Category talk:Historical Groups/FailedArchive

The nomination of any group that fails voting of historical status should be moved from Category talk:Historical Groups to here. Archives for failed nominations prior to 2010 can be found here.

Ackland Abattoir

way back in the day, actually right near the beginning of the game, the Ackland Abattoir ravaged havercroft, and Ackland Mall Security with its attacks and tricks. being such a plight to the suburb itself way back when, countless scores of survivors, newbies, and now veteran players fell victim to their tactics. As of right now, this group has been disbanded for quite some time, and only has one remaining member who does not recruit, yet proudly keeps his group status on his profile the same. i remember seeing them shortly before/after the Battle of the Bear Pit. i commune with this remaining member quite often actually, as it is nice to reminisce about the good old days. they terrorized our suburb for a long while, and i believe they deserve the due credit Nuerotoxic2213 19:30, 4 September 2010 (BST)

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are Yes and No. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Yes

1. Similar impact on the game as several other groups that have been given historical status - i.e. Shambling Seagulls, the Gray, Ars Requiem. -MHSstaff 06:15, 5 September 2010 (BST)

   Yeah, but only 0.4 of those 3 groups will survive The Great Historical Group Purge. --VVV ^RPMBG 06:27, 5 September 2010 (BST)

   And let it be a swift and merciless purge when it comes -- LEMON #1 08:57, 5 September 2010 (BST)

2. Yup. Sadly, pretty much nobody will remember them, so this vote is pretty much doomed, but for my money they deserve Historical. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:58, 5 September 2010 (BST)
3. Yes. I've worked in the area a lot & have met countless Ackland Abbatoir members, although not recently. Seem to remember they smashed the Mall several times, with style. Made quite a impact on survivors & survivor groups in this area. --Jsrbrunty 19:44, 5 September 2010 (BST)
4. Yeah, they sounded interesting. --Blades 02:48, 6 September 2010 (BST)
5. Jeez. I'm so sad nobody remembers these guys. I saw the name on the front page, and I was all, "Holy shit, you mean those guys from back when I first started playing?" They were cool :V Cool enough to get my completely meaningless vote. RinKou 01:40, 9 September 2010 (BST)

No

1. Who? Never heard of you. --Thadeous Oakley 19:57, 4 September 2010 (BST)
2. See Thad's reason. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:16, 4 September 2010 (BST)
3. I'm gonna have to go with Thad on this one. -- 
   •   Timmah!  
   •   Talk  
   20:21, 4 September 2010 (BST)
4. Their news have been regularly updated for, what, 2.5 months from May to July 2006? They better should have made a hell of an impact during that quarter year they've been actually active. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:23, 4 September 2010 (BST)
5. Thad nailed it.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 20:25, 4 September 2010 (BST)
6. bad -- LEMON #1 22:52, 4 September 2010 (BST)
7. Fixed your link in case in helps your bid, but I've followed the goings on of most of the important PKer groups in Malton and have heard of these guys only in the briefest of asides. 22:56, 4 September 2010 (BST)
8. Thad nailed it. Also, if their leader is still around and hasn't disbanded it, I don't know that this meets rule #6 of the policy. —Aichon— 23:51, 4 September 2010 (BST)
9. As Yonnua. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:06, 5 September 2010 (BST)
10. This might be the worst nomination ever. --Papa Moloch 01:07, 5 September 2010 (BST)
11. I browse the wiki quite a lot to read about Malton history and I've never heard of these guys.-- Rolfe Steiner ^{Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders} 02:18, 5 September 2010 (BST)
12. Fail. I thought actual in-game impact was a prerequisite. Criminally Insane ^{Talk | LoD}
13. I have no idea who these guys are. --Huntress 07:33, 5 September 2010 (BST)
14. As Thad.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:04, 5 September 2010 (BST)
15. Sorry but never heard of you or your past glory --DiSm ~ T 17:58, 5 September 2010 (BST)
16. Why? You were post-Ackland Damien falcon 22:06, 5 September 2010 (BST)
17. Who? Asheets 00:01, 6 September 2010 (BST)
18. I know nothing of your work --Zensaga 01:00, 6 September 2010 (BST)
19. Not historical --Papa Johnny 08:46, 6 September 2010 (BST)
20. As Aichon and Rolfe Steiner. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:15, 6 September 2010 (BST)
21. as moloch----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 23:03, 6 September 2010 (BST)
22. No. According to their files, they have done very little in regards to noteworthiness. --
     
    ^SDN 12:05, 8 September 2010 (BST)
23. After carefull thought, deliberation and a perusal of the historical records, the Blob has rendered his verdict: No. --Dr summeroff 00:17, 9 September 2010 (BST)

    Never heard of them. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 02:45, 20 September 2010 (BST) Voting had closed.

Voting has closed. With 5 For and 23 Against, Ackland Abattoir has Failed to achieve historical status. —Aichon— 04:32, 20 September 2010 (BST)

PTT

It's been ages since I've seen any of the members active, and it's also been ages since I've seen them on the stats page. The group was made up of a bunch of members on a Taiwanese bulletin board system under the same name of the group. They came into existence in late 2006, and held strong until early 2007 (from what I know, at least). Their base of operations was situated around Shearbank. They've reached over 200 in weeks, took a small part in Battle of Blackmore, and were a major force in defending Shearbank from Shacknews after Shacknews came in and ravaged Blackmore. If anything, they were probably the largest group whose players originated from Taiwan. And believe me, their presence gave Malton a good feel of having a mixed-culture population, especially since the majority of the players in Urban Dead speaks English.

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are Yes and No. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Yes

1. Yes - Those were good old days, all right, and these guys were a big help in many major sieges back then. If you ask me, Shearbank should have been renamed to China Town due to the large Chinese speaking population stationed there. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:28, 3 September 2010 (BST)
2. Yes - The name rang a bell, but the wiki page brought it all back. Certainly deserve it.-- Adward  17:02, 3 September 2010 (BST)

   Heh. Remember when the SysOps of old thought the first few users trying to create the group page were adbots? xD --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:06, 3 September 2010 (BST)

   My lurker memories of old remember that :3 -- Adward  18:57, 3 September 2010 (BST)

3. Yes --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 17:29, 3 September 2010 (BST)
4. Yes - Their page is even in the top 10 most visited on the wiki, and for good reason. —Aichon— 18:52, 3 September 2010 (BST)
5. Yep --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:54, 3 September 2010 (BST)
6. Yes - A great group. Redoubt 19:40, 3 September 2010 (BST)
7. Yes - They did their part. -- Rolfe Steiner ^{Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders} 03:40, 4 September 2010 (BST)
8. Yeah - As a long time resident of Shearbank, I have seen them often in the past. Left a good impression. --Thadeous Oakley 10:12, 4 September 2010 (BST)
9. 200+ members and over 447,000 group page views! If they were still active they could boss Malton.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:06, 5 September 2010 (BST)
10. These guys were cool! They deserve an award for the group that was something that will never be seen again :( --DiSm ~ T 18:01, 5 September 2010 (BST)
11. Yes --Zensaga 01:03, 6 September 2010 (BST)

    Yes - i remember --~~~~ [talk] 22:27, 17 September 2010 (BST) Voting had closed

No

1. No - I always assumed they got their page views via bots, I never thought they were actually a group. --VVV ^RPMBG 23:27, 3 September 2010 (BST)
2. No - Too much zerging and not enough actually doing stuff for my taste. --Papa Moloch 00:22, 4 September 2010 (BST)

   I'll have you know PTT handled their cheating members personally. I've witnessed their executions of their cheaters first-hand. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:36, 4 September 2010 (BST

   Then they'll have 'executed' enough people for it to qualify as genocide. Further, a far as the actual game goes, they were big but irrelevant. The latter damns the former. --Papa Moloch 14:28, 4 September 2010 (BST)

3. NO cheating zerging fucks heads. that did nothing at all in game. zero.!----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:27, 4 September 2010 (BST)

   Is there any actual proof that they were zerging? --Shatari 12:25, 4 September 2010 (BST)

   Yes. Cross reference any member with the list in the second and third posts of the Zerg Liste thread. Then use the search button to search for that character's name. All additions to the zerg liste are the result of someone submitting evidence to Resenz. It's then evaluated by the Zerg Liste staff. If someone's on that list there's a 95% chance they're a legitimate zerg. The other 5% are coincidental mistakes. The system is not perfect, but if you don't get yourself off the list you're assumed to be a zerg. As it stands several members of PTT are still on the list, and are still being listed. So yeah, they zerg and there's evidence of it. Any other questions? - Goribus 08:35, 8 September 2010 (BST)

   Ye- if 99% of them don't speak english, how do they get off? What does Resenz to for international speaking ud players? -- LEMON #1 11:56, 8 September 2010 (BST)

   That's not Resenz' problem DDR. There are legitimate non zergers on the list, but until they take the effort to go to Resenz to prove otherwise they're still going to be on the list. Also using the not speaking English excuse isn't really valid. Especially since the RDD has about 25% or more members from Europe that speak English as a second, or in some cases, third language. If the 1% of the group that does speak/read English can't go to Resenz and play interpretor for the rest of the group it's no one's problem but their own. If you want them off the liste then go and contact them and tell them what they'll need to do. Had she not taken a leave of absence I'd ask our own Asian member to go and talk to them assuming they speak the same language. Ours speaks English and Chinese, but I think she also speaks German and maybe French. She was a smart girl that one. - Goribus 10:34, 10 September 2010 (BST)

   How does this list work? Do the users compare IP addresses, or is it simply "similar sounding names"? How wide spread was the alleged zerging, and was the majority of the group made aware of it? Further, were any members of the group informed that they were on the list in a language that they could understand? It's easy to accuse someone of zerging, but it's unfair to do so without proof. Can you link to some proof please?--Shatari 17:51, 10 September 2010 (BST)

   For listing purposes a number of criteria is used. Similar naming habits, profile writing styles, creation dates, etc. Everyone that gets listed (or not) is done so because someone went to Resenz and posted a screencap/dumbwit/iwit/etc. It's then evaluated by the Zerg Liste Staff. For purposes of de-listing it's as simple as posting screenshots/dumbwits/iwits showing that the characters are seperated. In the case of mistaken identity deals the owner of each character must go to Resenz and post there for IP verification purposes. As the people that staff the Zerg Liste are moderators and admins for that purpose they can look up IPs of the people posting. From there IPs can be matched against known proxies and more or less pinpoint where said person is posting from. No one tells them that they're on it, as I've said that's not the Zerg Liste's problem.

   Had you used the link I posted you would see hundreds of names on that list. Also a fairly detailed post about how the list works, how to get off of it, how to post to it, etc. The amount of time for listing, investigating, delisting, etc. is fairly high enough as it is. How is one supposed to track down a specific character to tell them they've been listed anyway? Hmmm? As for showing you proof? Go fuck yourself. I don't need to prove shit to you if you're too lazy to do the work yourself. I can't be fucked to track down some mythical memberlist for dozens of random characters and do individual searches to prove to you that someone was listed. Sorry, but I have a life outside of this game and I'm not going to waste hours of my life to win some stupid argument on the internet because someone's so dense they can't do research for themselves. - Goribus 03:15, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   I was told it was standard to be told you were executed for zerging as per the Zerg Liste in game when someone killed a perpetrator of zerging. Do you yourself not follow this practice then? -- LEMON #1 03:35, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   Sure, when I'm zerg hunting with a breather and run into a zerg. The zerg liste copy paste is in every kill taunt. But to go out of my fucking way to randomly inform what is literally hundreds of people they're on the list? Yeah, that's not going to happen. You're being naive to think anyone would go out of their way to track down each and every person on the Zerg Liste to tell them they're on a list. Not to mention it's imfuckingpossible to do so. Go ahead, and try to track down just one random player that isn't associated in the meta-game. I dare you. See how much time and effort you're going to waste to track down one single solitary person playing a single random character. I don't staff the Zerg Liste, I hunt from it and I'm in the ZHU. ZHU =/= Zerg Liste Staff. - Goribus 07:50, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   I don't remember me saying that. Do you remember me saying that? -- LEMON #1 14:06, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   Wait, so you're accusing a group of being zergers, and then you're mad when someone asks you to provide some form of evidence? Have you ever heard of "Burden of Proof"?--Shatari 03:58, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   He already sorta linked you to where said evidence is. 04:09, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   But there's no real evidence there, just some names on a list, devoid of all context or evidence (for what little is needed to get on the list in the first place). The only evidence is that there are players in the group allegedly on the list (Goribus isn't willing to list any names, so I have no reason to assume it's true) and someone allegedly accused them of zerging at some point. Since the only way they can be cleared is to respond to some random list on the internet in a language the majority of them don't speak, it's unlikely that they were ever aware of the list. The site can only view IP addresses of people who actually post on that forum (which is coincidentally the only solid evidence that can be brought against inconspicuous zergers), so he's not even linking to real evidence. Linking to a page with thousands of names and saying "See? PROOF! Don't like it? Fuck you! Prove me wrong!" is not very convincing and does nothing to shift the burden of proof.--Shatari 06:05, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   You are the dumbest mother fucker I have ever met. Do not breed. Ever. - Goribus 07:50, 11 September 2010 (BST)

   Calm yourself this isn't the place for petty insults. Take it to a talk page. --keepster33 01:00, 13 October 2010 (BST)

4. Was going to not vote because I had some idea that they were before my time, but I specifically remember seeing these guys with about 200 members before I found their wiki page for the firs time. This is a vote towards the fact they they've been huge for years and yet I'd never seen or heard of them in-game at all, not once. Yeah, they're cute and it's great that this established UD as an international game that transgressed language barriers, yada yada, and I won't mind if they do become historical for that reason. But I still can't find myself supporting it. -- LEMON #1 11:00, 4 September 2010 (BST)

   I don't wanna vote either side, so don't consider this when tallying up the votes, but I echo DDR's sentiment that a group that big should have had a greater in-game relevance than they did. Their impact wasn't small, but it was 99.9% based on what they were, not what they did. I'm decidedly undecided about this one but I feel that my reasoning is worth pointing out. 13:46, 4 September 2010 (BST) this was originally an abstain but historical voting policy states there may only be yes or no, so I removed the header and placed it up to the rest of voting. -- LEMON #1 14:52, 4 September 2010 (BST)

5. Murdered these guys over and over and over again. Most of their members were just standing logins. Did I mention the LoD wiped the floor with them when we only had 12 members? Oh, and I forgot the zerging thing. It's great and all they had 200 something profiles at their peak, but again, merely profiles. Where did the real gamers get to? Criminally Insane ^{Talk | LoD}
6. No - I spent ample time in Shearbank as both a LUEmbie and a PKer, and I personally never saw them do anything aside from revive a few people (mostly their own members). In fact, the only thing I really recall about PTT was the zerging. --ZiP^MH+LUE 06:04, 5 September 2010 (BST)
7. Nah, even though I remember these guys and am familiar with Shearbank, they didn't leave a real impression on me or anybody I know. --Huntress 07:38, 5 September 2010 (BST)
8. KEKEKE ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:00, 5 September 2010 (BST)
9. Didn't even know they existed --Damien falcon 22:08, 5 September 2010 (BST)
10. No but heard of them. --Blades 02:49, 6 September 2010 (BST)
11. As moloch --Papa Johnny 08:46, 6 September 2010 (BST)
12. No - Although the irony of Asian zergs makes me laugh uproariously. -- Goribus 08:35, 8 September 2010 (BST)
13. No. Their only contribution was having a large Asian-based group. --
     
    ^SDN 12:06, 8 September 2010 (BST)

    That's not true. They made wiki contributions as well! Their group page translates all the important playing references into Chinese, something that the Chinese-speaking users on UDWiki will be able to understand more easily! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:51, 15 September 2010 (BST)

14. Communing with the Cosmos for days for guidance on this vote, the Blob finally appeared before me, shaking his gelatinous head in the negative. --Dr summeroff 00:21, 9 September 2010 (BST)

Voting has closed. With 11 For and 14 Against, PTT has Failed to achieve the 2/3 necessary for historical status. —Aichon— 23:12, 17 September 2010 (BST)

The Crimson Clan

Yep, you read it - The Crimson Clan no longer operates in Urban Dead. Started in April 4th, 2007, The Clan made its first triumphs defending Dakerstown against zombie hordes - most notably Extinction. After few months of operating (and growing in numbers) The Clan took Havercroft and Ackland Mall as its home.

During the time in Havercroft (which lasted until the beginning of 2010) The Clan reached its peak in numbers (over 100 members working under the group tag) and also were among Top 10 Groups in the game. Clan also worked for keeping up the Mall and various resource buildings around it - mainly NTs - and also participated in the many sieges of Ackland during this time, gaining some reputation among the regular Mall residents. --Waak 20:16, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Too bad the Clan didn't become historic after all. But if we can't be remembered this way, I'm sure we'll be remembered in others. If anyone wants to contact the few of us that remain, our forums are still more or less active. Bye Crimson, these few years have been good ones. Rest in peace. --Jsrbrunty 22:49, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Yes (Crimson)

Definatly a name I reconise--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:21, 11 July 2010 (BST)

1. Yarp. Happy days fighting zergers in molebank. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:23, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   So this group fought zergers with zergers? That's new. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:28, 18 July 2010 (BST)

   I'm not the biggest fan of the group, but I definitely recognize them and knew of their impact in the Ackland Mall area. Think I may have even killed a member or two, now that I think of it some more... —Aichon— 20:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)

2. Aye --Waak 20:31, 11 July 2010 (BST)
3. Good times...I think we made a big enough dent to be listed.--ErrorMaker 20:38, 11 July 2010 (BST)
4. Yes, definitely. --AlexanderRM 23:12, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   I remember you from back in my days KoBB days. You were one of the more noteworthy groups in the Ackland region. --Shatari 01:39, 12 July 2010 (BST)

   Huh, I hadn't heard about the zerging before.--Shatari 05:23, 14 July 2010 (BST)

   Sure I remember them. Actually dropped by a couple of times on their forums long ago. --Thadeous Oakley 18:16, 12 July 2010 (BST) --Thadeous Oakley 23:41, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   Even I know who they were. Technical Pacifist 18:27, 12 July 2010 (BST)

5. Yeah we did a lot in and out of our main area --Vinduska 18:45, 12 July 2010 (BST)
6. Yes. I've been out of the game for a while, but I have some very good memories of the Crimson Clan, and I think we had a pretty big effect on the areas we worked in. Also, I refute the allegations of zerging below. I have tried to stay up to date with goings-on, and have no knowledge of recent alt abuse within the Clan. I'd suggest that all those below examine their sources, if they have any, rather than use zerging as a cover for in-game rivalries and deny this influential group the recognition they deserve. --LK Oddjob 19:32, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   Did you actually read the resenz thread linked below? It's hardly a matter of opinion. 19:42, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   I myself was involved in the alt controversy, but if you'd care to note, that was resolved three years ago. We worked over an area of several suburbs, and at the time thought it reasonable to have alternate characters, provided they were kept separate. I acknowledge that at times some members gave in to temptation and used more than one character in the same operation, but that was the exception. I regret my actions then, but they were restricted to a few members of the group. Yes, the clan wasn't infallible, but we learned from our mistakes, and I consider we have more than regained respect in the years since then. --LK Oddjob 20:09, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   I don't know about you, but I consider multiple alts in the same group zerging. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 09:48, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   Its not, you can have 2 alts in the same group, but you can't have them in the same suburb, or 10 squares to be safe about it. Now it may be bad form (if you do it to boost on the stats page), but it is allowed.--Raddox MurTangle 20:29, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   That's still considered alt abuse. The DEM have been villified for years as a result and eventually recanted it. It was also one of the elements that led to the downfall of the Imperium (if I remember correctly). 20:49, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   It may be considered alt abuse, but technically it is not.--Raddox MurTangle 21:58, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   There are certain things that are disagreed upon. What if your character is 7 or 8 block from another? What if the horde of one character moves a little faster than expected and hits the suburb of another? Can the human character take a look around? Must the zombie specifically avoid buildings seen by the human? There is a gray area. --VVV ^RPMBG 22:13, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   10 squares apart to be safe, If you unknowingly or knowingly bring an alt within that distance than will suffer a search rate drop and a hit rate drop. So by game mechanics you are zerging. No gray area there. --Raddox MurTangle 22:17, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   So if you make a new character who happens to spawn within those ten blocks of another, you're zerging? And it's perfectly fine to have one character find a target, attack him, flee, and have a second character finish him off, so long as they never go within those magical ten blocks of each other? --VVV ^RPMBG 22:39, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   From what I've seen, there's a roughly 24 hour time limit you need to stick to between moving out and moving in with someone else, which means that you may as well just rest the first character and AP up again. As for spawning, from my own experiences, it seems to have some kind of an effect but I don't know if it triggers a full-blown flag or if I just had some shitty luck, but the only way around it really is to just get the fuck out of Dodge and let things right themselves. 22:43, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   It is 24 hours, your right, and if you spawn a new player within 10 squares of an old one then you should move them away as fast as possible. But all this does not matter if your dealing with a proxy zerger, because they do not suffer the lowered rates. That's a different discussion for a different time.--Raddox MurTangle 23:31, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   10 squares apart, you say? I noticed this group centers around Ackland Mall. If you take a look here, it states, "Please do not put one alt on each side of Caiger Mall and claim that this constitutes "separate suburbs."" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:21, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   I'm not saying they are not zerging, I know how bad it was when I was running a group there and I already made my vote as a no if you look down there V. All I am saying is that 10 spaces is a suburb, so the rule is "keep em a suburb apart" so basically keep your people 10 spaces apart.--Raddox MurTangle 08:32, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   Also, email Kevan and ask him for yourself, the zerg mechanics will not kick in if the same IP has 2 people in the same group if they are 10 spaces away.--Raddox MurTangle 08:35, 21 July 2010 (BST)

7. Yes. I consider we've contributed a lot to the game (especially the Havercroft area) over the years. At our best, we were well known to people all over Malton, not just in our patch of ground. There seems to be a lot of argument over the zerging issue. The Clan used to zerg openly, as did many groups at the time. As it became less acceptable and more groups turned non-zerging, our founder also passed a ban on it. Despite our previous zerging, this rule was followed and the few who didn't go along with it were disciplined accordingly. That rule was made over 2 and a half years ago. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about now. --Jsrbrunty 20:08, 17 July 2010 (BST)
8. Yes. In protest to dumb policies I'm voting yes on everything up for historical voting until forever. At least that way things that may have mattered will actually have a slightly better chance even if it means voting in a few piles of crap that had an impact on their members/participants. --Karek^maps?! 00:54, 21 July 2010 (BST)
9. Yes. Zerging was prohibited. As a result only my main remained in TCC. Stormys out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormys (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

   So, wait, you knew about the zerging, and you both stayed in the group and now support them as being historical? Wow. —Aichon— 09:55, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   I was new to the game didn't even knew what not, after i found out zerging is illegal i stayed only with main in clan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormys (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

   I can understand that, given that I've known other people who made the same mistake, but that you stayed in a group that knowingly supported it is what I'm questioning, as is the fact that you're still supporting them now. —Aichon— 23:34, 22 July 2010 (BST)

   The Clan didn't support zerging after the ban was passed within the group. May I repeat that that was over 2 years ago. Since then we never supported zerging knowingly, even in the smallest way. --Jsrbrunty 23:08, 23 July 2010 (BST)

No (Crimson)

1. Against - Whilst I've heard of you guys, and I've dealt with you as a member of Columbine Kids, I fail to see anything you've done that makes you historical. Noteworthy, perhaps, worth a mention in passing, sure, but not truly historical. 20:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   Jesus God burn that zerg nest with fire. 15:09, 13 July 2010 (BST)

2. Against - User:Whitehouse 20:29, 11 July 2010 (BST)
3. Against - The only reason I've ever heard of you is because the same guy who got me to try UD told me to join you. I have never seen you mentioned anywhere else. --VVV ^RPMBG 20:47, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   And one more thing. The Clan was home to CyAdora (aka SillyLillyPilly). She happens to be a major rapist, and in Shartak, the most well known by far. This is the worst she's done in UD, but in Shartak, she definitely crossed a line, and ended up spurring one of the largest controversies in the game's history. This is just one bad apple, but following Giles's excellent train of thought, it doesn't exactly encourage us to honor the group with the title of historical. --VVV ^RPMBG 09:31, 17 July 2010 (BST)

4. Yeah, I've heard of you. --
    
    
    
    
   00:42, 13 July 2010 (BST)
5. Heard of them, but not significant enough to warrent historical. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)

   Forgot about the fact that they were massive zergers too. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:01, 13 July 2010 (BST)

6. Only famous for being mass-zerging cunts. --Papa Moloch 06:26, 13 July 2010 (BST)
7. No - Moloch's link and this discussion were pretty damning. —Aichon— 07:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)
8. So this is where the St Aden zerg army took off? That could almost be historical in and of itself. But not really. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:20, 13 July 2010 (BST)
9. Against - Sorry bud. There is a price to pay when your group gets caught zerging as part of their official policy. One of the sanctions for zerging around here is a loss of respect, and since the historical category is all about respect/e-penis I can't vote for you.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:30, 13 July 2010 (BST)
10. Nope As Giles. Technical Pacifist 15:34, 13 July 2010 (BST)
11. Negative - The whole zerg thing is the nail in the coffin. --ZiP^MH+LUE 03:36, 14 July 2010 (BST)
12. No It is the only rule in the game, no alt abuse. To knowingly break that rule in order to build a group negates any historic value that group should otherwise behold (in my opinion). Also, I don't sit well with their logic to abuse alts because "Pkers are asshats". Havercroft is a blight on all of Malton. I will never go back because of the amount of zerging players in the area. I ran a group in Ackland and quickly found out just how bad it was. --Raddox MurTangle 06:54, 14 July 2010 (BST)
13. No - Zerging is bad, k?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:04, 16 July 2010 (BST)
14. ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKE!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 09:38, 17 July 2010 (BST)
15. Against - Zergers don't deserve to be remembered... Whenever I see a zerger I take my axe and chop off their head >:] --Zensaga 13:41, 17 July 2010 (BST)
16. Against - Fuck, Cyadora had seriously managed to fool me back then. Unless she really was 40 year old with kids... --Thadeous Oakley 23:43, 17 July 2010 (BST)

    I think she really was, Thad. --Jsrbrunty 17:10, 18 July 2010 (BST)

17. No, fuck off.-- Adward  17:33, 18 July 2010 (BST)
18. Against - Zergs don't deserve recognition.--KyleStyle 01:11, 21 July 2010 (BST)
19. Against - Having looked into it, there appears to have been quite a bit of zerging going on with the CC. There have been plenty of groups that did more than you without having to stoop to cheating. --Shatari 01:05, 24 July 2010 (BST)

101st Airborne Unit

Apperentlly I have to do this because I was checking up on old memories and the 101st Airborne Unit is only listed at Inactive. The 101st was very historic. Considering in 06' and 07' we took back nummerous malls and even played a main role in taking back creedy once. I, And about 3 other people are the only surviviors of when we disbanded. We have now formed the 82nd Airborne Division and most people don't even remember The Subtle little 101st Airborne Unit. Well I'm going to change that, I nominate the 101st for historical status!-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 20:27, 15 June 2010 (BST)

Yes (101st)

1. I am Jerrel, And the 101st deserves this. Of course I'm going to vote yes. Let's just hope everyone else feels the same way.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 20:42, 15 June 2010 (BST)
2. --Dunstan 20:44, 15 June 2010 (BST)
3. Yes Vague echoey recollection. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:38, 16 June 2010 (BST)
4. Yes If I remember correctly you guys had a presence in Peppardville around 2006, meets my definition of a "known group in section of suburb where their influence was seen" - Vantar 07:23, 17 June 2010 (BST)
5. Yes Jed 8:54, 24 June 2010 (EST)
6. Yes - He is Jerrel, and that's quite enough for me. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 19:39, 28 June 2010 (BST)

No (101st)

1. Nay. The 101st what? -- Spiderzed▋ 21:42, 15 June 2010 (BST)

   Airborne Unit. ;P -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 22:00, 15 June 2010 (BST)

2. Maybe if they were the 1st, but if there were 100 others before them they can't really be that special. 21:43, 15 June 2010 (BST)
3. Nay - I would've never heard of them if I didn't make a point of maintaining the formatting of the suburb group listings. I'm afraid I've never seen any effects that they've caused or have heard of anyone working alongside them or commending them for their efforts. Really, this is the very first time I've ever heard anyone talk about them at all. —Aichon— 22:17, 15 June 2010 (BST)
4. As Above --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:18, 15 June 2010 (BST)
5. No -THE 101ST HAS OFFICIALLY DISBANDED FOR SECURITY REASONS! It is now called 82nd Airborne Division.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:23, 15 June 2010 (BST)
6. No -as Michaleson --Raddox MurTangle 22:28, 15 June 2010 (BST)
7. Spam - But thanks for helping make the point as to why "The groups leader wants it to be historical, then why shouldn't we let him." --VVV ^RPMBG 00:22, 16 June 2010 (BST)
8. No - Did nothing. --Papa Moloch 00:45, 16 June 2010 (BST)
9. No - Not this guy again. --
    
    
    
    
   02:23, 16 June 2010 (BST)
10. No - "I, and about 3 other people are the only surviviors of when we disbanded. We have now formed the 82nd Airborne Division". Those are your words, which to me sounds like there was something about the 101st that made you want to change the name to the 82nd. Personally, I don't even care what the reasons are because that tells me that the group isn't really dead--just shambling along under a new guise. And quite obviously slouching because as Aichon above, if I did not stalk suburb pages I wouldn't have even heard of the 101st. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:14, 16 June 2010 (BST)
11. No - Who? Oidar 11:44, 16 June 2010 (BST)
12. No - yet another sack of crap did nothing group. what have you unimaginative idiots done to impact the game in any way? ZERO! wow you retook some malls.. holy shit thats never been done before. GAME OVER MAN! your group page is not getting deleted. why all these turds crawling out from under rocks to get into historical status all of a sudden?----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 13:31, 16 June 2010 (BST)
13. No - As Oidar. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 17:22, 16 June 2010 (BST)
14. No - Nein. Group is subjectively not historical enough to be an historical group. --Zarneverfike 19:11, 16 June 2010 (BST)
15. No - Hibernaculum 20:23, 16 June 2010 (BST)
16. No - I never even heard of this group before. The only reason I saw this is because I was looking at the Escape nomination. All this group did was, quote: "took back nummerous malls and even played a main role in taking back creedy once." Sorry but that's nothing special. --FallUpStairs 21:23, 16 June 2010 (BST)
17. No - First, seems to me that you just changed the name of the group. And as most people here, never heard of you. Taking back some malls and a fort once doesn't make you historical. --KyleStyle 22:40, 16 June 2010 (BST)
18. I heard of you, but you didn't really do much to warrant a Historical status. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:55, 17 June 2010 (BST)
19. No - No offense, but I'm not seeing anything significant in your group's resume. --Shatari 06:19, 17 June 2010 (BST)
20. No - I remember the 101st Airborne. He was stupid. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:10, 22 June 2010 (BST)
21. No - I remember you guys, but you're not influential enough.-- Adward  16:13, 22 June 2010 (BST)
22. No - Who are these guys? --jorm 08:00, 23 June 2010 (BST)

    Seems to me like most of you are too young in this game and ignorent to even remember who we are considering we disbanded in 2007.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 22:42, 23 June 2010 (BST)

    No. And learn to format, for GODS sake. --

     

     

     

     

    23:40, 23 June 2010 (BST)

    Yeah, because Sonny, Jorm and Moloch are all newbs.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:48, 23 June 2010 (BST)

    I said MOST. Most of the people who would have supported this have either quit a long time ago, Or are laying flat dead outside the woodbourne building. And most of these "no" votes are from people who have nothing better to do than spam "no" about groups that were disbanded LONGGGG befor they even joined this game.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 00:11, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Whinge much? 00:15, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    No, it's about you trying to promote one group from a big piece of homogeneous shit demographic of groups, all of which are "1000TH AIRBOURNE MILITARY BATTALION CORPS PEACE ANTI ZOMBIE FORCE 36TH BRIGADE INFANTRY SWAT CORPS SPECIAL OPS" and never really got anywhere and no one recognises, let alone remembers. And what the fuck, even by your logic, your group doesn't stand the test of time. You cry because it won't make historical because no one remembers is and those that do aren't around to vote it in. If it were historical, by definition it wouldn't have the problem of disappearing into the pages of history without anyone remembering it. --

     

     

     

     

    05:19, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Why would you say it in response to jorm unless it was in directed at him? Don't try to weasel out now with that "most" crap. As for the rest of your excuse, I accidentally kicked a bouncy ball into another kid's head during recess on January 25th, 1993. Don't ask me why I remember that, but it stuck with me. I can hear you asking now, "why should I care about that?" Well, just as my playground mistake from 17 years ago is of no historical importance to anyone else, the same can be said of your group. If your group ever was that important, you should have put them up for historical status back in 2007. As it is, you have no room to complain since you knew what you were getting into when you nominated the group. —Aichon— 13:20, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Sure, Go ahead and call us a, what did you call it? A..."big piece of homogeneous shit demographic of a group?" I mean, I GUESS that's cool of you to do. But, Either way....-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 13:48, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Uhh...try again. I didn't call you that. —Aichon— 13:56, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Not you Aichon, Your reason was somewhat legitimate and funny. I also have question, Are we alowwed to re-nominate?-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 13:59, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    #5, at the top. —Aichon— 14:11, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    *facepalm* KK thnxs-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 14:15, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    If you re-nominate it twice more I'll vote yes--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:31, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Why? And I'll keep re-nominating it until it gets accepted.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 22:07, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    Lawl. Who knows, if everyone won't bother voting no after a while, your persistence might pay off. (but really, don't do that)--Thadeous Oakley 22:22, 24 June 2010 (BST)

    I'd advise you to remember that there's already significant precedent for treating repeated misuse of nomination systems as vandalism. Give it its fair chance but don't press the issue simply to game the system. 22:41, 24 June 2010 (BST)

23. Never heard of you. =/ -- Cheese 00:02, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Escape

I was told I had to do this through here, but I'll keep it short. Escape is over - it was always designed to end on June 1, something that was heavily advertised throughout the duration of the movement. If you could pass me on this so I can go ahead and start writing my memoirs, I'd be most appreciative. -Captain Video 05:56, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Yes (Escape)

1. Yes - Definitely one of the most interesting and highly publicised events in a looooooooong time. --
    
    
    
    
   06:10, 3 June 2010 (BST)
2. Hell yes - Absolutely. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 06:22, 3 June 2010 (BST)
3. Oh, hell yes - Lots of publicity, huge turnout, unfortunate results. --TheBardofAwesome 06:41, 3 June 2010 (BST)
4. Yes - Same reasons as DDR. μ_nholy®_eign 06:52, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Yes - It was interesting and even though I did not participate, the numbers were large enough that it deserves a mention. --Travis Wells not signed properly --

    

    

    

    

   08:42, 3 June 2010 (BST)

5. Yes - Most certainly. --Thadeous Oakley 08:31, 3 June 2010 (BST)
6. Yes, yes and thrice yes - twas verily bloody good fun, m'lud. Chief Seagull squawk 09:04, 3 June 2010 (BST)
7. Yes Events do not need to be successful to be historical and anything that gathers that many brains into one big buffet most certainly counts as significant! --Honestmistake 10:09, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Incredibly Weak Yes - I'd prefer it to be a historical event, in all honesty, but I don't see why it can't be both (assuming someone makes a page for the event).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:51, 3 June 2010 (BST) Changin' mah vote.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:27, 3 June 2010 (BST)

8. Yes - Largest group on the stats page by far in a good while, lots of publicity, and clearly significant by the numbers that turned up on both sides --ORakoon 11:49, 3 June 2010 (BST)
9. Yes - Utter failure but a good try--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 12:44, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Weak Yes - Has been definitively the most significant event this year so far. (Of course, the opposition consists of the umpteenth Battle of Krinks and St. Aiden's zerg army trying to reclaim Ridleybank, so this isn't really a badge to be proud of.) -- Spiderzed▋ 12:54, 3 June 2010 (BST) Screw that, others are right. We need a NPoV page on the event and cover that as historic, not that group. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:55, 10 June 2010 (BST)

10. Yes - A historic fail, but historic none-the-less. Asheets 13:13, 3 June 2010 (BST)
11. Yes - There's a blurred line between an event and a group that sets itself a time-limited objective/reason to exist/whatever, but this doesn't count against it as a historical group IMO. Escape had good flavour (lol), a new idea, a large following and a large zombie response. Historical. Yes. Garum 13:17, 3 June 2010 (BST)
12. Without a bloody doubt, Yes - The sheer momentum it picked up in such a short space of time, and given that it came from absolutely nothing in the first place, people are gonna remember this. Anyone who was there saw the numbers present, both inside and out after the zeds came. PK'ers came, BH'ers came... it was the place to be. And for a while, there was an atmosphere of excited hope buzzing around the place, something the game had been lacking for too long. F'kin yes man. GG Escape, GG. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |
     
    14:30, 3 June 2010 (BST)
13. Yes As Kempy. Oidar 15:09, 3 June 2010 (BST)
14. Yes I don't see why not. As a group, the largest I have ever seen, by the way, it was one of the more bizarre moments of Urban Dead. It certainly deserves to be remembered, though perhaps under events as opposed to groups? --The Prophet of Life 19:01, 3 June 2010 (BST)
15. Yes - It deserves it. Mesousa 19:39, 3 June 2010 (BST)
16. Yes - Obviously. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:02, 3 June 2010 (BST)
17. Yes - Hell, I knew, without a doubt, that this would end in nothing but a complete and total zombie massacre, and yet there were enough people involved and enough interest raised that I lemminged right along. InvincibleZombie 21:32, 3 June 2010 (BST)
18. Yes - Fo shizzle homey. --Q. JuliusTBH 23:12, 3 June 2010 (BST)
19. I am Captain Video, and I was torn limb from limb for my cause. And I suppose I'm allowed one vote; I just didn't want to be first. That would have been tacky. -Captain Video 05:03, 4 June 2010 (BST)
20. Yes - Got an old fart's attention :P --Haliman - Talk 05:48, 4 June 2010 (BST)
21. Yes - Of course, not putting that event on Historical Page would be just insane. GoLookAndKill ^CFT 10:28, 4 June 2010 (BST)
22. Yes - I see the point with event rather than group, but On_Strike is a historical group, thus Escape fits in this category as well. --Cruzz 12:05, 4 June 2010 (BST)
23. Yes - Cruzz makes a good point--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 12:09, 4 June 2010 (BST)
24. Yes - It made me play again, however shortly. I've been getting a lot of game news through a friend in my hangout channel over the years, this was the first that made me want to return and be part of something, even if it failed miserably. → So pretty much what DDR said. pinkgothic 13:40, 4 June 2010 (BST)
25. Yes - I had fun attempting to escape from Malton, it got me more interested in this game. It also got me eaten. It should definetly be a historical group. -- Drunk Link2500  14:37, 4 June 2010 (BST)
26. Yes - It should remind us that bad ideas have bad endings. --Colette Hart 18:58, 4 June 2010 (BST)
27. Yes - pretty epic stuff--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 03:35, 5 June 2010 (BST)
28. Yes - It was a ton of fun and quite memorable. They came, we saw, we conquered. ^_^ --Shatari 03:38, 5 June 2010 (BST)
29. yes please! it actually gave me a reason for playing this game. Even if it ended in a massive bloodshed with dead bodies piled up to the ceiling, it still rocked :) --Jack Kolt ^Talk|Chars 05:34, 5 June 2010 (BST)
30. YES - A great group with potential to perhaps one day change the game? --JohnGGeo 05:42, 5 June 2010 (BST)
31. Yes - Great event, really shows how fun it can be when heaps of people are together. --Dorsalus 08:39, 5 June 2010 (BST)
32. Yes - We finally did something different! We tried to Escape the game. Even though it didn't work and our dreams were crushed. --FallUpStairs 13:07, 5 June 2010 (BST)
33. Yes - -- » JS talk contribs » 15:31, 5 June 2010 (BST)
34. Yes - It might not have been successful, but the effort, the fun idea and the number of people involved reminded me of the good old mass events we had when last I played, back in '06. Furniture 17:27, 5 June 2010 (BST)
35. Yes - Of course this was one of the biggest things that I have seen in my whole time playing.--Sybertronic 20:22, 5 June 2010 (BST)
36. Yes - Epic Fail, but was worth it.Noxaarmi 20:43, 5 June 2010 (BST)
37. Yes - Yes, it was a imaginative effort to do something new and fun in the game, and in that it was a big success. Marcel Swann 22:54, 5 June 2010 (BST)
38. Yes - It put some life back into the game and it was fun, I am for making it a historical event just for that reason.--Truezombieboy 05:02, 6 June 2010 (BST)
39. Yes - Although the coordination was pathetic, and many were slaughtered, it was an excellent group and event. In little over a month, this group was able to gain 400+ members. It's double the size of RRF, but only ran up until June 1st. Even though nothing was accomplished, either because the zombies had overtaken Ellicott or because Kevan didn't care, its a historic group nonetheless.--SykoKiller666 14:50, 6 June 2010 (BST)
40. Hell Yeah - I pked 3 Escapists and destroyed the generator in The Woodborne Building, and I must say, they've gained my respect, sitting ducks as they were. --Sam 2334 14:54, 6 June 2010 (BST)
41. Yes - Easily the most interesting thing I've done on UD (Admittedly it's the first major thing I've done, but meh) --Remnant Matt 15:07, 6 June 2010 (BST)
42. Yes yes yes yes --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 01:48, 7 June 2010 (BST)
43. Yes Yes, the first attempt by humans to try to change the game with lots of people that showed up. --User:Robkiller 7:19 7 June 2010 (BST)
44. Yes It was an interesting idea, and attracted the attention of many players. Plus, it's a nice tragic tale. Toffey 03:22, 7 June 2010 (BST)
45. Yes Other "crusades" in history did not achieve their goals but were even more "historical" for all that, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade --Belisarius17 04:37, 7 June 2010 (BST)
46. Yes They kinda had an effect even if it wasn't the desired one.--ZIPO/Talk/◆◆◆/CAPD 06:49, 7 June 2010 (BST)
47. Yes It was treated as a group, albeit a loosely associated one, and something did happen, even if it was a far cry from the intended result. --Austin hunt 15:45, 7 June 2010 (BST)
48. Yes I died, like many others, but it was the first time I've felt involved in something big in the game in a while. Would've preferred it if the zombie hordes hadn't arrived and eaten everything, but oh well. Since then I've been infected, and returned to zombie form twice!--Hynzytheweirdo 23:28 7 June 2010 (BST)
49. Yes I, accidental creator of Escape, would love it if it become a historical group. The group created a large movement that has in fact caused a few changes. Also, it would be really cool if something I started was forever remembered in internet history.--Superathen 01:18, 8 June 2010 (BST)

    Am I the only one who missed these few changes Escape caused? -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 05:57, 8 June 2010 (BST)

50. Oh Yes yes yes Definetly. If it's not mafde historical, then George Washington shouldn't be. --Justinbronze 03:07, 8 June 2010 (BST)
    

    Unless I'm missing something, George Washington was more person than event... Which, now that I think about it, makes him more suited as a group, wouldn't you say?  ;-) --Liche 21:00, 8 June 2010 (BST)

51. 14 Yeses On behalf of the entire 82nd Airborne division we all say yes to the historical satus of Escape. That's 14 yeses.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 20:18, 8 June 2010 (BST)

    If you could have the other 13 sign, I'd really appreciate it. -Captain Video 02:29, 9 June 2010 (BST)

52. Yes Even though it failed, it still sent reverberations throughout the game. It unified 500+ people, and is one of the largest groups/ events in Urbandead history. Just because something doesn't succeed or change things doesn't mean it shouldn't be historical - like a German land war in Russia during the winter. We all learn about that in history class, don't we?--alevins 04:49, 9 June 2010 (BST)
53. Yes The fail is irrelevant. It was an eye catching event and impacted the game. --Jesus Sante 12:56, 9 June 2010 (BST)
54. Yes - Shit was so cash--Orange Talk 03:42, 10 June 2010 (BST)
55. Yea - Definitely historical, even if only as a "Hey, remember when all stood in a railway station praying for Kevan to rapture us away?" kind of thing. Wil Truman 18:09, 10 June 2010 (BST)
56. Yes - The groups leader wants it to be historical, then why shouldn't we let him. --♥MSMD ^{(Talk) (Glitch)} 16:01, 12 June 2010 (BST)

    My fictional group has two people in it and once repaired a building. I'm the group leader. Can we be historical too? —Aichon— 21:22, 12 June 2010 (BST)

    Pfffft, your group smells like feet. My group, however, had a massive effect on the game, and should already be remembered by all. We should be historical. --VVV ^RPMBG 21:47, 12 June 2010 (BST)

57. Of Course It had effect, even though it failed, it managed to unify +400 people, so yes. --LaZaH 18:13, 13 June 2010 (BST)
58. "Definitely, yes. It failed but at least it was interesting. Actually got me back to the game. I'm still lying dead there. Waiting for the end... " Kylac 20:25, 13 June 2010 (BST)
59. Yes. it was very good. Matias Gray 18:16, 14 June 2010 (BST)
60. Yea There was so much talk about the great Escape that people from all over Malton came to the event. It may have failed, but the participants gave it their best shot, so they should be remembered. Canis Caeli 6:44, 15 June 2010 (BST)
61. Yea - the group cause the event. Which was a significant note in the timeline. Therefore, the group is historical. Much like Adolf Hitler is historical, for being someone involved in one of the protagonists in the second world war. Flawless logic, right there. :3 -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 21:55, 15 June 2010 (BST)

    Your mum is flawless logic. 21:58, 15 June 2010 (BST)

    You mean his face! Oh yeah, flawless comeback! --VVV ^RPMBG 00:22, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    I believe the word your looking for, as the flawless comeback of all time is "YOU'RE flawless logic." -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 17:37, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    More like how the Jews aren't historical, because, despite being majorly involved in WW2, they're still around in abundance and didn't achieve their aim to be not massacred.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:11, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    The Jews who died in the holocaust are remembered, and shall be for a long time, because they were the ones who suffered most due to the Holocaust. (As will the Nazis who were the perpetrators.) However, those that had less to do with the event, like the Romani and the Slavs are less remembered. Much like if one were to be asked about the event Escape, the first group that would come to mind would be "Escape", rather than "No Escape" or "That huge group of zombies that ruined it for everyone". This will probably be moved to the talk page soon. -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 17:37, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    Can we just agree that you all lose at logic because of Godwin's Law? —Aichon— 18:08, 16 June 2010 (BST)

    I was waiting for someone to realise... ;) -- Rahrah 18:12, 16 June 2010 (BST)

62. Yes - For the record I think this entire category is retarted. But my "no" vote from earlier was only with the intention of getting one of you apparently too lazy 400+ people to write a brief analysis of what happened to your group, so future generations could look on the historical page and have an idea what it was all about. The fact that a group of 400 people can't muster a single individual with the wiki-fu to properly memorialize their own passing is a shame. Sigh. But anyways I never intended to deny this worthy group of the historical status that it deserves. Good luck and I hope the extra vote helps. :) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:45, 16 June 2010 (BST)
63. Yes - A bit of a toss-up, but I think the group and event are historical, even if they failed. --Zarneverfike 19:11, 16 June 2010 (BST)

No (Escape)

1. Why? - I'm leaning towards a yes for the reasons DDR mentioned, but aside from being highly publicised I'm not really seeing any effects from the event. You know, aside from a whole lot of zombies in one place, which was funny as hell. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:39, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   I understand your point, but events this big are few and far between nowadays. In fact, that's an understatement, since as far as I know, this is the largest gathering of people I've heard of in two years, since March of The Dead and the apparent Battle of Barhapolis. In a game where numbers are declining and group actions en masse aren't as spectacular (particular in roleplaying value), I found this thrilling and exciting. --

    

    

    

    

   07:30, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Your word: event. This group was less than impressive and failed to change anything about the way the game was played. The event they were at was much bigger than just their group, which is what makes the event historical, even though the group is not. —Aichon— 11:33, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Personally I think the exact opposite. As an event it was shit, I just sat there and listened to spam and then got PK'd and died. The group is what was original. Now we are just butting heads about opinions though so let's agree to disagree since we've both made points for and against yeah? --

    

    

    

    

   11:36, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   I can agree to that. I think I viewed the event differently since I was on the outside looking in, rather than the inside looking out, as you were. For us zombies, this was the best eating we've had in awhile, and the most fun too, since almost all of the big groups showed up in force. Lots of joint strike operations and the like make for lots of fun. :) —Aichon— 11:41, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   No/Abstain - It's absolutely a historical group/event, but I'd like to see something on the page which details what happened. Now that the 1st and 2nd have come and gone, perhaps some of the people who participated can write up a little "post-event analysis". Then I'll happily vote yes.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 09:03, 3 June 2010 (BST) changing vote to yes.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:34, 16 June 2010 (BST)

2. No - I feel that the event was HUGELY significant and should definitely be considered historical (see here), but the group itself failed to change the game at all and didn't do anything of significance aside from get together in one place and get themselves (along with everyone and everything else in a 10 block radius) killed by hungry zombies. Had they actually succeeded at their objectives, possibly even their secondary one of committing mass suicide by jumping, I might change my mind, but they didn't. Also, with 414 members still active in the group, that makes it far and away the largest in the game right now, so I think it's still too early to consider the group beyond the point of actively contributing (as the rules at the top of this page require). I know that's a bit of a technicality, but it's just one reason for my vote amongst several. —Aichon— 11:25, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Typically groups made for a one-time purpose go into historical groups not events. Eg. BBB, and more likening to Escape itself, On strike. Just like Big Bash (which didn't really "change the game" besides be a horde but is still with my former examples in Historical Groups category), it's just the thing we do, I guess. --

    

    

    

    

   11:32, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   But if it's an event, then we avoid No Escape requesting the same thing. They'd both be pinned down under the same name.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:33, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   On Strike actually succeeded though, and as I said, had Escape succeeded, I may have changed my vote (likely would have). As for likening it to other events, why not the famous sieges and the like that are mentioned over here? This was essentially the biggest and shortest siege in recent history, after all. Yonnua also makes a good point about it covering all of the groups if it's an event. —Aichon— 11:36, 3 June 2010 (BST)

3. No - Like my vote up there in the yes column says, it was very weak, and Aichon's changed my mind. As Aichon, and as I said before, but with much more frowny-face. >:( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:28, 3 June 2010 (BST)
4. No - This seems more like an event to me, and didn't actually change anything within the game. I supported the effort, but I don't think it deserves enshrinement like this given its eventual lack of any impact. 15:24, 3 June 2010 (BST)
5. Hahahahahahahaha! Oh, wait. You're serious? Let me laugh harder. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! - They didn't do shit other than get trolled to death. And they certainly didn't accomplish anything. And like Aichon said, the event might be historical, but the group isn't. The group is just a footnote on the event's historical page in my opinion. - Goribus 21:23, 3 June 2010 (BST)
6. No - Event, yes. Group, no. --Papa Moloch 00:28, 4 June 2010 (BST)
7. Event - I worry that No Escape will be left out otherwise, and they played a big role. Besides, I infected DDR, one of the most eventful attacks of my career. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:29, 4 June 2010 (BST)
8. Fuck no - As a group, their only virtue was numbers. They did everything that a group could do wrong and that's including them not achieving their stated goals. The amount of fail in Escape as a group is immeasurable with currently manufactured equipment. As a historical event? I'd give it a second thought before voting "no" again. I'm not knocking it as something fun, just on every other possible level. --Papa Johnny 05:51, 4 June 2010 (BST)

   A whole mess of people died? That doesn't count? I mean yes, it was a failure, but it was pretty spectacular. Like watching a rocket blow up on the launchpad. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)

9. Fuck No – As JB, Aich', Moloch. (See also: Bandwagon? :P) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:07, 4 June 2010 (BST)
10. triple massive fuck no as above. since when do we reward massive fail? maybe as an event. this needs to be forgotten.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 17:51, 4 June 2010 (BST)
11. No - Escape as a group failed as already mentioned, all they had were numbers and an idea. A huge part of what made the event fun was the zombies and PKers who showed up, and they are given little mention on the Escape group page. You're glorifying the failing element of a much larger thing. Make an event page, tell of all who were there and all that happened. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 18:06, 4 June 2010 (BST)
12. No - As Moloch! --Akbar 18:23, 4 June 2010 (BST)
13. No - If you actually went by the original intent of the Escape page, you should have walked away from the game as of June 2nd. Since you are here requesting that the page be put up for a historical group, it's obvious that you didn't quit the game. As such, we shouldn't reward a tantrum with Historical status. I did make a template for the occasion. Enjoy. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:40, 4 June 2010 (BST)

    No, I concede failure with no clauses. I simply believe this deserves to be remembered. As Goethe put it, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Which would make it a Historical Event and not a Historical Group. Even then, I will still vote against, as the members who participated as a protesting survivor were not actually going to quit the game, thus making the whole exercise a giant circle-jerk of futility. If you and the others had actually gone through with it and someone else put up the event, I would have considered voting for, as it actually did stir people to do things. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:26, 11 June 2010 (BST)

14. No for being one of the whiniest and zergiest "groups" since the Children of the Darque? Bugger off--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:43, 4 June 2010 (BST)

    Prove whininess. Prove zerging. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Wish Granted! As for zerging, consider it Proved. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:35, 11 June 2010 (BST)

15. No Massive incompetence and stupidity does not qualify a group for historical status. Even the event itself was ill conceived and not really all that significant. --Grogh 22:41, 4 June 2010 (BST)

    Actually.. - User:Whitehouse 11:48, 5 June 2010 (BST)

    Haha yeah, no reason to make another mistake! --Grogh 02:35, 6 June 2010 (BST)

16. No It's all been said. The value was in the event, not the group. If we're going to recognise anything, we should recognise the correct thing. -- Bisfan 00:23, 5 June 2010 (BST)

    But there isn't a separate category for that. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Category:Historical Events much? —Aichon— 02:51, 9 June 2010 (BST)

17. No As Aichon ♥ Moonie ^{Talk | Testimonials} 08:53, 5 June 2010 (BST)
18. No - It's more of an event. The poor coordination showed by survivors lessened the feel of a "group". The arrival of Zombies and PKers from practically every big group in the game was what made it an event. Suggestion - Let's get a decent event page sorted.-- Adward  11:23, 5 June 2010 (BST)
19. I'm pretty sure that it was stated on the Escape page that they weren't really a group. - User:Whitehouse 11:48, 5 June 2010 (BST)
20. No Akule is right on the spot. I say no, it's a historical event. -- I'm just adding on here because I don't know where else to say this :3 Something you guys should think about was this was just a big fail bandwagon (Escape, I mean), everyone just went "baaa" and sheeped over to Ellicott Place Railway Station. It's no historic group --S _{e n e r g y} ^T 17:42, 5 June 2010 (BST)
21. No It was a pretty large event but as a group Escape failed to accomplish anything whatsoever, unless you count being delicious. --Globule13 02:33, 6 June 2010 (BST)
22. No No Escape ruined the group and prevented them reaching the stated goal. If No Escape didn't be ignorant dicks, they probably would of reach their goal. therefore, yes. No Escape should be "honored" for being the group that ruined it for everyone.--Lonercs 06:05, 6 June 2010 (BST)

    Could you be any more bitter? The break in that resulted in your downfall was 13 zombies, at first. 380 survivors failed to dump them. Any "ruining" is down to the failure of the survivors concerned. Not all of them, but the vast majority of them. And ignorant dicks? We just happen to go where the food is. :) -- Adward  12:54, 6 June 2010 (BST)

23. No Was less of a group and more of a hangout for people. Doesn't fit criteria. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 09:09, 6 June 2010 (BST)
24. No - Like others, more of an event than a group. --Dr summeroff 17:35, 6 June 2010 (BST)
25. No : 'Twas an event, 'tweren't a group. --Liche 18:47, 6 June 2010 (BST)
26. No As whoever linked me to this page. --Shank Case 18:59, 6 June 2010 (BST)
27. No Same reasons as Aichon and Yonnua. --Justin 19:25, 6 June 2010 (BST)
28. No Same reasons as Aichon --Sazzacomae 8:09, 6 June 2010 (BST)
29. No Unless this nom is for most epic failure....--Agent Sandman 03:07, 7 June 2010 (BST)
30. No I would love to say yes, but I'm afraid despite all the fun, energy and attention, it simply wasn't a group until the tinychat started. Even then only one in ten of the people supposedly 'in' Escape got involved. If more people gotten involved, and helped achieve of the aim of reclaiming Ellicott Place on June 1st, I would have said yes. As it is, this was a fun movement, a massive event, a great laugh, but not an Historical Group. BOSCH 03:32, 7 June 2010 (BST)
31. No - As Snowball II --Amber Waves of Pain 01:13, 8 June 2010 (BST)
32. No - As Snowball II --Jorm 01:16, 8 June 2010 (BST)
33. No - No it was interesting thats all --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 01:23, 8 June 2010 (BST)
34. No - And I even sent my Sheana alt along for the fun and had her join up. But nothing... happened, and besides the few folks who stayed around for the hell of it and didn't, you know, stand up... it was a massive failboat. Sheana ^{T / TMZ} 08:13, 8 June 2010 (BST)
35. No - Add another mark to the "Event" tally. Nominate it where it belongs, and you'll get a begrudging yes vote from me. --ZiP^MH+LUE 20:44, 8 June 2010 (BST)
36. No - Why should failure be met with reward? --Skoll 06:53, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    I'm going to throw in a quick counterargument here:

    1. Events and groups are treated the same in the system (see, On Strike, The Big Bash, etc.). I think everyone who argues Escape's elimination from the historical record on the grounds of semantics is therefore a bit off.

    2. I sort of get why people didn't like Escape (even though it would have tipped the game's balance in the favor of the zombies and allowed the living to 'win,' thus satisfying both sides) but does the fact that you disliked the group really disqualify i?

    3. Escape is still the largest group in Malton, meaning that member characters, while forgetful, were and still are active in Malton. Inactive characters idle out after five days. This was real. Botched, but real.

    4: Does the fact that the group failed truly eliminate its significance? I mean yes, a win would have been nice, but there's a difference between losing and not mattering. Escape was big enough that in drew a huge horde to a railway station and turned a green suburb red. I'd say that was entirely significant.

    5: "They didn't do shit other than get trolled to death" isn't really an argument. And don't think I'm saying that because I'm a whiny survivor. I'm actually dead and loving it right now. I just think anybody who wants to give me flack for being lame should put as much work into telling me so as I put into one of those radio broadcasts. It's only fair.

    -Captain Video 02:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Gotta say I concur. 1. BBB failed too, so what? 2. It's a shame that people from no escape are so quick to vote no because they want some recognition. Escape thought of the idea. Escape was original, you just added no at the front and griefed them. Well done, but too bad, Escape was the catalyst. This is the biggest and most talked about event in 2 years, 2 fucking years guys, the fact that the zombie players vote against en masse just because it was on the other side, and the zeds won, is a joke. And voting against it because it "should" be event just because they want to be included yet there's no event page as much from them as from the organisers of Escape, and it should be entered as a group anyway. Sigh. Having said that, I'm only disappointed that it won't be historical when IMO it should. Shit happens I guess. --

     

     

     

     

    02:38, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    I think it's about time we nullify the policy that created Historical Groups. The whole purpose of this category was to preserve groups of worth while Crit 12 was around on A/SD, but now that Crit 12 has been nullified for some time, the only purpose the category serves is to create excess drama and waste everyone's time with these e-peen contests every few months. Historical Groups shouldn't even exist any longer. In fact... —Aichon— 02:55, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    I don't think we should eliminate them completely, but removing the entry criteria is not a bad idea since they don't really mean what they used to. --

     

     

     

     

    03:24, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Sorry to burst your bubble DDR, but the zombies were what made it such a good time (albeit a failure, but still a Historical Event). Kevan was most likely not going to do anything to the "Escapees", and if damn near every big zombie group int he game hadn't turned up, it would have just been a huge circle jerk for a couple of weeks. As it happens, a fun time was had. Also: It's rather shitty to assume that zombie players are all voting no for some recognition, or because we were on the other side. We came to Owsleybank because brains were there. We are voting against it because the group itself was a failure. Unless your name is FedCom, failure isn't criteria.-- Adward  17:44, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    It still sounds like you're just voting against this because you're a zombie. "If the other side hadn't showed up" isn't a valid argument in Malton. The other side always shows up. There were plans, other than getting eaten, for what would happen if we weren't spirited away. They're right on the Escape page. -Captain Video 23:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    Dont' forget Ron Burgundy? --

     

     

     

     

    03:01, 10 June 2010 (BST)

    Hey, don't blame all of us No Escapers. I'm quite happy to vote Yes, since the event itself revolved around Escape. As long as Escape is remembered, we'll be too. And more importantly, the group really does deserve recognition for getting 500 delicious brains all in one place for us to eat. ^_^ --Shatari 19:02, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    I did enjoy you guys. -Captain Video 23:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)

    DDR please explain how BBB was a fail? it crushed every criteria for an event.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 09:05, 11 June 2010 (BST)

    It's been a while since I read it, but I seem to remember the BBB failing in their conquest of Blackmore... --

     

     

     

     

    10:06, 11 June 2010 (BST)

    umm we held it for over 3 months when most died in a few days sleeping in ridleybonk. and it passed voting into historical events. but you weren't there.. so right it's a fail.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 22:19, 11 June 2010 (BST)

37. No Others are right, it's the overall event that matters, not that group. What we need is an NPoV page about the event. And if only to motivate others to write and contribute to one when Escape fails to be regarded as historical group. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:57, 10 June 2010 (BST)
38. No Escape itself failed to complete its goal, and then failed to stay as dead bodies after June 1st. and don't say that's not a valid reason, that was the point of escape --4Zio^'TJ! 19:04, 12 June 2010 (BST)

    You do realize that the 'staying dead' part was completely optional, right? Quite a few people chose to do so, but it was only one of several options for them. --Shatari 23:59, 13 June 2010 (BST)

39. No The event was historical at best, the group weren't. --TouchingVirus 18:17, 14 June 2010 (BST)
40. No It would’ve been a historical event, but the event never happened. It was a historical meal, nothing more. --Marinus 19:06, 14 June 2010 (BST)
41. No All already been said. --Karek^maps?! 01:23, 15 June 2010 (BST)

    No I agree with others. The event was historical, but Escape as a group was just a mass of mostly feral survivors in a building waiting for something to happen. The collective Zombies and PKers of Malton made that something happen. We brought conflict, gave Escapees something to do during the wait. We even gave you the most logical ending of all. All Escape accomplished was having a mildly interesting idea and feeding a massive horde of zombies. Write up an unbiased event page detailing the events of Escape with all the major contributing groups (Zombies and PKers included) and I'll wholeheartedly support it as a historical event. Dolly Departed 05:58, 17 June 2010 (BST) Voting was over. —Aichon— 18:50, 17 June 2010 (BST)

    Four Zombies In One is right. Escape failed in its goal of actually escaping Urban Dead.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 17:01, 17 June 2010 (BST) Voting was over. —Aichon— 18:50, 17 June 2010 (BST)

Voting ended. With 63 for and 41 against, Escape has failed to reach the 2/3 necessary for historical status. —Aichon— 18:50, 17 June 2010 (BST)