Category talk:Historical Groups

Obtaining Historical Status

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups. Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, and have a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations. Groups must allow 4 months in between when the group disbands and when they can be nominated for Historical Status. (Note: Only for Malton-based groups)

Nominations for Historical Status

When nominating a group, please add a note to Template:Wiki News and add {{HistoricalGroupVoting}} to the top of the group's page. Also, please add {{HistoricalVotingRules}} under the group's application for historical status.

New Nominations

Team Xtreme

Team Xtreme - Having been a Pker for a long time and seen a lot of things in this game, I will say that as far as Bhers go, and I've seen a lot, these guys were one of the best I've encountered. They were an early adversary and served as a bit of measuring stick for ones that followed. I still remember these guys putting up a tougher challenge with less than half the players 'The Saints' had. A rare Bher group that you, as a Pker, didn't want to see much of but you respected them. A small but very effective group who often took on challenges rather than cower from them. Well organized, well lead and well known to those who stuck with the game for more than a month. --Hibernaculum 01:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)

Yes

1. Nominator Vote - Hibernaculum 01:39, 4 July 2012 (BST)
2. At least I can say I got the final shot against Josh Clark. He was a good man. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:12, 4 July 2012 (BST)
3. Happy birthday! :D --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 02:14, 4 July 2012 (BST)
4. Yes.. lol --Carrie Cutter 02:17, 4 July 2012 (BST)
5. Yes and not just because it's you-know-who's birthday ;) Grogh 02:23, 4 July 2012 (BST)
6. RAWR. Joshy's awesome  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 02:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)
7. As the former leader I ask that all voters look at the History part of our page. We worked with Survivor groups such as the Cannonball Crew and Skynet Defense Network. Even though we were indeed Bounty Hunters we did a lot of pro survivor operations such as this one Alliance 45 In 2 operations we fought the Zombies in Gulsonside with Operation Damage Control (July 21, 2010 - Sept 12, 2010) and Operation: Beaten to Death (July 28, 2011 - September 5, 2011) Also with Operation Uplift (October 1, 2010 - October 22, 2010) Wyke Hills goes from Red to Green with Team Xtreme, the Wulves and D.S. R&D. Operation Blindside (January 19, 2011 - January 28, 2011) Team Xtreme with Skynet Defense Network, FPDF, AZS, KT, MR, C4NT, WULVES, MCDU, The Fortress, DSR&D, and Z.A.L.P. worked together in Whittenside against the Feral Undead just to name a few things (Not typical BHer stuff) Operation: Rock The Dead (April 11, 2011 - July 2, 2011) Was when Team Xtreme helped defend Malton against the return of the dead. Operation: Black List (September 9, 2011 - October 3, 2011) Was when Team Xtreme fought against Text Rapists and Zergs. This event won a 2011 Malton Murder Award for Best Bounty Hunting Moment, Team Xtreme is proud to have participated in the event. Team Xtreme was also Winner of the 2011 Malton Murder Awards for Best Bounty Hunter Group. And lastly October 28, 2010 is when I officially launched my blog web show The Xtreme Zone to entertain the people of Malton. The show lasted a year. And there was 4 years worth of Bounty Hunting in between all that. So my vote is yes. We have a History Page for a reason. --Josh Clark 02:32, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   Historical by association isn't historical. Just because you have history doesn't mean that you're historical. Particularly when that history has almost no overlap with documented notable game events. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:23, 7 July 2012 (BST)

8. Hell yeah!--Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 02:50, 4 July 2012 (BST)
9. I says yep! :D --Lucy Daniels 03:05, 4 July 2012 (BST)
10. Absolutely, Yes! When The Cannonball Crew was fighting in Gulsonside against CTD, Josh and his crew were Indispensable! [User:Midge Owner] 03:15, 4 July 2012 (BST)
11. Definitely!! TX will always be the best BHer group, in my opinion --Solodog 03:20, 4 July 2012 (BST)
12. Because I was told to. —Aichon— 03:42, 4 July 2012 (BST)
13. Because I'm scared of Carrie. *hides* --Rambo ninja spidrman 04:12, 4 July 2012 (BST)
14. Xtremest group EVER. --Penguinpyro 04:15, 4 July 2012 (BST)
15. Easily one of the finest BHer groups Malton has seen. Their impact on several areas of the Pking/BHing industry may still be felt. -- Albert Schwan  _{Wednesday, 4 July 2012}
16. Yup......nuff said --Raven Corvus 15:30, 4 July 2012 (BST)
17. Josh's patter is hopeless and Hermann Munster always enjoyed ripping him and his Cheeto-stained buddies a new one, but TX's concerted efforts with Skynet were the only survivor push that ever threatened to shift Clubbed to Death from Blesley Mall for any length of time. The Cheeto Wars with you guys rank among the Club's most enjoyable nights out. And if that doesn't warrant a footnote in history, what does?--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 18:33, 4 July 2012 (BST)
18. Yes. It was always an event for the BAR when Team Xtreme came to town. Jesus Sante ^CFT 04:27, 5 July 2012 (BST)
19. As a general thing, the niche of PKers matters very little in the big picture of UD given the default conflict (survivors vs zombies) and basic game mechanics (cost of killing vs cost of revival, significance of draining AP with meatshielding and ruining which PKers don't do). BHers, being essentially a niche within the niche, matter even less as a general thing. That being said, within its narrow niche, Team Xtreme has been highly significant. When we will look back in a few years and wonder about who has mattered within the field of bounty-hunting, TX must definitively be mentioned. For that reason, I think they should be included. -- Spiderzed█ 19:26, 5 July 2012 (BST)

    To specially lower the bar to "Well known presence in a subgroup community" would be to devalue what Historical Groups purpose as a category. It's purpose is to help newer users to understand how the community and culture has grown and particularly the groups which will come up in discussion time and again as being why things are done. Team Xtreme doesn't even make that list for BHers, nor PKers, much less Survivors, Zombies, or Players. And its particularly egregious when most(including these) BHers by nature play poorly(ineffectively) and are not innovative strategically(Beyond RG and some of what DARIS did) in even the limited anti-pker realm, COMBAT REVIVE was a more effective anti-pker group by the numbers than this, 404 and THEM are/were a functionally better example of anti-pker strategy that actually had demonstrable lasting effects on both specific conflicts and the game itself. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:20, 7 July 2012 (BST)

20. As Spiderzed above. --Belisarius17 03:30, 6 July 2012 (BST)
21. Worked with TX...agree with Spiderzed. --Met Fan ^F 06:13, 6 July 2012 (BST)
22. What Josh said, what Albert said, what Mallrat said. Leon Silverblood 17:46, 6 July 2012 (BST)

No

1. meh and meh. they did nothing that other BH groups didn't do before. --User:Sexualharrison01:50, 4 July 2012
2. Convince me. --Ross^lessness 18:22, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   Since you asked let me give it a shot. Admittedly, what follows is information that predates me. It is my understanding of events and if its accuracy needs to be called into question, please feel free. How did TX change the game? Undoubtedly, there were BHers before TX. My understanding is that most of them were lone hunters or small groups of 2 to 3. They would come together at places like the RG but not in a permanent strategic way. Was there Pack BHing, yes. Organizations like the DEM were organized and engaged in BHing along with their many other functions. My understanding is that if there were purely BHer groups before the time that TX, Malton Marshals, and the Saints formed in 2008, they were transitory. They specialized and they organized for the sole purpose of hunting bounties and they were good at it, providing a counterpoint to PKing groups which had been around for some time. Helping to create organized opposition lead to BHer events like All saints day in 2008 and the organized opposition to Samhain Slaughter. BHer groups are a feature of the game today. Now, while I might well be unaware of a notable group or two that would damage this argument, one thing I am fairly sure of is that TX was instrumental in introducing BHer arms into super groups. There were super groups before TX, but since their inception from Alliance 45 to Cannonball Crew to SDN, TX was there making their specialized services a part of how groups like this would operate. Regardless of how one feels about BHing groups or supergroups, they are a part of Malton life and TX helped make them what they are today. Long winded but I hope it helps. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   there is nothing "super" about any of the groups you just mentioned.--User:Sexualharrison03:08, 6 July 2012

   Funny then that you are listed as leadership on a group that evidently thinks otherwise. Might want to see to setting that straight :P -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   i can still think they are D-bags can't i? and the NMC is a collective with no real leadership. cat herding comes to mind.--User:Sexualharrison05:05, 6 July 2012

   Shearbank Liberation Army, Dulston Defense Death Squad, to name a few old BHer groups (or semi-BHer groups) of the old days that has Historical status, Al. Sure, they were limited to a single location and didn't use Rogue's Gallery as heavily as today's BHer groups, but they were still BHer groups. Just...correcting your facts a little there, Al. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:36, 6 July 2012 (BST)

   They didn't use RG at all because it didn't exist yet. The concept of bounties didn't even exist. Back then it was just a PK List hosted on Desensitized with screenshots of last known locations. Ironicly, though, it was former members of DARIS, whom the SLA were were at war with that were partially responsible for the modern bounty system. That new group was called The Council of Leaders (new), led by Katthew (and others). They were the real pioneers in Bounty Hunting as are those members of DEM who founded the Rogues Gallery. Just correcting some of your facts, Axe. ~ _{17:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}

   Thanks Axe, I figured I missed a few, but the fact remains, these groups were institutional or regionally strategic. I still maintain that the 08 groups brought something new to the table that was not there before and still is there today. TX to me was the most successful and recognized of the newer batch. Their influence was formative and therefore historically significant.-- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   That can be seen both ways. For one, I honestly believed RG was a lot better back then before it moved to it's current home. TX deserves a spot in historical, but not for the reasons you've stated here. It's the same with CK. CK deserves to be historical too, but not for the reasons stated in both CK votes. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:05, 7 July 2012 (BST)

3. Why are they historical? Because they were effective? Did they change the game? Is this another popularity contest? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 20:08, 4 July 2012 (BST)
4. As above. This vote is largely irrelevant, as there is clearly a bandwagon rolling. However, I'm really not seeing this at all. They were... alright and that's about it. If a CV features only events that the applicant actually has to explain then there is not much there. If there were a category for Historical Characters (and I have long believed that there should be), then Josh Clark would make it. Team Xtreme though? Not for me. --Papa Moloch 20:32, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   I'm a lot better looking than you. No hard feelings. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 06:44, 6 July 2012 (BST)

5. never heard of you and frankly the number of votes such a none group are getting makes it obvious how much of a joke this category has become. Seriously... what did you do that made an impact, let alone changed the game? --Honestmistake 22:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)
6. Good at what they did, I guess. Outstandingly so? Nope. Uniquely so? Nope. 23:37, 4 July 2012 (BST)
7. No real game significance--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:43, 4 July 2012 (BST)
8. As Paddy and Moloch. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:47, 5 July 2012 (BST)
9. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:55, 5 July 2012 (BST)
10. I liked Team Xtreme. They were good at what they did and weren't obnoxious about it, either. Other groups have gotten Historical due to being so good that they forced other groups to change their tactics to deal with them, but I don't think TX did that. And I really don't think TX had the sort of presence that impacted the suburbs they went through. I'm rather sad to find that they've disbanded though. Until I saw this, I thought they were still active. --DT^PK 05:30, 5 July 2012 (BST)

    Hey, where the hell have you been? Imma stalk u now. ~ _{23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}

11. This group has never been important or notable. Nor have they had any real impact on the game or 90% of the meta at any point in their history. If Team Xtreme had never existed not only would no one here have noticed, no one here would have cared. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:31, 5 July 2012 (BST)
12. No.--Akbar 18:21, 6 July 2012 (BST)
13. No. A highly visible and fairly well coordinated bounty hunting fixture for many years, but didn't change the game nor challenge the perimeters, nor do anything singularly more spectacular, sophisticated or successful than any other group. --BOSCH 01:06, 7 July 2012 (BST)
14. Meh. Even if they were "highly significant" within bounty hunting (and I've seen little indication that they were, they were just very good at it, they didn't change the way people bounty hunt) it's kind of silly to say that that makes you historical. If you say being very good or even the best at a given subsection of the game is noteworthy, you get in to a weird line of argumentation. If there's a really specialised section of the game e.g. people who hunt people who hunt people who hunt zergs, if the people who do that are very good at it, are they historical? No. Because what they do represents a very small aspect of the game which is largely insignificant. If we look at the history of the game, these guys didn't change it in any way; they aren't a landmark on it. They were just very good at playing the game as it was. Not Historical. --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:19, 7 July 2012 (BST)
15. No. There is absolutely nothing that stands out about them, historically or otherwise. -- CyanEyed ^C-Kids 14:12, 7 July 2012 (BST)
16. How did this group change the way UD is played or have a significant impact on the community at large, i.e. on the whole, not just in one or two suburbs. It didn't. And I don't have to have been around a lot lately to tell from the application that this group is NOT qualfiied. --WanYao 14:28, 7 July 2012 (BST)

Recent Nominations

• Red Rum - Successful

Previous Discussions

There are 3 archives for this page.

General Discussion

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Succeeded

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Failed

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Historical Groups Use Discussion

just a question why and how did the roftwood assault force become historical?--User:Sexualharrison04:16, 23 June 2011 (bst)

here's the vote. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:45, 23 June 2011 (BST)

man did it squeak by. must have been when i was inactive for a few months.--User:Sexualharrison06:06, 23 June 2011 (bst)

TX

Place your bets here. As much I think TX does deserve a spot in historical, I don't think they will make it. From what I'm seeing, this is basically half the PKer meta striking back at the BHer meta for making CK fail. Twice. This is what happens when you're biased in these things. We have ourselves a silent subconscious meta war...Who wants to bet something will blow out of proportion soon? -_-" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 05:20, 5 July 2012 (BST)

Nope. I don't see how this vote is going any different than any other recent vote. You're either in the purist camp (those that cling to the vague voting criteria) or the popularity camp (voteing based on how well you personally like/dislike the group) or you're a meatpuppet. Don't see any evidence of a so-called "meta-war" or "payback" voting. ~ _{22:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}

Never part of the PK scene, nor did I ever BH. I have no stake in voting against your group other than a proper understanding of what it means to be Historical. Have a nice day. --WanYao 14:33, 7 July 2012 (BST)