Talk:Free Zones: Difference between revisions
(suggestion for page change) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I just saw this on Recent Changes, and I think Free Zones should simply be changed to a simple description of what counts as a free zone. Therefore rather than having designated free zones, any quadrant of suburbs that are green (safe) is called a free zone. And therefore it would be a less specific term and could eventually become part of colloquialisms. -- <small>[[User:Rorybob| <span style="color: #FF9933">Rahrah</span>]] <span style="color: #FF9933">has a signature that won't become obsolete.</span> </small> 14:52, 6 August 2011 (BST) | I just saw this on Recent Changes, and I think Free Zones should simply be changed to a simple description of what counts as a free zone. Therefore rather than having designated free zones, any quadrant of suburbs that are green (safe) is called a free zone. And therefore it would be a less specific term and could eventually become part of colloquialisms. -- <small>[[User:Rorybob| <span style="color: #FF9933">Rahrah</span>]] <span style="color: #FF9933">has a signature that won't become obsolete.</span> </small> 14:52, 6 August 2011 (BST) | ||
:And obviously tyhe converse (an area of four suburbs which are all very dangerous) could become known as danger zones. And if any such zones exist permanently or anythign close to permanently, they could be christened. <small><small>''In this case I am thinking of Greater Ridleybank becoming known as the Greater Ridleybank Danger Zone, for example.''</small></small> -- <small>[[User:Rorybob| <span style="color: #FF9933">Rahrah</span>]] <span style="color: #FF9933">has a signature that won't become obsolete.</span> </small> 14:55, 6 August 2011 (BST) | |||
::It's funny because free zones are like the nafz(new arkham free zone) not what this article describes. It was always used as a term to describe non-combat areas not survivor dominated areas. Makes me wonder. Who changed it and when. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:53, 6 August 2011 (BST) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:53, 6 August 2011
free zones... which suburbs are they...--Darkmagic 23:00, 31 July 2007 (BST)
Is this still... alive? Because there is no Free Zone North, Northeast or West. Only one place counts, and that would be a Free Zone South(West).--Rachel Akebre 00:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we now reinstate the Free Zones? because the majority of Suburbs are now green or yellow. I propose the creation of Free Zone West, North, and South-West; an organised government will rule over each, and all 3 will meet in an especially safe area to discuss matters. TJMW, 19:25, 31 July 2011.
I just saw this on Recent Changes, and I think Free Zones should simply be changed to a simple description of what counts as a free zone. Therefore rather than having designated free zones, any quadrant of suburbs that are green (safe) is called a free zone. And therefore it would be a less specific term and could eventually become part of colloquialisms. -- Rahrah has a signature that won't become obsolete. 14:52, 6 August 2011 (BST)
- And obviously tyhe converse (an area of four suburbs which are all very dangerous) could become known as danger zones. And if any such zones exist permanently or anythign close to permanently, they could be christened. In this case I am thinking of Greater Ridleybank becoming known as the Greater Ridleybank Danger Zone, for example. -- Rahrah has a signature that won't become obsolete. 14:55, 6 August 2011 (BST)
- It's funny because free zones are like the nafz(new arkham free zone) not what this article describes. It was always used as a term to describe non-combat areas not survivor dominated areas. Makes me wonder. Who changed it and when. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 17:53, 6 August 2011 (BST)
