User talk:ShadowScope

wave goodbye to dupe?

edited this slightly from what i posted on Grims page... pleas consider. Could I ask you to change your vote on Pyres wave suggestion? There is a lot of strong feeling that this isn't a dupe... (I can paraphrase it if you want) and its just causing needless drama. The Dupe system mostly works pretty well and I figure that asking you to reconsider might just avoid another drawn out policy discussion! I does have some of the same function but its implementation and purpose are totally different.

• This allows you to draw attention to yourself from 1 specific person without spamming everyones screen, Waving with the other notifies everyone.
• This allows you to circumvent the 50 people limit to draw said attention, the other doesn't
• Emote was universal in that you could "emote" anything while this is a simple wave. A reduced function is still a significant change.
• Emote was not usable by zombies, this is.

did i miss any of the similarities you had in mind? If so point them out and I will try to address them too. Anyway, thanks for your consideration. I am not trying to make you break with your principles, perhaps bend them a little but not really very much ;) --Honestmistake 11:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FAK suggestion

About a half year ago you made a suggestion about tweaking FAK so that it only cures the infection or heals (not both at the same time). It got rejected. Do you remember the reasons people voted against it? --JohnRubin 10:11, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Ghouls

Can the ghoul attack barricades too? If so, that might cause a problem for this suggestion.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:22, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Can't. Only suriviors.--ShadowScope 06:44, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Alright. You didn't explicitly say they couldn't on the suggestion so I wanted to clear that up. Thanks.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 06:46, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Hey :)

I encourage you to rethink your vote on the Backstory page to at least a merge, since this wiki is really would do well to have a backstory that present an overview of the UD roleplaying scene of Malton. Thanks for your understanding.--Akimbomidget 15:18, 25 June 2006 (BST) P.s. In soccer i have the socceroos! What scoccer team ya got!

Lexicon

Your Marshal Bradwell article was really good, nice job, and you seem to be on top of things--I just wanna make sure everyone's up to speed here, so I'm leaving messages. Since you've done your MNO already, we just need one JKL and one PQRS from you and you'll be caught up.--'STER-Talk-Mod 00:47, 27 May 2006 (BST)

JKL isn't full--a round isn't full until there are as many articles in it as there were players in the first round--in Outbreak's case, 11. There are no phantoms left, it's true--no article names someone else has already cited than you can fill in--but that just means you have to make up an entirely new title for an article and write that. You still have to follow the rules in citing other articles, though.--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:52, 28 May 2006 (BST)

The Lexicon is still there. I'm working on a community announcement to inform people that there has been a slight change, and it will take a little while before things are fixed again. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:58, 25 June 2006 (BST)

Finishing it?

We've had about a month of inactivity with the lexicon, and we're only missing 7 articles. You think you can handle writing one or two more then help with final cleanup? We really can do it! (Please RE on my talk page. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 00:41, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I'm just letting you know that you make PacMan cry. He will no longer be able to save you or the wiki from Blinky, Pinky, Inky, and Clyde. But as a token of good will, he'll live on on your talk page. http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/6/6b/Pacman.PNG --Darth Sensitive ^W! 12:48, 27 July 2006 (BST)~

Kersley

I saw you made a Kersley lexicon. Just want to show you this one that already exists. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Willum_J._Kersley Sonny Corleone ^WTF 02:26, 7 June 2006 (BST)

I hope this page isn't edited though. There's so many articles attached to that story that it would screw a lot of things up. The History of Stanbury Village, Kerlsey Mansion, and The Kersley Family pages. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:35, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Labine50

Template:Opinion How many AP does it take for you to stand up without ankle grab? 10. How many AP does it take for survivors to stand up, get revived, then stand up again? 20 asuming you die right on a revive point. Who is abe to ransack buildings so that survivors can't find anything in them until all 45 zombies are killed and dumped? Who can infect thier victims so they have to drop everything and run to get medical aid? Who has to spend about 1000 xp before they can do much in the game? Who curently has the largest group in the game? Who has control of more suburbs? I rest my case.--Labine50 ^MHG 18:54, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Barricade suggestion

Hey there, I posted a suggestion on the talk page a while ago and got the impression you'd be willing to vote keep for it, and it's on the main suggestion page now and I'd appreciate as many keeps as I can get before it gets spammed. Hope it's satisfactory to your wishes!--Burgan 20:14, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Tracking Chip

It doesn't violate zombie anonymity because you must willingly insert the chip. If the zombie wants to be anonymous they don't need to take advantage of this. --Jon Pyre 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another GPS Suggestion

It doesn't allow you to track someone who doesn't want to be tracked by you. Here's how it works.

1. Person being tracked adds someone else to their contact list.
2. Person being tracked chooses what color to make that person.
3. Person being tracked chooses what color of their contacts gets to track them.

So it doesn't allow the "tracker" to find someone who doesn't want to be found by them. You choose which of your contacts can follow you. Please ask if you have any questions. --Jon Pyre 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Make More Things Visible

I don't think the spam would be that bad since most players use their AP out of the safehouse, and all types of actions are condensed to one sentence. Two or three people spamming the radio in another suburb would put out a lot more messages than probably all the constructive actions in a busy mall combined. --Jon Pyre 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Thank you for your vote! I would really appreciate if you could vote on the update too! --JohnRubin 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pathogenic Liquid modification

I don't think changing the flavor text requires re-submitting the suggestion- just change it in the suggestion, and people can change the vote if they do not like it (really unlikely, the idea is strong on its play value.)

I was thinking about how to determine which locations get the barrels. How about, each time a Junkyard, warehouse, or Hospital is ransacked, there is a set chance that it will turn out to have the toxic liquids? That way if they aren;t there, zombie move on, and survivors have the choice of levaing it ransacked (meaning it will never have toxic liquids) or cleaning it up (meaning zombies can come back and try again). It also means if zombies DO find toxic liquids, driving them off might get rid of the toxics. Point is, the playing field would shift and change, and zombies would not have FIXED resource buildings- instead, they would have to keep on the offensive, never knowing where the next "dumping ground" would turn up.

I'd go with 15% for a junkyard, 10% for a warehouse, and 5% for a hospital. That means zombies would have to work really hard to get the liquid in most suburbs, but it in areas that get ransacked bad (like around Caiger right now, or in Riddleybank when the zombies aren't off on tour) it would be fairly common.

--S.Wiers ^X:00 02:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Guard

To be fair, I did wait a week after the encumbrance change before suggesting anything related to it. And this doesn't directly involve or change encumbrance either, I just point to it as one of several reasons to include this. --Jon Pyre 08:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Awareness

Thanks for the credit. I was considering putting it up once guard had been removed but given i usually break the page you have probably done everyone a favour ;-) --Honestmistake 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hordes 2.0

My attention was recently pointed this suggestion you made, and I really like it. I'd like to suggest a few amendments, so you can re-post it maybe? Your suggestion ia an interesting one. In some ways it buffed survivors, due to it being more likely that zombies weren't at full strength when they finally entered the building. Zombies would then be more likely to bite, to regain HP, which would result in less HP loss for survivors from attacks. They'd want to FAK themselves more immediately, rather than killing zombies first. It seems rather balanced to me; I really like that suggestion, though possibly with a 5AP cost to every zombie that joins the horde, and leaving the horde when going inside, and 1AP cost for leaving horde voluntarily. armareum 12:02, 12 June 2007 (BST)

Policy Approved

Congrats, your policy got approved. Before I start creating the Category and category pages myself from scratch, I just figured out that you had your own idea on how should they be built. Want to create the new category and category talk yourself? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:15, 16 June 2007 (BST)

It took me a couple of mintues, but I have created the Category pages. All that remains is people to suggest. I hope it will be a self-policing affair as it is with the Historical Groups page.--ShadowScope 05:52, 17 June 2007 (BST)

Ok. There's a point that still isn't really clear to me: After passing voting, an event page should be protected the same as Historical Groups are? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:54, 17 June 2007 (BST)

Would be better if it was said there, but no, looks to me that it is not. Since I did take it word for word in Historical Groups, prehaps Historical Groups also do not have this protection. So, no, it does not protected the same as Historical Groups. Prehaps an amendment might be good, altough I rather wait and see if anyone actually uses the system.--ShadowScope 05:58, 17 June 2007 (BST)

Cool then. Let's wait until someone uses the thing and if there's a problem with people constantly editing event pages we can have them scheduled to be protected in two weeks. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:03, 17 June 2007 (BST)

Hello, seems another problem has arisen with Historical Events, there's nothing saying how events that don't meet the requirements for voting can be removed. It would probably be best if you weighed in on this since it was your policy and idea.--Karek^maps?! 18:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumbly, voters would be smart enough to know the requirements, and then justify their votes based on the requirements. If 2/3rds of the voters believe that the requirements has been met, then it is an Historical Event.

I understand the flaws in this, but that was how I orignally intended it. And I don't see any other way by which we can remove those events, at least without causing some wikidrama.--ShadowScope 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah, that's useless. Means there's no quality control at all, as can be seen by what has and has not been voter approved.--Karek^maps?! 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for changing the system and reforming it, but as of now, I don't see any other way. Still, I can bet that some quality control is happening right now, with the two Historical Events up for vote being rejected.--ShadowScope 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Vote Policy

'I'm voting Kill instead of Keep due to the new policy of "Spam Doesn't Count"' --You
Unless I missed the bulletin, and the the two weeks for a policy change vote just passed without me noticing, this is not the policy yet. Vote Spam till your hearts content, if that's what you feel the right answer is. Just try not to change your vote too much. --Burgan 22:40, 19 July 2006 (BST)

Eh. Sorry. I did that before I checked the rules. Also, it turns out that 2/3rd have to vote "Yes" (in addition for 15 people to have to vote "Yes" as well), otherwise the policy is rejected. Looks like the policy will be rejected anyway, so the Spam Problem will remain.--ShadowScope 03:53, 20 July 2006 (BST)

Hope you don't mind

[1] --Pestolence^(talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Signature

I liked the small tagline at the top. It made me laugh =] Liberty 16:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

suggestions

you say in the current crowbar suggestion that "All Survivors are looters" but surely you mean 'most civilians are looters' because the scientist class have a very different stated reason to be there and the soldiers are technically there to stop looters. While the fact of the matter makes all survivors looters that isn't really their primary goal or purpose... survival is and very often the cade level directly affects that survivability and needs adjustment for the safety of yourself and others. Just wondering if such considerations might be flavorful enough for you?--Honestmistake 15:52, 30 March 2009 (BST)

UN

This. Do you still need it, or can it be deleted?--Thadeous Oakley 16:52, 12 August 2009 (BST)