviously haven't noticed this? (It makes life easier for everyone) =P - If Jedaz = 10:46, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Oh, thanks. Protected. Now im gonna be bored all night :( --The Grimch U! 10:50, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Hey grim, you obviously haven't noticed this? (It makes life easier for everyone) =P - If Jedaz = 10:46, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Nonsense. Using multiple alts in conjuction is clear zerging. Just because you can rationalise a twist doesnt change the base facts at all. --The Grimch U! 10:43, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The article in question does give interpretations. Thus it is POV. I am trying to change it to NPOV--Poju 10:40, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Stating what the game rules are is neutral, giving (bogus) interpretations is POV The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:32 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The wiki should provise a neutral of point of view. It should be an arena where different interpretations are aired. It should not be used to pass one interpretation of the game rules off as the only interpretation. People have different opinion on this subject and the wiki article on zerging should reflect this.--Poju 10:28, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- In the case of game rules, the wiki is not open to interpretation. Your characters should not collaborate, they should lead completely separate existences. There is nothing ambiguous about these rules The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:23 2 September 2007 (BST)
- It's specifically talking about sentinals. Leaving characters to guard or monitor building for other characters. How is that anything but alt abusing? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:44 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Do you agree that some players dont see it alt-abuse because it doesn't raise zerg flags? Shouldn't the wiki reflect this disagreement within the community?--Poju 10:54, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Some players are idiot cheaters, they can jam their opinion as far as I'm concerned. The rules are very specific, even if difficult to flag/enforce The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:57 2 September 2007 (BST)
- This is a question of interpretation. The rules are clearly not specific enough, since there is disagreement. Shouldn't the wiki article reflect this disagreement and provide a forum where various interpretations can be presented to the public?--Poju 11:05, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- It's not a matter of interpretation. The only thing in question with extinction (that's what this is about, is it not?) is if others are also cheating in a similar manner, not whether or not they are themselves cheating The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 11:13 2 September 2007 (BST)
- It is very much a matter of interpretation, as are most rules and regulations in life. Extinction has stirred up this discussion. You and Extinction interpret the rules differently. Why should your interpretation be presented on the article as the only correct one? What is the harm in letting the community know there is disagreement?--Poju 12:36, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Because Extinction are cheats The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:08 2 September 2007 (BST)
- That does not answer the question.--Poju 13:17, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Because they are trying to re-write the rules to suit themselves. The rules are clear, this wiki shouldn't be used by them (or any other group) to point to and say "look, even the wiki says you don't have to follow them if you don't believe in them" The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:30 2 September 2007 (BST)
- They are simply interpreting them differently in a way that suits them. That does not make them cheats. The rules are not clear and different interpretations of them should be encouraged. People play the game differently. The game has anti-zerg measures, which will kick in, if somebody is cheating. The games anti-zerg measures are the real indicators of who is cheating.--Poju 13:47, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Jesus fucking christ on a bike! Just read the next section down for your answer to that crap. "If I use 100 proxies for 100 characters to take down a mall does it count as alt-abuse even though it doesn't raise zerg flags?" The zerg flag is not the be all and end all of the rules, just like undetectable performance enhancing drugs are not allowed, even if there is no test for them. I'm sick of this. Have fun trying to justify the unjustifiable to yourself The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 14:28 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Using 100 proxies to control 100 characters to take down a mall is clearly against the game rules, since they are standing outside the same building. That still doesn't answer the question, why the wiki should not reflect the fact that people interpret the rules differently.--Poju 14:38, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Jesus fucking christ on a bike! Just read the next section down for your answer to that crap. "If I use 100 proxies for 100 characters to take down a mall does it count as alt-abuse even though it doesn't raise zerg flags?" The zerg flag is not the be all and end all of the rules, just like undetectable performance enhancing drugs are not allowed, even if there is no test for them. I'm sick of this. Have fun trying to justify the unjustifiable to yourself The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 14:28 2 September 2007 (BST)
- They are simply interpreting them differently in a way that suits them. That does not make them cheats. The rules are not clear and different interpretations of them should be encouraged. People play the game differently. The game has anti-zerg measures, which will kick in, if somebody is cheating. The games anti-zerg measures are the real indicators of who is cheating.--Poju 13:47, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Because they are trying to re-write the rules to suit themselves. The rules are clear, this wiki shouldn't be used by them (or any other group) to point to and say "look, even the wiki says you don't have to follow them if you don't believe in them" The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:30 2 September 2007 (BST)
- That does not answer the question.--Poju 13:17, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Because Extinction are cheats The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:08 2 September 2007 (BST)
- It is very much a matter of interpretation, as are most rules and regulations in life. Extinction has stirred up this discussion. You and Extinction interpret the rules differently. Why should your interpretation be presented on the article as the only correct one? What is the harm in letting the community know there is disagreement?--Poju 12:36, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- It's not a matter of interpretation. The only thing in question with extinction (that's what this is about, is it not?) is if others are also cheating in a similar manner, not whether or not they are themselves cheating The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 11:13 2 September 2007 (BST)
- This is a question of interpretation. The rules are clearly not specific enough, since there is disagreement. Shouldn't the wiki article reflect this disagreement and provide a forum where various interpretations can be presented to the public?--Poju 11:05, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Some players are idiot cheaters, they can jam their opinion as far as I'm concerned. The rules are very specific, even if difficult to flag/enforce The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:57 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Do you agree that some players dont see it alt-abuse because it doesn't raise zerg flags? Shouldn't the wiki reflect this disagreement within the community?--Poju 10:54, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- It's specifically talking about sentinals. Leaving characters to guard or monitor building for other characters. How is that anything but alt abusing? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:44 2 September 2007 (BST)
- If I use 100 proxies for 100 characters to take down a mall does it count as alt-abuse even though it doesn't raise zerg flags? - If Jedaz = 10:59, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- This is about the wiki article and a NPOV. Do you agree that zerging is interpreted in a variety of ways and the wiki article should reflect this?--Poju 11:12, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- I agree that people interperate it in many ways, however zergers quite often interperate in a way that gives them justification. As Sentinels are explained in the article they give intel to the main account as to what targets are the best to go after, and what kind of activity is around there. So explain how this is not against the rules when the rules clearly state that you can have alts "provided that they lead completely separate existences within the game". Sentinels as described do not do that. So why should we alter it to be POV when we have that fact? A wiki article is suppose to be as factual as posible. If you don't feel that it's a fact, please explain to me why it isn't because I'm quite intrigued. - If Jedaz = 11:23, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- I probably should have written a new subheading about how zerging is a hotly debated issue and people disagree as to what consitutes it, instead of changing the text under the Sentinels subheading. The Sentinels in the article stand in a building, get intel and then another character controlled by the same player attacks the building, while the Sentinel is still inside and kills people. This is clearly against the rules. They are in the same building. Does this answer your question? I did not really have a problem with the Sentinels article, but with the wording in the article concerning zerging. There were comments about the spirit of the game, which I felt were not factual statements. The spirit of the game is surely open to debate and people should not make statements, which imply that they know what the correct spirit of the game is and others are wrong.--Poju 12:24, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- So in that case why did you continue to revert the article after Boxy altered it so that it removed the source of ambiguity in relation to the spirit of the rules? - If Jedaz = 12:36, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- There were still comments in the article, which were not NPOV. If you check the logs, you'll see which comments I found problematic.--Poju 12:49, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- That still doesn't explain why you kept changing "...this is still against the clearly worded game rules..." to "...this is still considered by some to be against game rules...". Wouldn't you consider the second to be more POV then the first? Also I'ld like you to point to those sections as even though I looked through the logs I couldn't see what you were talking about specificaly. - If Jedaz = 13:03, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- No, the latter is an evaluation of the situation. Some people consider that to be against the rules. Some people don't. There is disgareement and the article does not reflect this disagreement.--Poju 13:20, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Fact has to come before opinion. You removed the fact that it is against the rules to have sentinels as described (you even with agreed above that it's against the rules). You replaced the fact with opinion (or an "evaluation" as you called it). How is this improving the article or making it more NPOV? - If Jedaz = 13:36, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- I should have made a new subheading or change the description of the Sentinels. My bad. Check my userpage. That might give some idea as to what I am trying to say(NOT ABOUT ZERGING; BUT ABOUT WIKI AND NPOV).--Poju 13:42, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- In regards to whats on your page, a player who uses Sentinels to scout out information is still cheating under the games rules. Without the main the sentinel has no purpose and wouldn't exist (check the link to the rules above). Anyway how is what you written more NPOV then whats been writen in the Zerging article? I can't see any real difference. It just seems your version have MORE opinions in it, which when a newbie reads they will think that it's alright to zerg. - If Jedaz = 14:11, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- That is what I am saying. If character A and character B are standing in the same co-ordinates, that is breaking against the game rules. The article should be more open and it should recognize the fact that what constitutes zerging is debated. NPOV is all about not passing off opinions as facts. If a newbie reads it, tries to zerg, the games countermeasures will kick in and make it hard/impossible to zerg.--Poju 14:20, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- In regards to whats on your page, a player who uses Sentinels to scout out information is still cheating under the games rules. Without the main the sentinel has no purpose and wouldn't exist (check the link to the rules above). Anyway how is what you written more NPOV then whats been writen in the Zerging article? I can't see any real difference. It just seems your version have MORE opinions in it, which when a newbie reads they will think that it's alright to zerg. - If Jedaz = 14:11, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- I should have made a new subheading or change the description of the Sentinels. My bad. Check my userpage. That might give some idea as to what I am trying to say(NOT ABOUT ZERGING; BUT ABOUT WIKI AND NPOV).--Poju 13:42, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Fact has to come before opinion. You removed the fact that it is against the rules to have sentinels as described (you even with agreed above that it's against the rules). You replaced the fact with opinion (or an "evaluation" as you called it). How is this improving the article or making it more NPOV? - If Jedaz = 13:36, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- No, the latter is an evaluation of the situation. Some people consider that to be against the rules. Some people don't. There is disgareement and the article does not reflect this disagreement.--Poju 13:20, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- That still doesn't explain why you kept changing "...this is still against the clearly worded game rules..." to "...this is still considered by some to be against game rules...". Wouldn't you consider the second to be more POV then the first? Also I'ld like you to point to those sections as even though I looked through the logs I couldn't see what you were talking about specificaly. - If Jedaz = 13:03, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- There were still comments in the article, which were not NPOV. If you check the logs, you'll see which comments I found problematic.--Poju 12:49, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- So in that case why did you continue to revert the article after Boxy altered it so that it removed the source of ambiguity in relation to the spirit of the rules? - If Jedaz = 12:36, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- It's what you are not saying which is the problem. Alts are alright to use provided that they lead completely separate existences within the game. You have written that a sentinel that is used for gathering information is alright as long as they don't come into contact. This is indeed wrong seeing that the sentinels existance depends solely on the mains and it only serves to assist the main. Can I ask where abouts in the Zerging article that it trys to pass of opinion as fact? By inserting alot of different opinions you cloud the facts and make the article less nutural. - If Jedaz = 14:40, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Let us hypothesize that character A (who gathers intel) and the character B (who acts on that intel) don't come into contact. Do you consider that to be cheating? A shotgun takes 6% of inventory. That is a fact. Interpretations about the game rules are just that. Interpretations. I am not writing opinions, but interpretations. I want the wiki article to reflect that what is written about the rules are interpretations based on a very short paragarph in the game FAQ.--Poju 14:51, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- If character A and character B are controlled by the same player then yes it is cheating as defined by the rules. The rules clearly state that they must lead a completly seperate existance. There is no other way to interpret the rules. If character B didn't exist then the purpose (and thus existance of A), and also behaviour would be heavily altered. It is clearly breaking the rules, it is fact as determined through logic, not opinion. However if you could explain how this could be conceived in any other way I'ld like to hear it. - If Jedaz = 15:01, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- It could be argued that characters A and B lead completely separate existences within the game, since they don't come into contact with each other. Separate existences could be interpreted as not coming into contact, not sharing the same co-ordinates/suburb. According to this interpretation the above behaviour would not break the rules. Do you interpret separate existence to mean that the characters actions don't influence the other character in the game (healing/barricading) or that characters actions don't influence the other character at all(sharing information)? This seems to be a question of how we interpret separate existence. Do you agree?--Poju 15:16, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Yes, in your example they do lead seperate existances, but not completly seperate existances as they share information. If the rules only said seperate existances then you might have a point. But it said completly seperate existances where by ones actions in no way directly affects the others in any way shape or for whether by sharing information, barricading, healing, attacking the same enemy, ect. As I said, theres no other way to look at that rule, a character who gets information for another one of your characters does not lead a completly seperate existance from each other. - If Jedaz = 15:29, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- It could easily be argued that they lead completely separate existences as long as they don't come into direct contact with each other. There is no direct contact within in the game. They influence each other only on a meta-game level, not within the game. The FAQ says within the game, which is important to keep in mind. Completely separate existences can be interpreted to mean no direct contact(for example healing). According to that interpretation the player would not be breaking the rules. These are just the kind of different interpretations that should be voiced on the wiki.--Poju 15:56, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Let me try to be clearer. It is breaking the rules. When it says "completely separate existences" it means that in no way the actions of one character affects the other. Is that clear? Therefore gathering information with another character so that a main can act on it is breaking the rules as the two characters don't lead completely separate existences from eachother. Anyone interperating it any other way is just trying to justify why they are cheating. The wiki articles should be about fact not deliberate mis-interpretation of the rules. If you can't see that it's cheating as defined by the games rules then I'm sorry that you are so blind. - If Jedaz = 01:12, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- No, it can be argued that it is not breaking the rules. Completely separate existences could be argued to mean that the characters should not come into direct contact with each other. From the FAQ If you're running a few characters, it's best to make sure that they stay in separate suburbs. As long as the characters stay a good a distance from each other, it is not breaking the rules. People interpret the rules differently and the wiki article should reflect this. You are fiercely defending one interpretation of the rules. Why not admit that several interpretations exist and that your view of the rules and what consists cheating is just that, your view? If many people feel the same way, it can be called a majority view. Not an absolute, only, correct interpretation, but one among many. You can feel free to call it cheating, and this too should be reflected in the wiki article. Something like Many people view the behaviour described above as cheating. These are all subjective, personal opinions concerning what amounts to cheating. This is what I am trying to get through and honestly have a difficult time understanding, why people take such a dogmatic approach to this. It is like North Korea or something. Only one viewpoint is accepted.--Poju 10:45, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Let me try to be clearer. It is breaking the rules. When it says "completely separate existences" it means that in no way the actions of one character affects the other. Is that clear? Therefore gathering information with another character so that a main can act on it is breaking the rules as the two characters don't lead completely separate existences from eachother. Anyone interperating it any other way is just trying to justify why they are cheating. The wiki articles should be about fact not deliberate mis-interpretation of the rules. If you can't see that it's cheating as defined by the games rules then I'm sorry that you are so blind. - If Jedaz = 01:12, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- It could easily be argued that they lead completely separate existences as long as they don't come into direct contact with each other. There is no direct contact within in the game. They influence each other only on a meta-game level, not within the game. The FAQ says within the game, which is important to keep in mind. Completely separate existences can be interpreted to mean no direct contact(for example healing). According to that interpretation the player would not be breaking the rules. These are just the kind of different interpretations that should be voiced on the wiki.--Poju 15:56, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Yes, in your example they do lead seperate existances, but not completly seperate existances as they share information. If the rules only said seperate existances then you might have a point. But it said completly seperate existances where by ones actions in no way directly affects the others in any way shape or for whether by sharing information, barricading, healing, attacking the same enemy, ect. As I said, theres no other way to look at that rule, a character who gets information for another one of your characters does not lead a completly seperate existance from each other. - If Jedaz = 15:29, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- It could be argued that characters A and B lead completely separate existences within the game, since they don't come into contact with each other. Separate existences could be interpreted as not coming into contact, not sharing the same co-ordinates/suburb. According to this interpretation the above behaviour would not break the rules. Do you interpret separate existence to mean that the characters actions don't influence the other character in the game (healing/barricading) or that characters actions don't influence the other character at all(sharing information)? This seems to be a question of how we interpret separate existence. Do you agree?--Poju 15:16, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- If character A and character B are controlled by the same player then yes it is cheating as defined by the rules. The rules clearly state that they must lead a completly seperate existance. There is no other way to interpret the rules. If character B didn't exist then the purpose (and thus existance of A), and also behaviour would be heavily altered. It is clearly breaking the rules, it is fact as determined through logic, not opinion. However if you could explain how this could be conceived in any other way I'ld like to hear it. - If Jedaz = 15:01, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Let us hypothesize that character A (who gathers intel) and the character B (who acts on that intel) don't come into contact. Do you consider that to be cheating? A shotgun takes 6% of inventory. That is a fact. Interpretations about the game rules are just that. Interpretations. I am not writing opinions, but interpretations. I want the wiki article to reflect that what is written about the rules are interpretations based on a very short paragarph in the game FAQ.--Poju 14:51, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- I probably should have written a new subheading about how zerging is a hotly debated issue and people disagree as to what consitutes it, instead of changing the text under the Sentinels subheading. The Sentinels in the article stand in a building, get intel and then another character controlled by the same player attacks the building, while the Sentinel is still inside and kills people. This is clearly against the rules. They are in the same building. Does this answer your question? I did not really have a problem with the Sentinels article, but with the wording in the article concerning zerging. There were comments about the spirit of the game, which I felt were not factual statements. The spirit of the game is surely open to debate and people should not make statements, which imply that they know what the correct spirit of the game is and others are wrong.--Poju 12:24, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- I agree that people interperate it in many ways, however zergers quite often interperate in a way that gives them justification. As Sentinels are explained in the article they give intel to the main account as to what targets are the best to go after, and what kind of activity is around there. So explain how this is not against the rules when the rules clearly state that you can have alts "provided that they lead completely separate existences within the game". Sentinels as described do not do that. So why should we alter it to be POV when we have that fact? A wiki article is suppose to be as factual as posible. If you don't feel that it's a fact, please explain to me why it isn't because I'm quite intrigued. - If Jedaz = 11:23, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- This is about the wiki article and a NPOV. Do you agree that zerging is interpreted in a variety of ways and the wiki article should reflect this?--Poju 11:12, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Poju, just because some idiots believe that something is true, doesnt mean we should include their weiwpoint on a page where we are referring to base facts. There are some biblical literalists who believe that the world is flat. Does that mean i should go to wikipedia and enter that information on the Earth Wiki page? --The Grimch U! 11:11, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- This is not a question true or not true. This is a question of interpreting rules. People interpret them differently and the article should reflect this--Poju 11:17, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The rules are clear cut. Just because people are trying to obfuscate on the matter doesnt mean we should let their idiocy on a factual page. --The Grimch U! 11:31, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The rules are not clear-cut. Many people have written a lot on various forums on this subject. Also here on the wiki disagreeing about the rules. The wiki article should not try to kill the debate by silencing it. It should encourage discussion.--Poju 12:28, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Look, if i put my mind to it, i could argue, convincingly, that even having more than one character is against the rules. That is just as preposterous a position as the one you appear to support. This doesnt mean it should be on the page. --The Grimch U! 12:38, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The article could then go something like ...some people feel that having more than one character is against the rules. Others are not so strict...--Poju 12:44, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- So you want the article to reflect the fact that some people do cheat, that they do encourage others to cheat, and make up lame justifications for such cheating? Kewl... let's whip up a newbies guide to proxy use while we're at it... I mean, if it doesn't trip the zerg flags, it's not cheeeeeeaaaaaaating, is it The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:08 2 September 2007 (BST)
- I would like the article to reflect that you personally see them as cheats and that you consider certain actions cheating. When a person reads the article, he gets the impression that certain actions are cheating, when in fact you consider them to be.--Poju 13:16, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The article doesn't reflect my opinion, it was written long before I got here. It reflects the very clear game rules The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:30 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Do you disagree with the article?--Poju 13:48, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Does it even matter? Your opinion is wrong. 100% unadulterated bullshit rationalisations to justify blatant cheating. --The Grimch U! 14:25, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- What do you consider my opinion to be?--Poju 14:42, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Dude, you have it on your fucking userpage. The strength with which you are fighting for it pretty much assures everyone that its your opinion --The Grimch U! 14:49, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Which part of my userpage are referring to? Which subheading?--Poju 14:53, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you are a moron. --The Grimch U! 15:07, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Don't give up. Try to argue your point.--Poju 15:20, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- I did. You failed to provide a rebuttal. --The Grimch U! 15:31, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- No, you did not. I provided a rebuttal and you gave up. You should have tried to argue your point.--Poju 07:34, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- I just checked twice, and all i see is you dicking around asking me where on your userpage you posted your opinion (The bottom, dipshit). Thats not a rebuttal, thats you being an idiot. --The Grimch U! 09:00, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- No, you did not. I provided a rebuttal and you gave up. You should have tried to argue your point.--Poju 07:34, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- I did. You failed to provide a rebuttal. --The Grimch U! 15:31, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Don't give up. Try to argue your point.--Poju 15:20, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you are a moron. --The Grimch U! 15:07, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Which part of my userpage are referring to? Which subheading?--Poju 14:53, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Dude, you have it on your fucking userpage. The strength with which you are fighting for it pretty much assures everyone that its your opinion --The Grimch U! 14:49, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- What do you consider my opinion to be?--Poju 14:42, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Does it even matter? Your opinion is wrong. 100% unadulterated bullshit rationalisations to justify blatant cheating. --The Grimch U! 14:25, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Do you disagree with the article?--Poju 13:48, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The article doesn't reflect my opinion, it was written long before I got here. It reflects the very clear game rules The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:30 2 September 2007 (BST)
- I would like the article to reflect that you personally see them as cheats and that you consider certain actions cheating. When a person reads the article, he gets the impression that certain actions are cheating, when in fact you consider them to be.--Poju 13:16, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- So you want the article to reflect the fact that some people do cheat, that they do encourage others to cheat, and make up lame justifications for such cheating? Kewl... let's whip up a newbies guide to proxy use while we're at it... I mean, if it doesn't trip the zerg flags, it's not cheeeeeeaaaaaaating, is it The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:08 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The article could then go something like ...some people feel that having more than one character is against the rules. Others are not so strict...--Poju 12:44, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Look, if i put my mind to it, i could argue, convincingly, that even having more than one character is against the rules. That is just as preposterous a position as the one you appear to support. This doesnt mean it should be on the page. --The Grimch U! 12:38, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The rules are not clear-cut. Many people have written a lot on various forums on this subject. Also here on the wiki disagreeing about the rules. The wiki article should not try to kill the debate by silencing it. It should encourage discussion.--Poju 12:28, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- The rules are clear cut. Just because people are trying to obfuscate on the matter doesnt mean we should let their idiocy on a factual page. --The Grimch U! 11:31, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- This is not a question true or not true. This is a question of interpreting rules. People interpret them differently and the article should reflect this--Poju 11:17, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- If I use 100 proxies for 100 characters to take down a mall does it count as alt-abuse even though it doesn't raise zerg flags? - If Jedaz = 10:59, 2 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- Oh, i should mention. We just entered the american "deadzone" where the US players go offline, so im bored and will have absolutely nothing to do but revert your changes for the next five hours. Why waste your time? --The Grimch U! 10:47, 2 September 2007 (BST)
- Revert what changes for the next five hours?--Poju 10:57, 2 September 2007 (BST)
Sub pages
I just moved your project page to a sub-page of your user page, it's now at User:Poju/Projects -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 08:58, 13 July 2007 (BST)
- Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure how that works. --Poju 18:24, 13 July 2007 (BST)
Oi
Coincidentally, I just revived ya :) -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 12:54, 11 July 2007 (BST)
- Phenomenal!! I've been waiting for ages.--Poju 13:00, 11 July 2007 (BST)
- We've had a few... zombie problems, funnily enough :) -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 13:22, 11 July 2007 (BST)
- If you're in the area, and need a revive again, try posting a request on the revive point wiki page. I keep an eye on it, and if I've a syringe, I'll fix ya up -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 13:26, 11 July 2007 (BST)
