User talk:DangerReport/New Arkham

Level change due

Been spending the last few days checking\correcting the status of buildings in New Arkham. If the current locale danger levels remain as they are (Resource locs down, ~50% of other locations ruined) should the Danger for the suburb be upgraded and what to?

It seems to meet the criteria for 'Dangerous', and is certainly as trashed as other burbs set to that, but not sure if Ghost Town might be more appropriate as few zombies and human inhabitants (repair crews seem to be active but don't hang around). D M Penfold 16:32, 31 May 2013 (BST)

Looks like the last update was more than a month ago, from "dangerous" to "moderately dangerous". If you feel like re-upgrading it or changing to ghost town, feel free. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:37, 1 June 2013 (BST)

The danger level system isn't really scaled properly with the low number of players nowadays. But if things seem "ruiny" and lonesome, then maybe Ghost Town it is. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:38, 1 June 2013 (BST)

Unexplained Changes

In the last couple days New Arkham was upgraded to Dangerous by SearchDerelict who gave seemingly suitable evidence for the change. Less than 24 hours later it was changed by Zarak Goldleaf to Safe, and then shortly thereafter by the same to Moderate, both without an explanation. Currently operating in this area myself, I know that zombie activity has been picking up, and many of the resource buildings are in zed hands. Whether it should be Dangerous or Moderate, I can't really say definitively right now, but precisely because it is at a tipping point, I feel it is crucial to give a summary reason for a change in danger status. --Boneshred The Hungry 22:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the history further it seems that Zarak Goldleaf has been reverting all of Bob Moncrief's military report updates, never giving a reason for doing so. I will keep an eye on it, but if this continues, I will likely request the page be locked pending sysop investigation --Boneshred The Hungry 22:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just this page, not the military updates page though. --Rosslessness 23:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if my wording was confusing, the military reports themselves were not altered, but rather the danger level updates made subsequent to new Military report data. --Boneshred The Hungry 23:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like Zarak has been trying to keep the report continuously at Moderately. Should I ask on Zarak's talk page why (s)he is making the edits? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it. Seeing as he leads a decent sized group in the area, I can see where he would be protective of it, but it's important to keep the reports accurate. I'm just somewhat new to the forums and not really sure what authority I have, or if confronting someone directly is discouraged. --Boneshred The Hungry 00:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've messaged Zarak. And in general, on the wiki, it is best to ask a player directly on their talk page; if the issue remains unresolved, it can be brought to A/A or A/VB as appropriate. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up, I'll be sure to try that first in the future --Boneshred The Hungry 03:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Response. I think this is a reasonable explanation, and I would argue no further action is necessary. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)