User talk:Conndraka

Put Your Comments Here

UZM

Et u Connie? I would have thought the DHPD would be all for a zombie tracker? --Zeug 04:25, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Moderation/abuse policies

I see you were active in efforts to improve the community by instituting some sort of guidelines for discussion on the wiki. Is anything like this still in progress? There did seem to be support for it, albeit two years ago. I find some of the abusiveness found here completely contrary to the ideals of a collaborative environment. I get that people expect the freedom to say "fuck". But that doesn't mean that their anonymity should give them free license to be a complete asshole. It detracts from the community and certainly isn't helpful for newbies. Can something be done to deal with the most disruptive and antagonistic behavior, while not interfering with positive use of the wiki? --Zhani 19:58, 4 September 2008 (BST)

zhani, if this is about Talk:Suggestions ... it's YOU who is not being "collaborative". Numerous people who are VERY experienced and knowledgeable in this game have explained VERY constructively exactly why your idea is not a good one. People like karek and swiers, for example. However, you've refused to heed their advice and just cling to your thoroughly refuted, bad idea. In so doing it's YOU who has been "non-collaborative" and in so doing you've brought on the negative, flaming stuff yourself. The discussion was (Iscariot notwithstanding) quite constructive until you started acting like a whiney little brat. And in that context, I can kind of appreciate Iscariot's flaming... And now you're whining to Conn? Sheeesh. Smarten up... And, Conn, please excuse me for butting in here on your Talk page; however, I kind of thought that a contexualising comment and response (of sorts) was appropriate. Hey, I know you don't like me much, so this probably hurts my cause more than helps it, anyway... ;P --WanYao 22:18, 4 September 2008 (BST)

WanYao:

1. This isn't about my suggestion at all. I have answered karek's comments, and will gladly take any constructive criticism into consideration as I revise my idea. Swiers didn't even post in regard to my suggestion, but countered your criticism. Your assertions that it is "bad" or "refuted" are simply your unsupported opinions. Your criticism has been off-base and not directed to the specifics of my concept. For each of the valid criticisms brought up, I have explained my reasoning. I contend that it's your behavior that is markedly childish.
2. This isn't whining, I'm entirely unstirred by the actions of trolls such as yourself and Iscariot. Trying to browbeat others into submission by being rude and aggressive doesn't tend to work on me. I do however recognize how negative it can be for a community, especially for a collaborative environment like a wiki. I believe the current attitude of completely ignoring uncivil behavior with the excuse of being anti-censorship is unsupportable. Wikipedia does not censor, but has policies such as Etiquette and Don't Bite the Newbies to keep the community friendly, civil, and productive.
3. I submitted a previous idea, there were good arguments against it, and so I abandoned it. However, even before I did that, I recognized what a cesspool of biased and dogmatic opinion the suggestion area is, how burdened it is by agendas to maintain particular aspects of the game regardless of potential for improvement, and how those who have certain biases have no compunction about trying to drive off those with different ideas by personally antagonizing them, rather than addressing the idea itself. Contrary to your stated opinion, people do not "deserve flaming" simply for submitting an idea you don't like. That suggesting something garners such a response shows how broken the system is, and how there is a need to establish policies to determine what is acceptable or not.
4. I have seen in previous discussions of advocating for moderation guidelines or policies supporting civil behavior on this wiki that opponents assert that Kevan created this space for us and we are to "police ourselves". Well, how else are we to accomplish that, other than by agreeing to what is acceptable? There may be a contingent, even a large one, that gets glee out of showing off how offensive they can be, and getting ego-satisfaction out of belittling and harassing others. The sysops appear to turn a blind eye to this, since so long as it isn't actual vandalism of the wiki, they don't want to get involved.
5. Do players of this game want to see more players? Do they want people to stick around? Do they want people voluntarily putting in time to maintain and improve the wiki? I hope so. That seems to be part of the goal of having a wiki. And so behaviors that discourage new players or drive them off, or make people give up on contributing to the wiki, are demonstrably harmful to the intent of having it in the first place. Unless the desire is to keep it the exclusive domain of a like-minded group that is hostile to anyone who doesn't appreciate or agree with their behavior.

So my bringing this up with Conndraka is not related to my own suggestions, but a result of seeing how anyone who submits a suggestion or dares propose something that doesn't fit the particular vision of the subset of the playerbase is treated with aggressive disrespect and contempt. Rather than see it go unaddressed, I would like to see if there is still support at all levels of the community to do something about it. I'm sure you find that idea threatening, since if such policies were brought in, you might be limited in your ability to lash out anonymously at people for the simple gall of saying something you disagree with. But if you are unable to discuss a game, something people do for entertainment, without such contempt and disregard for others, then I suggest it is you who has much growing up to do.

--Zhani 23:01, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Responded to... 23:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)

I have been VERY vocally speaking out in recent months against blatant trolling. And actually getting in a lot of shit over it. Because my idea is very simple: blatant serial trolling is vandalism. Period. And there is a big difference between someone simply being rude and insulting vs. trolling. The difference is almost always very clear, and when it's not, that is why there is discussion and voting on vandalism cases. Meanwhile, my method doesn't actually squelch people from expressing themselves, even in ways that may be offensive to some. But the Admin team won't even take this stance... And I do agree that blatant, serial trolling is destroying this wiki. Two things will destroy this game, and are destroying it: zerging and serial wiki trolls...

That being said, however, this is not some hippie love-in. Just like in the real world, people are not always going to be nice to you. Deal with it. But put in place a system that addresses and gets ride of the people who are doing serious damage to the community, i.e. the serial trolls. But, much like the real world, other than dealing with the extreme cases which are bona fide dangerous, I am not in favour of "legislating morality" or censoring people to the degree that you seem to want to. I don't think it'd be workable anyway... Brainstock is the perfect example of why this approach does not work. Supposedly, trolling isn't tolerated. Yet, ironically, it's the trolls rule that place. And the moderators are trolls themselves, and they lay the ban hammer not on the trolls but on people who say things they don't wanna hear, or who question their self-serving abuse of mod powers... That's what you'll get here, if you try to legislate speech in any way other than dealing with the worst and most blatantly disruptive and non-constructive people. --WanYao 12:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)

As for you suggestion... I've argued my point there, but you just don't seem to be getting it. Tons of people have argued thier points, and your suggestion has come under heavy criticism, and is just not well-liked. And with good reason IMNSHO. You're perfectly free to disagree, more power to you, but, sheesh... your stubbornness and intransigence is most certainly not winning you allies. Furthermore, if you had any long-term experience with the kind of CRAP that comes on the suggestion page regularly, and the immature, pathetic behavior that the suggestors demonstrate when their ATROCIOUS ideas are shot down, you'd understand why no one "suffers fools gladly" on that page. --WanYao 12:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)

In any event, I've rambled on and on on your Talk page, Conn... :P But there is some relevancy to all this... While we may have some disagreements as to the best ways to deal with trolling... And some of us may disagree as to what is acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior... Meanwhile, while it might seem like I am echoing Grim's infamous stance on this issue, actually I don't think I go as far as him in the laissez-faire free speech thing... In any event, I think there is actually a broad agreement out there that the really bad serial trolling is a problem and ought to be addressed. So if this gets us a little closer to a solution, I think it's a good thing... Peace. --WanYao 00:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)

M/D Comment

First off I'd like to apologise for my comment in Deletions. I had just spent 3 hours on top of a roof applying tar and your comment more or less made my day.

Moving along though, exactly why are you so anti-DEM? I'm just wondering. First there was the CFT nonsense, and now you seem to be implying that we are Fascist.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 04:51, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Thank you!

Thank you for maintaining the Havercroft Alliance page for us, we later found out Ajester was a spy and not a good player. Thanks for keeping things honest and true friend. (St Aden) 02:14, 7 August 2008 (BST)

The Proof is in the Template

	Play on Names
	This user received a template with his likeness. Get it? Okay. I'll explain. A Draka is a monster from World of Warcraft. If they ever attacked, I'm sure that you would be totally against them and protect the helpless from them. Against the Drakas. Con. Draka. Conndraka. If you think that's a stretch, imagine what I'm going to have to do for Karloth Vois. Yeesh.

Hi - I'm a bored person, so I've been making templates. Oodles and oodles of templates. Play on Name templates. Yours was hard. If you don't play World of Warcraft, I'm not sure people will even get this one. Enjoy the template --Tselita 21:51, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Please go to http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Deletions and vote Keep so that the Grimch doesn't try to delete the template I made for you (and others). Thank you. --Tselita 13:04, 27 June 2008 (BST)

You got red on you

There is a broken (red) link in your sig. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 23:41, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Why is that link there? It just encourages people to create useless, off topic pages that have to be speedydeleted -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:59 24 July 2008 (BST)

ON LIMITED DUTY: Do Not Comment Below this Header

Thank you from the PK

Hey there, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Philosophe Knights wiki page. We appriciate your vigilance. (My apologies if this is in the wrong place on your talk page) --User:VI/signature 16:37, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Blah

The Dead are going crazy. Seems they think they know everything, and can do anything. You may want to swing by the DHPD pages and the Dunell Hills talk page Cisisero 05:35, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Erm

Although I agree, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmkay, it's no biggie for me. Oh, and +1 :) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Movie Trailer

i seem to remember something about a big skull, is that what your talking about? --Bullgod 14:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

hah, yeah. i couldn't help but be reminded of the mad max movies either. much of the bullgod persona comes from the Lord Humongous of the second movie and the speeches he would give, and this definitely reminded me of that. --Bullgod 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Channel 4 News Team

Thanks for protecting us from vandals, Conn! I just noticed that! Right on! Keep on rocking! --Ron Burgundy 03:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. . .

I think You've done it again, neither one of those returned a proxy when I checked them.--Karek^maps?! 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied From other parts of the wiki for archival reasons

Vandal Ruling(s)

User:JonnyFive

JonnyFive (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
For this edit. Accurate or not, Its up to a group member to do the editing. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 18:59, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Good faith, it improved the accuracy of the paragraph. The edit was accurate to what the stats said at that time, and the paragraph was talking about the stats page, not about known members who may not have the exact words "Dunell Hills Police Department" in their profile. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:33, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Read the reporting guidelines, please. "Avoid submitting reports which are petty." --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:03, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Allright. Its just that I thought that the fact that since the edit in question was not in the NPOV section and that Johny is a member of a group known to Grief the DHPD, that it was innapropriate. I assume this means that anyone can now edit any group page as long as the edit is accurate? Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 15:28, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Edit in the means of adding new info, no. Update already existing, yet outdated, information from a reliable source, yes. You could've prevented that by simply saying as of (day) of (month), the DHPD yada yada --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:37, 28 April 2008 (BST)

If the minor editing of the group page continues in a way that I think can be considered to be for annoyance value, then yeah, it may be ruled as vandalism... but not simply this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:24 29 April 2008 (BST)