User talk:Priapus

Got anything to say to Priapus? Spill it here!--Priapus 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

P8Z Badge

That was fucking awesome. I guess you realize I'm just playing around with those reports. Thanks for playing along. I'll repent of my misinformation campaign as soon as I get a chance... --Paddy Dignam 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll second Paddy's compliments. Thanks for the excellent work. Hold down the biting and we'll hold an open-door session for you guys to come to. Strip twister could be difficult (if not impossible) but I'd bet that zombie karaoke would be a winner. Interested? --R33F3RM4N 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Get this straight

If you try to destroy the BMC name using my past one more time like that, I'm going to go on a Juicybraindrinker spree and start creating templates and such relating Juicy to the FU, do you understand me? If you want to continue holding an unjust prejudice on me, despite an entire year having gone by, and not give me a chance to change, you can just shut the fuck up. If you try to make the BMC look bad again, you get to watch as I smear shame all over the FU. I named myself "the man" on this wiki because I don't want every person in the world to be able to personally identify me, neither in-game nor in real life and especially because I definitely don't want it to appear as if I represent the BMC in any way. Note: I would just like to remind you that it was killdare and Snuffleuff that made it into a enormous issue and not me. I started the problem but you fanned the flames. The man 18:08, 3 April 2008 (BST)

First of all, i don't like to stir up problems, but I happen to have a nasty temper that I can't always control, the above post is one such example, although this time its with a good reason. How can you not expect me to get mad when you talk shit about me and relate my past behaviour as an example of the BMC onto the SA talk page and all the trolls there? You could easily have said, "I know for a fact that "the man" is not kevan. Second, with regards to your comments about anonymousity,... "Priapus" isn't your real name! hypocrite! Third, what sort of indication gave you the idea that I represent the BMC? Am I in the council? Only the council represent the BMC in public affairs and I am only in the BMC because I have friends there and like to chat there and help out internally from time to time. Oh yeah, you did not comment on the fact that killdare and snuffleuff made a huge deal out of one mistake that I made, not to mention hiring the heathers to eliminate me from the game. I take it you agree with me when I say that this was totally uncalled for? The man 18:46, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Haha! The Man is having a melt down. Further proof that he's a liability to BMC. Nice find Priapus.--ScoobyDooDoobie 19:06, 3 April 2008 (BST)

This needs to go on the wall. That reminds me, we need a wall. I think we also need to check some of The Man's other posts because his brain seems to melt every time he types anything. --Laughing Man 19:57, 3 April 2008 (BST)

"Note: I would just like to remind you that it was killdare and Snuffleuff that made it into a enormous issue and not me." "Oh yeah, you did not comment on the fact that killdare and snuffleuff made a huge deal out of one mistake that I made, not to mention hiring the heathers to eliminate me from the game." Just for the record... A) I have no idea what "it" is that this kid is referring to regarding me. I dunno nothin' bout no steeking 'enormous issues'. B) I didn't hire the Heathers, nobody hires the Heathers. Apparently, one either attracts their attention or doesn't. I'm left befuddled, as I haven't spoken to "the man" for about a year, nor had any contact with him, yet he's still ranting about me? WTF? --Snuffleuff 11:05, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Instinct

Well, you are zombies, aren't u? I heard that your agents have participated (and still are) in the fall of Shackleville. Any FU members found in Shackleville will be killed on spot, hence the issuing of the black spot. I have identified you as an "Axis of Evil" so to speak. I have no quarrel with you as a group in general, only that you are causing havoc in my neighborhood. Understand? If you leave Shackleville, I will be more than happy to remove the black spot and all other sentiments, no questions asked. --Gehennanow^† 20:07, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Please remove it! Please! WE'RE MARKED! Oh the humanity! - --Gut stench ^{FU BAR} 20:39, 29 March 2007 (BST)

lol --Gehennanow^† 21:36, 29 March 2007 (BST)

I am pleased that you find the Black Spot amusing, I got a chuckle out of it after I made the template. It's a shame that we're not on the same side. I once had a powerful zombie alt but I find playing as the human team much more interesting. If the zombies were to dominate Malton, there would only be zeds roaming around empty buildings. If humans were to conquer, then there still would interaction between groups/factions and PKing. Plus, I can't say that I have ever watched a zombie movie (Shaun of the Dead) and rooted for the zombies, sorry dudes. Although I empathize with your appetite for destruction, I cannot allow you to flatten Malton even if it leads to the end of my own group. --Gehennanow^† 14:37, 30 March 2007 (BST)

danger level

I made my change after seeing the recent reply by some user who said the only reason the suburb isn't safe is because there are PKers. Seeing as this is not a criterion for danger levels I chnaged it to green. i made the mistake of not doing a bit of research and not making a comment on the wiki, I can assure you it won't happen again. The man 19:58, 21 September 2007 (BST)

read

please read the page you are commenting on before making such a comment, all that you stated with regards to the FU Is already stated in the main page. As I said on my reply to to talk page, it is written in big bold letters that the FU does condone zerging and had no know how on the current activities. The man 12:59, 20 October 2007 (BST)

As circles is the predominant metaphor of our discussion, it is only fitting that I respond

To be clear Priapus, speaking as Albert the wiki user (which I very rarely do) I in no way intended to accuse you of actions that violate the game rules; rather Albert, an in game character, accused you of actions that violate his sense of decency: an offense which you, as a zombie character, are perfectly within your rights to commit. This is a game and as such I steer away from meta-discourse in game at all costs. The primary purpose of the statement was to indicate that your behavior, if it continues, will give him license to use certain countermeasures in his fight for the building that he would otherwise not employ.

Speaking as Albert the character, I take by your response that the retaliatory, I believe you call it devivification in violation of common decency will continue. I will therefore adjust my strategy when dealing with you and inform my group to do the same. I can assure you that such measures are reversible and if you ever decide to drop by Colglough while in human form for conversation, I maintain an open door policy to all guests including Feral Undead who act in accordance with reason and good manners within its walls. I have no interest in having a nemesis, but if you wish to act the part I will not begrudge you the opportunity to do so. I can further assure you that I realize that your actions do not speak for your zambah bazzahz and will still deal with them in a manner unchanged by this disagreement.

As to my claim on Colglough, I realize that the ferals have been in this area for a long time and do not expect the recognition that I grant them with the fort. I do think it worth mentioning that, when I came to whittenide, it was a ghost town meaning that it had no substantial survivor or zombie presence. Colglough was empty and its design had not been changed since the early outbreak. To put it tritely, I did not see your name on it so... finders keepers. That said, I fully realize that you will fight me for it and I expect nothing less. Just let it be known that Colglough is a Necrotech facility so I will, as a general rule, assume that those within its walls, feral or not, are asking for revivification. For more on this please look for an upcoming treatise that I shall be posting on the ethics of the combat revive.

Speaking once more as a wiki user, you are welcome in the forum but I do not check it a often as I do the wiki. If the concerns you mention involve zerging, I would preempt your comment by clarifying that, not putting my group at a strategic disadvantage, the precision of our strikes can be partly attributed to the fact that I live with at least one member of my group and communicate with others frequently. Beyond this, I welcome your input on the forum any time; the main board is open to all guests.

Speaking finally as Albert the character, it grieves me somewhat that we have been unable to come to an accord on Colglough but I remain hopeful that such a thin may in the future be possible. Until then, see you around and watch the back of your neck for incoming syringes.

Yours in science,

-- Albert Schwan  00:45, 14 April 2010 (BST)

Corvus brachyrhyncho-phagia

(Meta)I stand corrected. The information I viewed was something I was directed to by a member of a pro-zerging group. I have been unable to relocate this information and have viewed the statemet you reference. I beleive we may consider the horse to be dead, beaten, revivified, killed, and beaten again, but it would seem that the horse was asking for it. After reading the Faq and finding out about auto-banning, I must say that I am just glad I am not the horse and will take precautions to ensure that my wife and I remain on separate computers using separate IPs (end Meta) -- Albert Schwan  21:52, 16 April 2010 (BST)

To the Zombie Priapus from the desk of Albert Schwan

Dear sir,

Enclosed you will find a declaration of our intention within this building that may illuminate the current struggle in which we now find ourselves embroiled.

enclosed notice

Yours in science,

-- Albert Schwan  05:57, 18 April 2010 (BST)

Response to Graaagh

Fron the Desk of Albert Schwan,

There are different types of hunger my friend

-- Albert Schwan  00:46, 21 April 2010 (BST)

An apology regarding your current state

I am informed that one of my group members revivified you. I apologize for this and offer our services to devivify you should you require it. Alternately, should you wish to experience what Whittenside has to offer the breathing inclined, (call it inverse slumming if you will) just ask at Colglough and my staff will be happy to fetch you a first aid kit to take care of that ringing in your ears. We even have libations to help your rage subside and imitation brains to sate any residual hunger. You would not be the first feral guest we have entertained. Feel free to speak in zamgrh if it makes you comfortable, our younger members could use the practice. I regret I cannot join you there as my presence is needed elsewhere for the time being. In one form or another I am sure that I will see you around the suburb.

Yours in science,

-- Albert Schwan  02:57, 25 April 2010 (BST)

A note on recent actions

I am sorry that you feel wronged in this most recent in what has been a long string of attempts to reclaim the Colglough building but I would clarify that an agreement requires that both sides agree. You have not accepted any such in a formal capacity. I have made clear how I intend to proceed and posted as much on my group page some time ago. It states in reference to your desire not to be revived “As incomprehensible as this behavior appears to the scientific mind, prudence requires that we honor his wishes as long as Whittenside remains unstable.” I have always preferred revivification and, in accordance with my stated revivification policy, believe that such an action is to be considered standard practice for zombies within a Necrotech Facility. I was sure to post notice prior to the mission in warning that this would happen and offered the spot as a rot revive for local zombies. At least one of the group you had assembled was there for that purpose. In honor of our history, I treated your infection prior to revivifying you allowing you to choose how you wish to proceed and make your decision at any window. This had the added perk of making it more difficult for you to die of infection and rise to eat us, but was ultimately intended as a gesture of kindness. To be clear, I do not believe that this struggle is over and fully expect to face the retribution for my deeds, but I felt that you should at least understand them first as not outside of the realm of standard interaction between us two. Should you wish to discuss the matter, as always, you are welcome in Colglough provided that you come under the banner of piece (given present circumstanes, I would advise you to say as much when you arrive and often thereafter as the majority of Colglough’s current residents are not as accustomed to Feral guests as I).

Yours in science,

-- Albert Schwan  21:50, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Welcome back

Priapus,

It has been a while. I am glad to see that you are once more active. You have all but missed an interesting series of events with the Heathers, for which you are at least partly responsible, that have done little to ingratiate me to your colleagues. Be that as it may, I am writing to you today regarding the edits you made to the Colglough Building. While I am sure that there was some unkind sentiment (for which I will owe you a CR next we meet), I wholeheartedly approve of the results and hope they are the first of many. All I have wanted is for you ferals to take possession of your suburb. When I moved there, it was listed as a suburb of note, the home to the second largest zombie group, and the site of one of only two forts in Malton. It was also boring. The buildings were ruined, uninhabited, and lacking any character on the wiki. I was in the suburb for weeks before I finally learned it was the FU homeland from your group’s Wiki page. Your new edit to Colglough has the character it was lacking originally, though I hope there is text to follow to accompany the fine picture. I will be making a small addition to note the site as the birthplace of my group, but I hope that you will not begrudge me this. Welcome back and keep up the good work.

Yours in science,

-- Albert Schwan  01:45, 6 September 2010 (BST)

Your Colglough edit

As I am sure you would have noticed in fairly short order, I made some edits to the Colglough Building page. You may take that personally if you wish but I think, upon review, you will find them to be factual. That, however, is not the purpose of this letter. I have noticed that the edit that you posted (the one with the graphic on which I complimented you) was signed and date stamped. If this edit was designed to be a news item, could you move it to the appropriate location with the rest of the news items? If it was designed to be a description, could you remove the signature? In the latter case, I would point out that it also bears a subjective and time sensitive phrase (“the last 6 months”). At current, this is factual but it will not be shortly. This is not to say that my group will be able to take the building from you for any extended period of time; I highly doubt that we will. It is to say that either survivors will take it or 6 months, which is now more like 7 or 8, will become 9 or 10 and I do not think you intend to update this portion of the description regularly. You have now edited the page so you are now involved in its upkeep. The wiki is a collaboration, so while you may destroy or remove my edits, I will extend the courtesy of not doing so to yours. If, on the other hand, you would prefer for me to change or move it for you, let me know and I will be happy to do so.

Yours in science,

-- Albert Schwan  05:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough

Thank you for your response. I looked over your edits and see no problem with them; they add context that I think is valuable to the building history. You are correct, I was not here for the majority of the Colglough events over the years. That being said, as far as the wiki is concerned, it did spring into life in 2010. I was only the 4th person to edit the page ever and was the first to add flavor text. That was part of why I chose the building: it seemed entirely unclaimed. I know that now to not have been the case but the wiki is a collaboration and I can only add the part I know, leaving the rest to others like you. I am happy that you stepped up and added what you did as I would not have and the page is richer for it.

As to the status updates, I agree that the first one you pointed out was biased. I think the second was not. Though it may have been uncivil to post IDs (I wondered briefly about that when I did it and we can talk more about this if you like) the use of the word “hostile” was accurate in so far as George and the strike team with which he was working were a combat team designed to hold the building rather than random ferals (used in a behavioral sense) or peaceful Mrh-cows. The survivors who take it back are likewise hostile. I do see your point though that those edits were not the only ones of mine that were not NPOV. I am more matter of fact with other buildings but there seems to be a tradition of this in Colglough: case in point [1]. Mine are mild by comparison, but this does not excuse my actions so much as it explains them. I do however appreciate the censure. I will see what I can do about reigning myself in but I make no binding promises. I am only Harman after all.

-- Albert Schwan  22:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't generally get involved in this sort of thing, but I'll step in for a moment. Just to deal with semantics for a moment, hostile is really more of a matter of perspective. We all get along swimmingly when it's just rotters and other assorted shamblers, very little hostility to be found. But yeah, there's plenty of that sort of thing in danger report updates (including from some of my own updates), and when it's in good fun, I don't really see a huge problem. However to add player IDs is to use the danger report as more of a collaborative information sharing tool along the lines of what you would find in a group forum. I think it would be better to leave things of that sort on group pages or forums. Mink Snopes 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely agreed, Mink. The building status report is not meant to be a place where player IDs are posted. I do not only consider it "uncivil", I consider it flat-out abuse. I also disagree with the use of the word "hostile" in that particular area - until I see Albert post one along the lines of "Colglough occupied by survivors, all hostile" I must assume he used it as a survivor-centric instead of neutral, point-of-view. I realize the Wiki is chock-full of biased reports, from both sides of the eternal conflict (one has only to look at Pvt Stanley's "news" reports on the Whittenside page for other egregious examples of wayward adjectives). Albert's willingness to try to prevent similarly biased reports in the future is noted and appreciated.--priapus 15:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)