Talk:Unofficial UD Forums

List Conventions and whether to revert all forums to links

The current convention goes posts per day then if tied or close a discussion about it. Is there any discussion as to why this will change?--Axe-man 23:12, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Is this still the policy? I've been hesitant to move Brainstock up out of respect for the lists that pre-dated us, and as most of our traffic is internal to a number of private forums. But technically we have had the second most posts/day for a while now. Would it be considered appropriate for me to move Brainstock up to the #2 spot on the list at this time, if we decided to do so? Thanks --Gilant 04:07, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

1. The bickering was getting extremely lame, pointless, and contrary to the spirit of a Wiki.

2. The constant additions were clogging the hell out of the page. Once there is that much information on a specific subject- and obviously a lot more that people want to add- it's time to create a new page.

3. The fact that every forum has its own page now to make as many POV edits as its members want should satisfy everyone. Slicer 23:17, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ok then because people are going to bicker about this, (katthew) lets here what everyone thinks before doing this. We already had 4 editwars over this page. Lets make sure that everyone agrees upon this one as well.--Axe-man 23:19, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Nobody has ever agreed upon anything on this part of the wiki. That is a primary reason to go to a multi-link format. If Katthew wanted to do anything other than scroll other forums as far down as possible, he'd be pleased as punch that he now has all the room in the world to make comments about his own and his forum's awesomeness. Hear that, Katthew? I promise I will not touch Urban_Dead_Forum(Desensitised) at all. Slicer 23:23, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I see absolutely no reason to silence opinions before they've even been heard by doing this so immediately, unilaterally, and obstinately. I personally believe the unified forum page was far more informative as to the various options and concepts presented on each forum, and there is no reason to make this change other than you being in a snit about some personal slight and wanting to make a "point" about something. Wait for discussion. Three people does not a unified concensus make. --Drakkenmaw 00:03, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Not too late am I? Great. The unified version's been there since September and no-one's opposed it, why start now? Everyone's used to that version. All this new version will do is confuse people. I say stick with the old one we're all accustomed to. --Lamarr 00:23, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Do you mind not flooding the wiki with this edit-war? Jesus, you're both being exceedingly obnoxious. Talk, argue, whatever - but stop this juvenile idiocy. --Drakkenmaw 00:14, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I am done. I've already contacted the mods. I have better things to do. But I would like to remind everyone that nobody has ever had a "discussion" about any edit ever made to this page before they made it. Not once. Ever. Slicer 00:17, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Thank you for stopping. As for the lack of prior discussions before changes went into place, no one has ever asked for one before. This is a wiki - it's inherently democratic. If someone wants to talk something over before a change is made, you should let them. You can't just act on your own without having a really good reason, and "this page is annoying" is not one of those. If nothing else, take it to Arbitration and let everyone plead their case to the mods - that's what I did with the "Not Have Zombies" question - but really, you can't just force the issue if someone wants to raise one. --Drakkenmaw 00:22, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Look at the page below. There was a huge discussion about this very issue. --Axe-man 00:20, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

No, all of that is about the ordering of the forums- which I didn't change. The only thing I did was pack it up so that people wouldn't have to scroll down through braggadocio crap. On any other part of this wiki, that would be a simple and welcome edit. I had a suspicion that it would start freaking you or Katthew out- oh no, you don't get to scroll people down anymore!- , but I figured that having an entire page all to yourselves would quell that. Guess I was wrong. Slicer 00:27, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I'm not on any side. I wanted to discuss this before having it editted and told you that 5 times, you ignored that and simple reinforced your view.--Axe-man 00:28, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It's funny that you say this, since you are the one who always starts the "My forum is better hurrrrrrr" editing. Take a look at the history of this page. Slicer has posted things like "The old forum is back so every other can close down because it's reality" and the more recent "We have more posts about UD than you nyah-nyah" prior to the current editing silliness. Quit acting like the victim when you are the one responsible for the problem. --Laughing Man 00:38, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I was more than willing and step it up. However, slicer has before allowed his personal feels to effect pages. I will not allow something that was agreed upon by all parties to be changed, because he is having a hissy fit.--Axe-man 00:16, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The page is more concise with the information about each sorted into seperate papes, and without logical discourse as to why it should stay cluttered my impulse was that it should not. I particularly don't care what either party (the two different forums) has to say on "who is better" and think that information makes referencing the other material on the page tedious when it did not have to be. --Matthew-Stewart 00:29, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• I'd love to see these pages more concise. Granted, as an admin on Brainstok I am biased, but it is rather annoying to see our forum pushed down out of sight as more bullet points get added to the forums above. So I'm voting for having the forums have their own page, with just a few lines each up top. I'd even be OK with just putting the meta stuff for the forums in a lower section linked to from a brief intro of each up top, with the web rings and such listed between. --Gilant 01:49, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

My view on this whole thing: All three forums (and four before mine merged) have blatant POV advertising in the entry. This is not a good thing. If they each have their own page, life is good. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this at all, supporters of Glitch�s forum are happy that they can post all of the bias data that they want, supporters of the old forum are happy so they can hide any embarrassing stats, the new forum people are happy because now they have a chance vs the bigger ones, and even wiki-only users are happy because they don�t have to deal with this POV garbage on the forum page. And I must ask, since when can a change not be made until every wiki user agrees on it? --Ludwig 01:28, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Has nothing to do with agreement. It's a matter of discussion - if you don't allow discussion, you're not adhering to the central point of the wiki: that is, to allow lots of people to communally contribute to a space in order to promote an end result that is generally useful and acceptable to everyone. I would never expect anyone here to ever fully agree on anything, but most decisions which are made on large format edits come with everyone talking it over. --Drakkenmaw 01:41, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

How does this sound for a compromise: The three forums in the 'general forums' section could be arranged horizontally instead of vertically. Then all three will be visible on the same page. It would make sense to have the largest forum on the left, but it's not that important. --SL 04:14, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Thats the best Idea to come out of the discussion. A user could see all forums and choose those that fit their playing style, and personality.--Axe-man 10:06, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Wow, Slicer just made his first worthwhile edit. I hope the retarded flamewar was worth it. --ShaqFu 07:25, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Forums number of/ ordering

Here are some more that I've found, mostly through graffiti --Feanor512 10:30, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
http://killtrend.proboards58.com/index.cgi
http://www.deadscape.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=index
http://theurbandead.proboards49.com/index.cgi
http://s14.invisionfree.com/UrbanDead_Forum/
http://udsb.proboards50.com/
http://waap.com.au/tompson/bbs/index.php

Just so you know, the forums at waap.com.au/tompson have been almost completely abandoned. Does that link still need to be here? Dinferno 21:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Did Ludwig give up on his boards? I can't register. --Radoteur 09:11, 26 Oct 2005 (BST)

This may not be the best place to post this, but we're going to need a new forum in the meantime, or all Urban Dead communication will be impossible. Any ideas on a forum to migrate to? -Sabel4

Is it even necessary to bother? Glitch is pretty sure that the forum will be back tomorrow. --ShaqFu 01:01, 12 Oct 2005 (BST)

Err. I take it's not the 10th of December, but the 12th of October?

Yeah, 12th of October. --ShaqFu 01:11, 12 Oct 2005 (BST)

10 XP says that people will start complaining about this and making rumors that people from Either side took part in the closing. The forum was there when I was at school during Graphics 3 while looking for gametrailer clips to use in a video.-EdFanMH

I'm inclined to believe that the forums were closed because they were horrible. In the current state it was in, salvage would have only been possible through drastic actions I'm not sure any of the staff would be willing to take. Although if the forums can be undeleted, it could be that they're fixing things in private. --Katthew 05:11, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Horrible?? In what way?? -- GIR 10:21, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Beyond bad moderating, rampant trolling going unpunished and playing host to pretty much every other problem a forum could have? Not much. --Katthew 10:35, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Hilarious. This coming from the guy who got banned from the original forum 4 times for trolling, spamming, flaming, and generally acting like an immature child. --Xenomrph 17:25, 26 Sep 2005 (BST)

Not that you're bitter or anything... :) -- Odd Starter 11:12, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'd agree with you, except that he's not bitter. He's just...correct. -Kaxman 14:53, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

That's true.- EdFanMH

The thing is we are setting up for the same thing if we keep up this baised group labelling. Lets face it. All anyone here wants is a forum that works and works well.--Axe-man 14:57, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I say we just have two independent forums. There's no problem with that, is there? --Daxx 14:59, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'm worried about the people missing revives or getting confused and leaving the game because of such a split.--Axe-man 15:00, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'm sure people are quite capable of keeping their eye on two forums. Besides, those in charge on each forum can quite easily do a copy/paste job across with important things like revive lists. --Daxx 15:03, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Your right, copy paste time it is.--Axe-man 15:06, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

For those looking for information on the deletion of the old forum, check here: http://support.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=support&action=display&thread=1127280540 --Raelin 15:33, 21 Sep 2005 (BST) , Also, I do believe this may have been the specific violation they might have been referring to: "This service is not available to Users that run other CGI hosting services as well as users who plan on developing remotely hosted CGI services." --Raelin 15:49, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I want to thank everyone for keeping this civil. There is no need to be so unpleasent toward each other about this forum thing.--Axe-man 19:07, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Sorry if the number of the registered users number update says PST, I don't know what BST is timed at.--EdFanMH

BST is basically GMT, GMT+1 from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October. --dayfat 09:13, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)

Hey, what should we do when the 1st link hits 1,000 members?-EdFanMH

• We could divide the forums between "major" and "other", major being all the popular ones, and other being the rest. --Daranz-Talk 00:02, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)

And it's probally BETTER if we do the "current as of" like M/D/Y.-EdFanMH

We could graduate it's link to the main page. --Raelin 03:58, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)

GAH! The number of registered members is STILL rising fast! I can't keep up with keeping the number of registered numbers to change (Meaning: keeping the number of registered members up to date here)!--EdFanMH

Apparently some people don't want to recognize reality. The old forums are back and active. Slicer 20:42, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

HURRRRRRR EMoney 20:44, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Reality - 60+ avg users online > 2 avg users online. The old forum is dead, let it rest in peace. -- Laughing Man 20:59, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

If you want to compare amount of posts and active members, go ahead. But don't try to deny facts by reverting the page back to an old version. The original forum has plenty of posts today and active moderation has returned. And if anything I've updated is inaccurate, explain what. Slicer 21:13, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It doesn't belong on the top of the list? Pretty simple, if you ask me. EMoney 21:16, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Because it isn't yours? Why do I detect a whole lot of fear? Very well- since this is supposed to be a wiki and not a revert-fest, I'll post what should be an acceptable compromise. "Old forum" is a POV term and should be left out. Slicer 21:27, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Fear? Your Ad Hominem isn't gonna fly here, buddy. EMoney 21:31, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

The fact that they're back doesn't mean that they're automatically the first choice forum for people to use. Especially since they're basically dead. -- Elroy

I Say we get a moderator to write it/change it as it appears that it slants one side or another. --Axe-man 21:41, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Although the moderators should definitely take a look at it, I think the current version is even-handed enough. When neither side likes it, that's when you know it's a good compromise. Slicer 22:03, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Here is my 2 cents... He who hath the last active users (ie. People who have loggged in in the last 2 weeks) Gets the top spot.. -- Technerd 23:32, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Biased Editing?

Ok, let's prevent this edit war from going any further and try to work this issue out here instead of the page itself. Why are you so bent on removing factual information from this article and replacing it with your own bias, Ludwig? --Raelin 23:46, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

"Look for yourself, there are maybe 100 active posters there max." This somehow proves that the board with ~300 more accounts and about 20 active posters isn't less active? --Raelin 23:59, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It's not bias it's the truth. If you can look at Glitch's forum and not say the Mods are bias, then you are lying to yourself. Besides, we all can tell that the info in parenthesis is only there to make his forum look good. I like how you never said anything to Katthew when he put that my forum has 0 visitors per day. Not only is that bias, it�s an outright lie. --Ludwig 00:02, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I don't even know what edit you're talking about. I stopped checking her edits along time ago mainly because they mostly consist of updating the user counts. Even if I had spotted it I probably wouldn't have changed it because I wouldn't have any idea if what she posted was an outright lie, because I don't frequent your forums, unlike glitch's. That may be true that it's there to make it look good, but it's still the truth and it can be backed up with proof. Show me proof of what you're posting and the edit will stand. --Raelin 00:12, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Can we just ditch all the statistics and order them chronologically? I can't really see any benefits of having them that outweights these edit wars. --Lucero Capell 00:40, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Thats a bad idea. Since the whole forum war was brought about which one was better. It's not our fault that the other forums have less statistics. Also Chronologically would be baised toward the older forums, now wouldn't it? Also there will be edit wars everytime someone throws a fit and wants their forum to be the "best"--Axe-man 00:42, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Any ordering is going to be biased towards someone, Axe-man, it's unavoidable. The way I see it, chronologically is the most unobjectionable way to do it. --Lucero Capell 00:45, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Actually it is the opposite of that is true. Most of the time the edit wars were about the chronological position. Ludwig's for example would second to last brain forum would be last we would be second and the old forum first. In fact, that appears to be the exact bias Ludwig and slicer wanted. They changed it that way many times in the history.--Axe-man 00:47, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

The statistics are factual, how is that biased? They are mainly there to aide new players in selecting a board that fits their tastes, wether it be a board with fewer posters and stricter moderation, or a board with more posters and more lax moderation. --Raelin 00:52, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Pardon my reordering. Statistics are factual, how they are presented is not. --Lucero Capell 00:54, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Obviously I'm a moron, then. Please explain to me how these are presented in a biased fashion? --Raelin 00:58, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

As I just explained below, the revert wars going on between Ludwig and all are mainly oriented about what information is presented, and in what fashion. For example, is "mostly inactive" relevant or not? I'm not saying it is either way, but obviously someone has some thoughts on the subject. --Lucero Capell 01:05, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It's relevant because it directly relates to the user count. Having a fairly high user count with mostly inactive acounts means that people who want a lot of activity on their boards may not be comfortable posting there. --Raelin 01:09, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Activity was appears to be the best call. If the odl forums become the most active, then they will be first. That way any forum can be first not the oldest and possibly dead forum.--Axe-man 00:50, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Does it matter who "wins"? I'm not talking about "us" and "them", as you seem to be, I'm talking about an unbiased way of ordering. Ordering by activity would be fine as well, but you need a good way of measuring said activity. To keep things nice and happy, it might be a good idea not to place these statistics on the front page, so as to prevent any more revert wars. --Lucero Capell 00:53, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

So you're saying that since a group of people is upset that the statistics aren't in their favor, we shouldn't have them at all? --Raelin 00:58, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

No. When either group can't agree on how statistics should be presented, we shouldn't have them at all until a better way is devised. Sounds stupid? Wiki. --Lucero Capell 01:05, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

When someone is upset that the information presented isn't in their favor and decides to edit the page to reflect their baised, it is reverted. If this continues, they're banned. Sound stupid? Wiki. --Raelin 01:09, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Oh please. Honestly, don't tell me that some of the "alternatives" presented to Ludwig's (biased, yes) weren't biased. By I think you missed the point. This isn't about misinformation by either party so much as an alternative to it. --Lucero Capell 02:57, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I really, really don't understand how you keep calling pure statistics biased. The statistics do favor Glitch's board, yes, but they are not biased. It's a simple represenation of fact. Why should we hide useful, relevant information just to cater to those who don't like it? --Raelin 03:32, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I'm not saying the statistics are biased, in fact, I have said they aren't before. I'm saying the way in which they are presented can be. Picking and choosing which statistics to present on which forum is a bias. Presenting relevant information is not a bias, but unfairly selecting what information to present is. --Lucero Capell 03:39, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

How is any of this unfairly selected? As far as I can tell it's the simple board statistics that are provided when ever you go to the boards. How is providing that information here "presenting it in a biased fashion" when simply clicking the link gives you the same exact thing? --Raelin 03:45, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Because not all information is presented the same. I'm not arguing the numbers, I'm arguing which numbers are presented. Take for example, the whole "mostly inactive accounts" thang. I hate to break it to you, but every forum has mostly inactive accounts. It is biased to remove it or add it to particular forums and not do the same for all the others. --Lucero Capell 03:58, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Yes, I know that most forums have a majority of inactive accounts, but when the number of posters is well below the average for the number of accounts, that should be noted. Would you like it to say "posting activity well below average for this number of users"? Clicking through the forums for a few minutes will lead you to the same conclusions, it's not biased, it's simply fact. Either way, we're only providing the numbers that are readily available to anyone visiting the boards, which statistics would you prefer us to provide? --Raelin 04:08, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

How should these facts be presented? I fail to see how you can change 25 posts a day into a greater value than 1200 posts a day, that is exactly my point, numbers don't lie. 40 people average signing up a day doesn't lie.--Axe-man 00:59, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Thats exactly the way these people like ludwig view it. I don't care. I frankly think forums are a waste of time. However, if it is done by activity then Ludwigs forum could become first, if people went there. Most people only care about either where their friends are or where their needs will most likely be met. So activity seems the best way to determine both fo those things.--Axe-man 00:57, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Ordering by activity can be very tricky though, for example, what statistics do you take into account? Should it be how many new posts per day, how many new members per day, how many members overall, how many posts relative to how many users, etc., etc., etc.. I just can't think of a system that no one will have a problem with. Perhaps you can. If so, great, share it with the masses. --Lucero Capell 01:05, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Simple all of them. there is no way to calculate how active some people are though. Ludwig was doing that because he was pouting. The old forum has more members, however most of those members are gone. Glitch cleaned out the inactive members of his forums, and they have an average of 118 unqiue users at anytime. Simply put those stats aren't availble to anyone using proboards at all. The only one who could truely judge activity would be glitch so there is no way to do that one. The only way would be average users per day and average posts per, if any forums tie we will have to worry about it then. Why not just leave it as it is and order it accordingly?--Axe-man 01:15, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

If that's the consensus, I'm fine by that. The main problem I'm seeing is a lack of fairness in both edits and reverts on either side (though I hate saying sides, as one side is comprised of a single person and the other "side" doesn't truly represent anything other than their own opinions). For example, is "mostly inactive accounts" really necessary if we can see the number of users and posts per day (which I suppose is one reason to have statistics)? Is "max users online" all that necessary either, seeing as apparently we're taking current activity as opposed to past activity? I hope at the very least we can agree that some sort of standard needs to be agreed upon by people other than yourself in order to prevent more edit/revert wars. --Lucero Capell 03:05, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Problem is that they are the ones who added those statistics thus they want them to be seen. Also that was added by the mod staff of that forum... so who is suffering if they added it themselves? --Axe-man 05:25, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Frankly I see where you are coming from when Daxx included moderators of the forum I tried to get him to cahnge it because it wasn't fair. However, he pointed out what I said above and I agreed with it.--Axe-man 01:03, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

One of your own moderators removed " Moderation policies that allow discussion of topics, unlike certain other forums.", yet you felt you really needed to add that back Katthew? Just not happy if your not pushing buttons and stirring the ... pot? --Gilant 15:57, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

But glitch, the admin of the board, added it in the first place. He probably had good reason to, so I put it back. --Katthew 16:08, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't know it seems a little bias against Ludwig's forum. If Ludwig complains, we should contact glitch to change it. That seems the best, most fair response to it. Really, Looking at Ludwig's it appears to be the same side mouthed insult as well. So maybe both should change theirs to a more fair and nonbiased viewpoint.--Axe-man 18:27, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

What about all the "unlike other forums" liners? These seem to be rather biased. Shouldn't every forum section only give you basic information about that forum? --Inscryer

What counts as an Urbandead forum?

What counts as an urbandead forum. I have a forum which has and Urbandead board but it's not actually a completely Urbandead board, would it count?--The General ^{W! Mod} 13:17, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Well, any board dedicated to Urban Dead would count as a general discussion board. If your board is for a specific group, or mixed content of which UD is a part, than it would go in one of the other (or a new if needed) catagories. JMHO --Gilant 15:34, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, thanks.--The General ^{W! Mod} 15:36, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Wouldn't Urban Dead Wiki Forum be more a specific forum than a general discussion forum? The first line states: "New forum created for discussion of the wiki." Sounded to me like it is a specific forum that has some extras. The new Red Rum forum is more of a grey area, as they state it is partially for Red Rum members to coordinate. --Ahote 23:06, 20 June 2006 (BST)

On the Red Rum forum - While it was initially concieved as a place for Red Rum members to coordinate, it is, more-or-less, a general discussion forum. In a way, it's kinda like Brainstock, except on the other extreme of the Survivor moral compass :D --Sirens^{T RR} 23:09, 20 June 2006 (BST)

SMF for free forum?

I have noticed that a new SMF for free forum has been created and I would like to point out that there already is one running using that host. It is better established and has the wiki moderators as admin, I have moved the new one down to the bottom.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:39, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Yeah. I made it. It's for a specific group of people, though more people can join in if they want to.--Absolution 14:47, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I also noticed that your forum is a Wiki forum. Why you are pointing me to it, is beyond me, since my UD forum has nothing to do with the state of the wiki. --Absolution 14:50, 30 July 2006 (BST)

No but it has sections for game discussion, I was pointing out that you moved a forum using the same host right to the top of the list.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:52, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Well it was sort of a new forum, and being the most recent, I thought it should be at the top. Also, it was to kind of put a damper on Resensitized and Brainstock battling eachother for the top spot.

I do think moving it straight to the bottom of the list is a tad harsh, though. --Absolution 14:55, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Maybe, but the ud wiki one and the Red Rum ones are at the bottom. If we work by how recent it is for one, then we should work on that principle for all of them.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:58, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Maybe if there was some way of organizing them, like in alphebetical?--Absolution 14:59, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Yeah, i'd go for that.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:00, 30 July 2006 (BST)

That would prevent people from bumping their forums to the top all the time, and causing edit wars, etc. I'm all for the idea. --Absolution 15:02, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Sounds agreed then.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:03, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Removing Non-Updated Entries

What about removing (or rendering inactive) forums that haven't been updated on this page. I was going through, and I saw at least one entry that hasn't been updated in at least a month. It seems like a good idea to me, as this page is, in a sense, for forum recruiting. So perhaps a time limit, like the recruiting page? --Sirens^{T RR} 17:26, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I also feel that any forum that requires a person to register in order to view shouldn't be on this page at all. If those forums want to keep things so private, they can use their group pages. --Sirens^{T RR} 17:29, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Now that I think about it, this whole page needs to be cleaned up an reorganized. I won't delete anything, but does anyone mind if I reorganize it? --Sirens^{T RR} 00:55, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Nope, go for it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:15, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Resensitized - dead?

I've been unable to access Resensitized recently. Any links only result in a "server not found" error message.

Can anyone verify this situation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Fifth Horseman (talk • contribs) .

HA! Someone should give the server host a medal! Cyberbob  Talk  12:51, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Oh shut up, would you?

I don't f***ing bother with this game anymore, just wanted to take a look on how things are going on there. When I tried to enter Resensitized, I got an error message - but apparently now the forum works without any problem. --The Fifth Horseman 15:04, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Can you please include the "uck" from now on, or simply censor the whole word? I'm s*re you c*n sti*l und*rst*nd what I'm say*ng, right? Censoring a few letters is stupid. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:09, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Dude. I've tried to work with the abandoned on the whole resensitised thing even though I'm just a puny little mod. Obviously, faking a 404 not found and trying to get resensitized off the list is the LOWEST way to attack. Shit like this makes me wonder why I even try to work with the Abandoned anymore. Seriously. --Absolution 06:08, 23 September 2006 (BST)

Misc Comments

[1] Something about that struck me as being very lame... --Sirens^{T RR} 16:47, 14 September 2006 (BST)

People use Proboards? --Akule 00:50, 19 September 2006 (BST)

This (Another Urban Dead Forum) is lame!--The Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Talk | CC CPFOAS DOЯIS Judge LOE ZHU} 09:41, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Then why are you moaning about it?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:26, 21 September 2006 (BST)

If I was moaning about it, I'd be like "Oh... Oh god!.. oh!.. Another Urban Dead Forum! Oh thats the spot right there! Oh Jesus!" but... nah.. I'm just calling it lame.--The Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Talk | CC CPFOAS DOЯIS Judge LOE ZHU} 13:25, 21 September 2006 (BST)

IMO, this new UD forum sounds like a way to take a cut of Resesnsitized's sucess. Resensitized hit the right spot, having a desensitized-like community without all the flaming and idiocy, with an admin who actually cares about the community. The new UD forum basically is like Microsoft's Zune copying the iPod. Resensitized was sucessful, and someone else wants in on the success.

As Mr. Bertrand Serlet said in Apple's Worldwide Developers Confrence 2006, "If you cannot innovate, you can imitate, but it's never as good as the original."--Absolution 23:09, 23 September 2006 (BST)

Can you really blame me for what I did, then?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:58, 24 September 2006 (BST)

Well, I'll challenge your lawyer to a game of "briefcase deathmatch" over a look and feel lawsuit. However, that forum seems like a waste of time and money (Assuming you paid for the hosting). Honestly, you are too late to the privately hosted forum party. That, and I wouldn't trust any of the wiki mods being a mod on a forum, even if it meant my life (Except Xoid). --Absolution 01:36, 24 September 2006 (BST)

Lol, i'd except. Though you may be right, the forum is a bit of a waste of time, though not money (as i'm using the hosting for other stuff anyway). None of the wiki mods are moderating "Another Urban Dead forum", although I would have liked xoid on the team.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:53, 24 September 2006 (BST)

What's your stance on The biggest zerger on Urban Dead? --Akule 15:38, 30 September 2006 (BST)

Can you give me proof the she is a zerger?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:05, 30 September 2006 (BST)

Sointinly. The characters in the pic from the Resensitized Zerg List (under aimi) are: xMorganx, Strawberry Shortcake, Morgan le Fey, Laria, Furious Nessa, and Teh V.

I'll talk to her about this.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:36, 7 October 2006 (BST)

Another Urban Dead Forum

Why is a forum that's been active for a year and has only 14 members on the top of the forum list? Should either proboards, brainstock, or resensitized be higher up? --YuriRuler90 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it hasn't been around a year. Glancing back at the article I can only assume that is a typo and should read 2006. The reason why it is first is that someone created that forum not long after the listing was alphabetized. However, as the board is still offline after at least a week so far, IIRC, it should probably be removed now anyway. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Would there be an opposition to having a Major and Minor boards catagory to list boards under, that way we can have like Rezzens, brainstock, and proboards all listed together in alpha under a major boards heading, and then the rest under a minor boards heading?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Although i'm not sure if there's actually much point bringing Another Urban Dead Forum back online again. My problem would be, who decides what is a major or minor board?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know I'd consider Brainstock and Resensitized to be major boards. I think for non-group orientated boards, it should be based on member counts and posts per day. For group related boards, probably the same thing, but with an additional criteria: Any forum where the members can get banned for taunting the members of that group should be considered a minor forum.

Being the hosts of widely used tools, lists, or other features could also be qualifying for a board to be considered major.

Just some thoughts, really. --Sirens^{T RR} 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Though if we ordered the list by # of posts and such, dividing by major/minor would probably not be needed. The current groupings seem discreet enough to me, at least at the moment. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

List Organization

OK, what are we going to set as the actual guidelines? As Jorm points out, some of the group forums with areas for general discussion are larger and more active than some the general ("major") forums (proboards had 22 posts / day Nov 27-30). I'm hesitant on the use of 'major' and 'minor', but however we determine it, will it be set guidelines or just some consensus of us admins? Also, how often should a forums stats be updated at minimum, and should something like avg posts/day for the past week or month or such be 'required' as a ranking guideline? --Gilant ^talk|DEM 20:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... to me, I always thought of the RRF and RedRum to be more group boards with extras despite their membercount and whatnot, so I dunno. I can see proboards being dropped to a lower tier, since it is barely used (and I'm a forum admin there too, I should know). But as far as status updates, that would prolly be upto the boards discression to what they include and whatnot, and how often. I just put the major/minor thing up as a temporary solution to see if it worked, if it doesn't, we can try to come up with something else.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Group Forums vs General Forums

Couldn't one argue that Unofficial_UD_Forums#Barhah.com, Unofficial_UD_Forums#Feral_Undead_Forums, and Unofficial_UD_Forums#New_Malton_Colossus are group pages and should be placed under Unofficial_UD_Forums#Group_And_Specific rather than under Unofficial_UD_Forums#General_Discussion_Forums--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 07:00, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Well. Barhah.com is home to the official forums for the RRF, the MOB, the CRF, Hambargar Halparz, Manbagz Zambahz, the Fever, the Lawn-Mowing Teens of Malton, and the Infected Swarm, as well as having general discussion forums for all sorts of stuff. So it's not just "a" group, which is what "group and specific forums" is for. I can't speak for the others, though.--Jorm 07:16, 13 August 2007 (BST)

The Brainstock Migration

To Whom It May Concern:
I've attempted to log in at the new Zetaboard forum for Brainstock, but despite repeated attempts at resending, I have never received a validation email. I would suspect that perhaps I had somehow fumbled my own email address (and yes, I have checked my spam folder) except that I have noticed that other Invisionfree forums have not been sending me email notifications when I get PMs. This may be something you want to look into, not just for my own sake, but for the others that may be awaiting validation.
(As a "Validating" member of the forum, there does not appear to be any way to contact anyone on the forum either! I can't send PMs, I can't start a thread or reply to one. I left Myers a PM at the old forum, but...) --Queen Mum 18:37, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I will make a thread on the new board to direct someone here if there isn't one already.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:35, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Hello Queen Mum, with the assumption that this is your account, I have manually activated it. I must say, though, that there are other members using your email provider (yahoo.com) that did not experience problems, so the error might have indeed been with the settings of your spam filter. Anyway, you should be ready to post now, welcome aboard! G F J 18:22, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Ah! You were the magical pixie involved. Thank you! Yes, I checked the Spam folder and found nothing. Let's hope I don't have to do it again! --Queen Mum 22:54, 8 September 2009 (BST)

This page

It's full of old and dead. --Haliman - Talk 01:40, 23 October 2009 (BST)

Indeed. Looks like a thorough cleaning and reorganization might be in order. For now, what's the proper order for group forums supposed to be anyway? It looks like alphabetical, but then a lot aren't in the proper order. —Aichon— 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to my cleaning it?

As the header says. I have a few thoughts on it.

1. There's no need to keep links to dead boards. I think that whole section should go.
2. There are obviously a lot of dead boards here. I'm thinking the ones which have no recent posts publicly visible (say, last two months) should be contacted GSGM style. I'd be happy to handle it myself, if necessary.
3. The section names, particularly the distinction of "Major" and "Minor" boards, seem silly to me. We should redo them.
4. I'd like to see it less Recruitment-ish with all of the comments after the header and link. Maybe just a brief description? Or I could make a template that you can fill out with some pre-approved fields (e.g. number of posts and topics, short description, open/closed to others, etc.)?

For the section names, how about the following:

• Communities - Boards with a large population where the majority of posts are not related to the operations of a single group or alliance (though it may "belong" to one).
• Group Activities - Boards where the majority of posts are related to the operation of a group and its activities.
• Alliances - Boards used primarily for organizing and managing an alliance of groups.
• Other - Typically, boards that are unaffiliated with a group or alliance but are dedicated to a specific topic of interest.

All of these are loose definitions, and I would suggest we appeal to common sense, rather than some hard and fast rules when it comes time to organize the list. I intentionally allowed for some overlap between the definitions, since I think all of us would accept boards like barhah or brainstock as communities, yet they clearly had foundations that stem from specific groups or alliances. Where to draw the line between a large group board and a community is something I would rather not do, but would instead rather leave to the meta-community as a whole. I think it's pretty obvious which are which, so I hope we can handle it well. Thoughts? —Aichon— 00:34, 27 August 2010 (BST)

Organise it into alphabetical lists under the headings "General" and "Group Specific", tighten the blurbs to the bare minimum, and wipe out any dead boards entirely. 00:35, 27 August 2010 (BST)

The problem I have with just two headings is that it makes it harder for newbies who stumble on this page (which is what I and some others I know did) to find those boards which have a lot of importance in the meta-community. As much as I want to say "keep it all even for everyone", I believe that those boards really do need to be singled out in some way. —Aichon— 00:40, 27 August 2010 (BST)

Many dead boards can still be viewed via the Internet Archive, provided one has the link. As such, yes, I would object to their removal, for historical reasons if nothing else. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:22, 27 August 2010 (BST)

I actually thought of that. My quick answer is that they're likely linked from their group pages still and that those pages are kept for historical reasons, while this one is not. If they're not linked there, then I'm still inclined to think that deleting them is better, since this page is meant to be used for people to find forums to visit, and those forums are gone, which means that they're not useful to 99% of people. For someone like you (an outlier, to say the least) who wants to go to them via the Internet Archive, the page history can be used, and would be more appropriate for something of this sort. Barring that, however, then what of cutting them WAY down? Maybe just a name and a link with no other info. Something of that sort. —Aichon— 06:45, 27 August 2010 (BST)

Pfft- This page has waaayy too many dead boards and they shouldn't be on the page if they can't be used. Just make a page Unofficial UD Forums/Old and throw them there. Seriously, keeping dead boards for the sake of memory is retarded. I mean, for the really big ones, of course, there should be a note at the top in the intro blurb about the legacy of some of the massive boards that have now died, but, I mean, the BBK forum link is still on here- and UD wise that's been defunct for about 2 years. -- LEMON #1 07:07, 27 August 2010 (BST)

That works. Was pretty much what I was thinking. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:43, 27 August 2010 (BST)

Yeah, I think that's best IMO. This article atm has not much value for someone actually wanting to search out UD communities from scratch IMO, or not as well as it could be. Obviously the big forums that have gone should get a mention, even the forums that came to ud... like SA, Shacknews, LUE, you know what I mean I hope. -- LEMON #1 08:06, 27 August 2010 (BST)

Works for me too. Archiving them on a separate page is fine. —Aichon— 08:37, 27 August 2010 (BST)

So, is cleaning up this page still planned? I absolutely agree that dead boards should be moved to a separate page, and I agree that the "Major" and "Minor" distinctions should be replaced (or there should at least be requirements for becoming "major", such as having at least 10,000 posts). Regarding the "finding boards with importance" that Aichon mentioned, I'm not sure whether the proposed new sections would solve that - lots of small boards with 10 members could choose a name starting with "a" and, not hosting a specific group, add themselves to the community section. To counter this, I'd either suggest formulating minimum requirements (10,000 posts?) for the community section or perhaps changing the sorting method from alphabetical to the number of posts, users, or something similar. If such a requirement is indeed set up, it should also be defined how to deal with archives, whether to include their numbers or not. G F J 15:10, 15 September 2010 (BST)

I believe it is still planned, but real life has been busier than expected these last few weeks for me, so I haven't been following up too much on wiki projects. I'll try to get back around to it once I have the chance, but, if anyone wants to tackle it in the meantime, that'd be great. —Aichon— 15:45, 15 September 2010 (BST)

Forum stats

G F J, I'm sure you have nothing but the best intentions, but the way you're using those stats is misleading at best and could be considered downright deceptive at worst. I see you totalling member numbers from Old and New Brainstock without any breakdown of how many are, in fact, the same people on both forums. Might want to fix that, or at least make a note. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ

Done. G F J 10:40, 1 September 2010 (BST)

Come Together... Right now!

Just a heads-up... I'm in the process of setting up a central "Zombicentric" forum where I hope everyone from the various boards will filter in as the general popularity of UD and BBGs in general declines. That way folks can stay together, but in an environment where NEW users will be invited in from advertising campaigns and other undead games, etc. Think of it as an anti-stagnation attempt. Plus I have a pretty BOSS name. Anyway...

Come join: http://Zombied.com -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 22:22, 2 July 2012 (BST)

only if you make me a global mod.--User:Sexualharrison22:29, 2 July 2012

I have no problem with that. There's always demodding and you can't exactly do much damage on a forum with no posts yet. :) So it's a deal. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 22:39, 2 July 2012 (BST)

No posts you say? I find it already chock full or humorous banter. --Ross^lessness 22:43, 2 July 2012 (BST)

I'm so scared right now. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 22:51, 2 July 2012 (BST)

You always were my favourite bicycle repairman. --Ross^lessness 22:56, 2 July 2012 (BST)

Are you registered as Vapor? -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 22:54, 2 July 2012 (BST)

Mm-hmm. Making sure the sausages don't burn, then will join in the banter. ~ _{23:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)}