View source for Talk:Stanstock/Historical Event Voting

==Comments on against votes==
#I don't want this space to feel lonely. [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]] 20:23, 15 September 2007 (BST)
:i like you can vote against an event that gathered more than 1000 players, made several changes in the game to happen, and that occured over a year and a half before you even came to the wiki... kudos for the nalikill... --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 20:54, 15 September 2007 (BST)
::Hell, I'm doing this for the lulz. I would move my vote to "for" if this was in '''ANY''' danger of not being voted in. [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]] 21:20, 15 September 2007 (BST)
:::You have to justify your vote... at least nominally... Seriously, you just look like a complete idiot voting against this -- probably the single most genuinely historical "historical event" that's been up for voting. EVAR.  --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:55, 16 September 2007 (BST)
::::I did justify my vote. If I didn't vote here, no one else would. Meaning: the Against section would get lonely. Now, enough drama. I will no longer reply to anyone attempting to get me to change my vote. [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]] 05:13, 16 September 2007 (BST)
::::You don't have to justify votes.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] 06:34, 16 September 2007 (BST)
::::: I stand corrected... But I don't take back my comments that it makes you look pretty foolish, Nalikill. It's just sad, to me, that this now won't have a chance of going through unanimously, I think would be pretty dang spiffy if it did... But one certainly is free to vote as one chooses... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:43, 16 September 2007 (BST)
:::::: Aww, Look! The Against section has it's very own spam chain! The for section is going to get jealous.--[[User:Wooty|Wooty]] 20:39, 16 September 2007 (BST)
# Against -- I guess I did not get the memo, but seeing as I mainly play as a PKer that is not surprising. --{{User:Flogging Molly/Sig}} 02:08, 17 September 2007 (BST)
#:Please, don't vote against this. Please? I want this to get through unanimously. My vote was a joke. {{User:Nalikill/Sig}} 02:12, 17 September 2007 (BST)
:: This is the single largest game changing event in the history of Urban dead. If you haven't heard of this, you don't know shit about what's historical. Get the fuck off the voting pages. I can understand a joking vote, but a "Although 37 long time players testify this to be the single most important event in the game, since I haven't heard of it it can't be historical, becuase I'm fucking god!" vote deserves a witch burning. BURN THE WITCH!--[[User:Wooty|Wooty]] 06:20, 17 September 2007 (BST)
:::Who ''are'' you people?--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] 06:23, 17 September 2007 (BST)
::::I'm Typerwiter bashing monkey #949586540, and up there is Typewriter bashing monkey #84739659234542--[[User:Wooty|Wooty]] 10:23, 17 September 2007 (BST)
:::::Wow, you sure convinced me to change my vote there Wooty.  I am semi-active on the wiki, I am active on Brainstock, and I had a zombie alt in the RRF for a while and if something so "important" as Stanstock happened without my knowledge then I do not think it should be historical.  I was aware of [[On Strike]], but I never heard of Stanstock. --{{User:Flogging Molly/Sig}} 06:10, 18 September 2007 (BST)
::::::Stanstock is what On Strike did, it's as simple as that. The event is far more important than the group.--{{User:Karek/sig}} 09:58, 18 September 2007 (BST)
:::::::On strike was the group, Sanstock was the event. They are equally important. If there was only the group and no event, then the 50 people speech addition would never had occurred, and the entire game wouldn't have turned into a lagfest. And oh my god, you're "Semi active on the wiki" and had a zombie alt for a "while". You must know everything about Urban Dead. If you haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist. I imagine that on brainstock the threads go somewhat like this. "The XXXX building is open, go eat the humans. Lets attack Caiger. RRF now recruiting (etc,etc,etc,) and then suddenly out of the blue - 'HAY LETS TALK ABOUT STUFF THAT HAPPENDED YEARS AGO LULZ!' That's like me saying I'm an expert on WWII because I listen to talk radio. --[[User:Wooty|Wooty]] 21:57, 18 September 2007 (BST)
::::::::Oh for goodness sake, it's a valid vote, and he justified it.  He wasn't aware of the fact that Stanstock is what On Strike did, and that's that.  His vote read "I guess I did not get the memo, but seeing as I mainly play as a PKer that is not surprising." Not "I am an expert on UD and this isn't historical."  Don't you understand that by flaming him you actually make it ''less'' likely that he'll change his vote?  Explain what you think his error is, and let that be that.  That persuades people.  The kind of trash that you just put down here agitates people, and can attach them to irrational positions simply to avoid being bullied into changing their opinion.--[[User:Father Thompson|Father Thompson]] 00:06, 19 September 2007 (BST)
::::::::He could have bothered to read the fucking page instead of going to voting and reading 22 keep votes explaining why this is the most historical event in the game and then voting kill on it because he hasn't heard of it lately.--[[User:Wooty|Wooty]] 00:14, 19 September 2007 (BST)