Talk:Battle of Blackmore

Something in the air

"... people began to move into the area around Blackmore, sensing something in the air. Perhaps it was Desire."

My sources claim it was Sex Panther. Paul Brunner 00:51, 6 October 2006 (BST)

It's true. No one can resist it, even if it does smell like raw gasoline. --Aiden H ^4H 20:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Article

Funniest thing I've read in a long time. Great pages guys! --Rabbi Bob 14:47, 17 September 2006 (BST)

Awsome page! PadreRomero 15:57, 15 September 2006 (BST)

I've added Jim Morrison to our enemies...He deserves to be somewhere...PadreRomero 04:07, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Honored

I'm honored I was included amongst the commanders. And that opening quote is just fan-frickin-tastic! And the French police REALLY don't like it if you bring wine to Jim Morrison's grave. My brother's girlfriend found that out the hard way. You might want to add that a member of the BBB personally inspected the grave on Wednsday and it appeared to be undisturbed. Of course, that could just mean that he's a very neat zombie and put the stone slab back in place after leaving... Tyler Whitney0 00:59, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Amazing, commander and Librarian, I am titillated by aforementioned honor. Sir Fred of Etruria 01:06, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Original date??

You say August 18 but the comments on ridely bank page say it began around August 9th--Jattern3434 04:52, 16 September 2006 (BST)

We attacked Ridleybank earlier than the 18th, but it was the 18th when things officially seem to have started in Blackmore. Keep in mind that there was a short occupation of the suburb going on and we only realized our situation in Blackmore (as opposed to the rest of the area) on the 18th. Least ways that's how I think things happened. Ron Burgundy 05:17, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Forces of the NMC went in to occupy a few key buildings in Ridleybank. We did so undisturbed and barricaded buildings as we waited for the zombies to respond. They did so by breaking into the Blackmore Building on the 18th of August. That's what I considered the date of the battle to begin - when we first noticed the zombies to break into our barricaded buildings and attack us. I thought this would be the best start date for a battle because this is when the actual fighting started, when the zombies actually engaged us. I thought it would be false to state that the battle started earlier when the zombies didn't attack us. It would also be more accurate as different elements of the NMC was in the suburb at different times - should we have said that the battle started when there was 1 survivor, or 10, or 25 in Ridleybank? Even then, we only occupied Ridleybank - We didn't fight for it, and that's because the zombies had to gather to fight us. When the actually fighting took place seems, at least to me, to be the better date of when the battle started.Colonel Hannibal Smith 16 September 2006

Well shouldn't we at least say that while the offical date is the 18th the roots of the siege go back to the 9th--Jattern3434 16:16, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Oh, yeah, sorry! I added that to the "It begins" section. "The Channel 4 News Team entered Ridleybank in early-August, specifically the 10th, and the rest of the NMC quickly regrouped." Think that'll do us right? --Ron Burgundy 18:44, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Yup that'll do--Jattern3434 03:08, 17 September 2006 (BST)

Crossman Defense Force

Our group has battled for a quite a while against zeds and reluctantly pkers, and would love to join your ranks. If you are still fighiting this battle, talk to Zod Rhombus, or myself, so that we may be able to assist you in any way possible, good luck and good speed! --1 4 of CDF 09:01, 22 September 2006 (BST)

A team of Crossman Defense Force specialists has entered the field of Glorious Battle! --Zod Rhombus 18:56, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Veeeectooorrryyy! Onward to the gloriousness! Smashy Smashy!--Steele Glovier 19:22, 12 October 2006 (BST)

Glorious Zombie Victory?

Not only did the RRF need to pull its forces back, the Big Bash had to invade Ridleybank. Think about that for a moment. If that was what the zombies call a glorious victory, I'd had to see an inglorious one. This was the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, or the brave Texans at the Alamo. I don't know about you, but I think the glory is for the defenders here. Remember Blackmore! --OmegaPaladin 17:50, 13 October 2006 (BST)

OK, whoever did that edit was right. It sounds much more classy now! Laragh 20:00, 13 October 2006 (BST)

You said it, man. Glorious victory my eye. We held out as long as we could. Odin knows how many times I fell, and got back up again. ---Captain Leah- 21:37, 13 October 2006 (BST)

Honored as Well

I must say that I'm impressed that I actually made it into the 'commanders' and actual article this time. Just for standing up and saying, "Damnit, stay here." Well, just to let you know, I'm killing the zombies inside as a zombie. Isn't that swell? I closed the doors to boot. :P

NPOV + "Historical Event"? WTF?

This is a highly POV article to be marked as a "historical event."--Jorm 05:23, 12 July 2007 (BST)

Come on, can't you forgive a bit of storytelling? That's the whole point of a historical event being recorded in the first place. --MSTK 02:34, 9 August 2007 (BST)

Keep the article; drop the "historical" tag; move it to a child of some group or something where it's obvious POV-ness does no harm. This is bullshit to have as an "official" historical article. However, also typical of the pro-survivor stance prevalent here.--Jorm 02:43, 9 August 2007 (BST)

This is a game, not the Britannica, sheeeeeeeesh...

This is an excellently written article, highly entertaining and pleasure to read -- for both survivors and zambahz alike. Its bias -- not to mention the purple shades of its prose -- is TOTALLY BLATANT. That's what makes it great.

Way I see it, there's two choices here, two distinct paths down which to take this:

1. You keep the article as-is and leave standing a highly compelling and entertaining bit of reading that will entice players on all sides of the breathing fence to enjoy the game that much more, and perhaps take it to even greater heights or role-playing grandeur, aka more fun.
2. You bowlderise it to fit some phony and inappropriate standard of pseudo-NPOV for the pseudo-encylopedia for FICTIONAL world. In the process you completely forget that Urban Dead is a game -- and a role playing game, to boot. And, of course, dismiss the whole idea that games are supposed to be fun. And make the wiki a duller and lamer place and the game more boring. Is that this glorious BARHAH! of which I hear so much?

Let the article stand as it is. Don't take our fun away from us... All this NPOV wannabe crap and wiki drama is just squelching creativity and enjoyment. Making the game a domain for illiterate 14-year-old Runequest addicts with shotgun fetishes. Now that is no fun. That is most certainly not Barhah... Not any Barhah I want a part of, anyway... --WanYao 12:40, 9 August 2007 (BST)

Such hypocritical bullshit that spews from your mouth. When the reverse situation is applied, everyone screams for NPOV. However, when someone from the other side says "this is wrong," you get indignant, say "it's just a game," and "npov should be allowed." So fuck that. Apply the rules equally or not at all.--Jorm 17:56, 9 August 2007 (BST)

You know, for me it's not so much that it's pov, you expect a level of that here on the survivor wiki, but rather that quite a bit of the article is wrong and seems geared towards insulting the RRF than reporting on the event. You have to remember that this article was made by survivors during the event and was used to get people to help survivors. A lot of things are whitewashed or changed completely from the reality of what happened. --Karek^maps?! 22:36, 9 August 2007 (BST)

Jorm... I am total newbie, I don't have a "political" stake in this game or this wiki. Unlike some people... I don't give a damn about the personal/polical wiki wars, I don't give a damn about any of the drama that goes on here... I call 'em as I happen to see 'em... right or wrong... And, if it were zambahz writing something compelling and entertaining, I'd make the EXACT same argument, I'd defend that side, too. In fact, I have... I defend the brilliant and creative work that the zambah side has done all the time. Jorm, you don't know anything about me, so don't go calling me a hypocrite... Or I'll call you something highly appropriate which refers to places zambahz seem fond of sticking bananas...

But if it's full of very blatant misinformation, then that's different. If it's really just about insulting the other side (insulting being different from teasing and poking fun at)... well...

Nonetheless, you know... I'm thinking of giving this game up... and I'm just 3 weeks into it... it's just not fun.... too much drama, too much ego, not enough good game or role playing... sigh... --WanYao 06:08, 10 August 2007 (BST)

But you know what? For the record... I actually would not oppose having this article replaced... But put a link to it in the new more nuetral article, explaining what it is -- basically a popular ex tempore feature by a C4NT news reporter that generated a lot interest in the battle, during and after. And the RRF if they want to write, or already have written, a good , witty retort, link to that as well. But don't just bury it somewhere, which is what was being impied... And, yup, for the record... I *am* an (banana receptacle)... I won't not admit it... --WanYao 06:39, 10 August 2007 (BST)

I think you are reading far more "seriousness" into this than there is. But that's okay; I'm a difficult person to read a lot of the time. I'm not sure I ever suggested having the article fully deleted; I just want the "historical" tag removed.--Jorm 06:53, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Perhaps... But the comments in the voting are pretty intense, man. But the flaming gloves are officially off... I don't want more drama... How's this for a suggestion? Let the article stand, but put a big bozed and bolded disclaimer at the very top of, stating in clear terms that is not NPOV and that its factual accuracy is in serious question, but it has been maintained because of its popularity and its impact on the course of events. With a link to rebuttals and critiques up there as well. I wonder, would all sides accept that? --WanYao 13:15, 10 August 2007 (BST)

However it seems that, even though the voting is VERY close, with the Keep side currently holding a slight edge, the Battle of Blackmore page is being removed. The vote was posted on the main page for all of 12 hours or so. Maybe I am just igronant of the process of voting (I don't see a guide anywhere obvious) but WTF?? That seems pretty totalitarian, if you ask me... What, did y'all learn how to conduct democracy from the CIA's Latin America fraud-election division? sigh.... The gloves WERE off until I saw that... but i give up, this is ridiculous. --WanYao 13:30, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Wait, what? Removed? I didn't see anything about it being removed...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 13:35, 10 August 2007 (BST)

This text keeps changing every few hours, it seems: "The Battle of Blackmore has been posted for removal from Category:Historical Events." Previsouly, it had a link to the voting page and said clearly that the event was being voted on, please vote. Now it implies that voting is over and the page has been removed. Furthermore, the "Historical Event" template has been removed from the page itself. Go look. --WanYao 13:39, 10 August 2007 (BST)

I don't think there is a "Historical Event" tag...And it surely doesn't show anything in the history. If there is a tag, then everyone forgot to tell me about it...:P.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 13:43, 10 August 2007 (BST)

No, seriously... Maybe I was having an LSD flashback :P but there used to be an Historical Event template on the BoB page, then a template was added saying that its status is under dispute, please see the voting. These are gone. And, the sidebar text on the home page of the wiki made it very clear that there was a vote taking place, offered a link to the voting section, and asked people to vote. That, too, has changed and IMNSHO the current wording is at best ambigious, at worst possibly misleading. And certainly does not give a clear link/direction to the voting page. Something is wikid going on, even though this ain't Denmark... --WanYao 14:03, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Well, I don't know where you saw this, but I'm almost positive that Blackmore never had a Historical tag. None of the other historical events do either. And on the wiki news thing, I guess Hagnat was changing it according to the rules.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:08, 10 August 2007 (BST)

I stand corrected. I guess it's just the Caiger sieges that don't have them. I checked them only because, seeing as how a lot of this wiki is "survivor biased", I figured if it was historical, it'd have a tag. You understand why I messed up right? Typical assumption.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:26, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Well, I don't know... maybe I was mistaken... doesn't matter... I've said my piece, or three. I've cast my vote, conditionally... I offer apologies to one and all for my earlier flaming... and th-th-that's all, folks. Let's just all try to be decent and reasonable about this, now, okay? Simple? Well, no, not really, but we can try.... --WanYao 14:53, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Honestly I don't specifically remember there being one when I added the Caiger sieges, so it might not exist or it might be a recent creation. Anyway, historical events did/do have a category addition.--Karek^maps?! 19:27, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Shacknews Involvement?

Does this article sort of undervalue the role of Shacknews? It seems to me that they were the real victors of this siege. RFF tried for a month and failed...Shacknews did it in less than an hour. --MSTK 02:35, 9 August 2007 (BST)

Well...they did come in at the last second... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:03, 9 August 2007 (BST)

They came at the last second because they caused it to end. If they hadn't come, who knows how long it would have lasted? --MSTK 03:31, 10 August 2007 (BST)