Talk:Barrville

Barrville Radio?

Are there any particular frequencies used to broadcast updates in Barrville, particularly for the NTs?--Felix Weiss 11:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

General Discussion

Does anyone know if Gilling Crescent (44,42) is an active revive point?--Specialfxlady 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice that my call for rotters has been removed by [[User::Cruzz]]. Is only pro-survivor news acceptable? Jirtan 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

uh... why's it orange? - an unsigned query, probably as to the suburb danger status, left by Darkmagic

For some reason, I've only seen two revives between the two revive points in the area in the last two days. We have to make sure we're able to revive those who come, despite recent attacks. --Allenj81 9:06, 26 Jun 2007 (GMT)

Thanks for combing out this page, Mobius187. I'll be making some mods to it later on tonight (GMT-5) to reflect the recent outcome of the RRF's attempt to annex Barrville.--Hatchet Job 18:10, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

The Gingerbread Men are NOT in Barrville. --Technerd 16:27, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Yeah I figured as much.

I've done some major editing to the current events, as the page was all over the place, factually, grammatically, and in terms of POV.Nervie 17:32, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

My mistake. I meant to imply that the Gingerbread Men were involved in the ongoing fight for Barrville, not that they were in the suburb directly. Their activity in Candyland certainly was a major factor in the battle for Barrville.--Hatchet Job 18:10, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I am confused why the timeline is placed out of order. I'm assuming this is simply an oversight, and will correct it. If for some reason this is not the way it should be, could we discuss it here? I fully understand the need for a "compromise tone" to forestall a bunch of zombie machismo or trenchcoat harrumphing. But one could read this page as it was displayed and be left with the opinion that Barrville is Barhahville, which is hard to believe given the current barricading, the zombie population, and the survivor population. I think we can dump the comment about the RRF doubting the veracity, and the implication that coalition numbers were exaggerated (if anything they are underestimated). As far as POV goes, I was trying for that of the survivors in the neighborhood. If that is not acceptible form, I'm happy to go with this "press release" format.--Hatchet Job 18:23, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

There. Does this meet with approval? I tried to be balanced - or, at least, to contribute each party's version of events with an equal hand. The MFD perspective is not attacked within its own "release", and the RRF's comment on it is kept - I just removed the "players" to remove the ref to the game itself.--Hatchet Job 19:00, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, nice work, thats fine, glad we can come to an agreement. Nervie 19:18, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Hey, I love the Feb15 and Feb 18 RRF announcements, Grim s. The Brain Fest response is particularly funny... I adjusted the Feb 18 announcement just to maintain parallel point of view.--Hatchet Job 15:37, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

And i changed it back and reported you for vandalism under the impersonation rules. Your change stripped away the intent and tone. --Grim s 13:47, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

And I changed it myself. Lets not be stupid here guys. Nervie 14:09, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

Seriously. Grim, what's your beef? I detailed the change and why I did it. I ascribed your words to you. That isn't vandalism. If you feel it isn't right - let's bring it here in the talk section, okay? Just a week or so ago, I found my words were totally altered, but Nervie and I were able to come find common ground through the neutral tone of the "press release" format. Can we do the same?--Hatchet Job 17:22, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

WRT the Feb18 post - Grim s - it seems like you are especially interested in casting doubt on the claims on the MFD Feb14 post. Why is that? Do you think we are lying? Yes, with the heightened activity in the SW parts of the burb, folks moved there to deal with the incursions (prior to Group 2 fully moving in). And the east half of the suburb suffered for it. Hell, the whole suburb is suffering pretty bad right now! But on Feb 12-14, up to the time of that announcement, the suburb of Barrville hadn't looked as good in many many months (from a survivor's perspective ;-). Population had risen across all four quadrants, barricades were strong, and zombie counts at a low. That is the modest victory we were claiming - only that. Rather than saying you never lost it in the first place, why don't you claim victory for re-taking the eastern half of the suburb? Would you consider rewording the Feb18 post along those lines? Either that, or word it as a personal opinion, not one necessarily shared by the entire RRF? In any case, if it stands as is we'll get into a silly tit-for-tat wiki exchange which doesn't really serve the purpose of documenting events in the suburb. Just my opinion. What do you think?--Hatchet Job 15:56, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

I would, if it were true. Fact of the matter is that very little was accomplished. Taking a suburb is a long and difficult project, and you need to move in a lot of people to hold it. Zombies have it somewhat easier because all they have to do is kill everyone in the suburb and debarricade it before sticking up a flag. The basic problem with taking a suburb from zombies is driving them off, and i can tell you right now that you cant drive zombies off unless they want to be driven off, and they will kill off the pesky invaders unless you manage to cram about a thousand survivors into the suburb, and even then you are in trouble as the zombies will pick you off peicemeal. It is pretty much impossible to capture a suburb from a horde determined to hold it. You got lucky in the fact that the GBM invaded Ridleybank and we had to pull forces back to exterminate them (We are pretty much done with them now) and their trenchcoater allies.

Do i think you are lying? No, or at least not deliberately, but you have set the standards by which you measure accomplishment far, far too low. Simply barricading a susburb is not retaking it, and as far as we have been able to verify, that is all you did, and it isnt an impressive accomplishment at all.

Also, since i am one of the leaders of the RRF, i kind of am speaking for it. --Grim s 21:03, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

Well grim I don't think it was luck that the GBM invaded Redleybank...you don't suppose people talk and plan these things out do ya? And in that the RRF has failed to drive off all the survivors it really is you who declares victory much too easily. The bar is set low for you my friend. I've run into a similar problem with the MotA they believe because they break two or three buildings they've cleared gulsonside...breaking a few buildings does not a pacified suburb make. In the end Grim you don't win becuase you've decided you have. -- Kristi of the Dead

Last i checked we didnt declare victory. I mentioned that most humans had been wiped out (Truth) and then mentioned that RRF Group 2 and RRF group 1 were swapping territories to patrol for a while (Also Truth). Perhaps you should come back and try again, when you have a leg to stand on. --Grim s 20:48, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Jorm - could you explain why you feel that the MFD post doesn't belong here? Thanks.--Hatchet Job 19:22, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

You haven't done anything. You didn't take back any buildings, didn't send soldiers. There isn't anything of import in your post - it's just fluff to fill the page - UNLESS you are declaring that you're done, and that's your "We retreat" message. --Jorm 19:27, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Thanks for stating your position, Jorm. It is not fluff, any more so than the bulk of things on the wiki. In actuality, we have done plenty. I do not believe that we are in any way obligated to prove this to anyone. But for the sake of argument I'll let you know that we have taken back buildings. We have sent soldiers. The fact that you do not see them (save when zombies are getting streeted) simply means that we are doing our job well. If you feel the need to contradict this announcement, feel free to do so. Respectfully, if at all possible. But please do not just delete it outright. The way we are doing things in Barrville may be a little different from what you are used to. But there is absolutely nothing in the 24Feb release that is either untrue or overstated. And, it is as much an "event" as, say, announcing the "Brain Festival". If your beef is strictly related to the organization of the page, we can restructure it. I'd rather not - I don't see the need.--Hatchet Job 19:50, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Keep your propaganda off the wiki page. It is purely for informative and factual information, not mindless chest thumping. I have deleted it, FYI. --Grim s 20:48, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Let me put it to you guys like this...if you edit another post on this wicki by someone not in the RRF I will report you GRIM and Jorm you do not own this page and your view point is in fact not the law. If you disagree post a message saying that this is not the nonsense boards where you get your way by acting like a jerk.

Go right ahead Kristi, but the fact of the matter is that suburb pages are not for propaganda. They are placces for factual information about the suburb. --Grim s 21:13, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

then take your pro RRF propaganda down GRIM what's good for the goose and all that...can you not read it at all? or do you have zombie colored lenses in your glasses. Kristi of the Dead

Take a look at Ridleybank if you want to see an idea of the way suburb pages should be done. And this is possibly the most propaganda ridden suburb in the entire game.--Jorm 21:17, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

RRF propaganda? You mean im not allowed to relate factual information regarding RRF activities in the suburb (Such as eating almost everyone and, apparently, chasing you fellows out of the suburb)? If you can come up with a perfectly valid in game event, and you can NPOVify it, go ahead and post. However, dont take it personally when we delete blatantly biased and uninformative crap fro the page. --Grim s 21:19, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Read your Feb 18 entry and tell me that's not propaganda In fact I'll save you the trouble here it is: "This revelation runs directly counter to the report on the 14th that the suburb had been taken by human forces (Logically, if a location is held by a force, they should be maintaining a presence to hold the location), and tends to indicate that what happened on the 14th was in fact, a barricade strafing run, and nothing more." Telling people what you would like things to indicate is propaganda. It's not factual nothing you really post here is...you rudely delete stuff because you don't agree with it...just like I don't agree the barville has been pacified I don't cry about it and delete it.

Sign your comments. Its easy, simply use --~~~~ . That is not propaganda because it is based upon factual information that casts strong doubt upon the veracity of the earlier claim by your group that you did anything of the kind you claimed.--Grim s 21:29, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Grim - please, can we discuss it civily here on the talk page before you wipe out other people's work? I disagree with your position on two levels. First, it is not mindless chest-thumping. It is a statement of fact, a statement of history, and a statement of purpose. Please understand that it is not business as usual in Barrville. You might disagree with that perspective, but I do not believe that gives you the right to interfere with its communication. The RRF, honorable foe, is dealing with an organized survivor defense and might return that respect. Secondly, even if it were just chest-thumping, why does the RRF get to make such posts, but not the MFD and other survivor groups? I do not believe this to be relevant here, but I have to ask - don't you feel a wee bit hypocritical?--Hatchet Job 21:23, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

No, the work stays down until it had been worked out. Your information was not an event. As such it should not be there as an event. It was also a load of bullshit. --Grim s 21:29, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

well Grim again that's just your opinion... There are human organization active...your Feb 23 is not an event it is chest thumping you are reported as is your bullshit. Kristi of the Dead

Grim, what gives you that authority? Why do you get to choose what stays and what doesn't? Why can't you just give your own perspective on it on the page?

Not an event? Debarricading 90% of the buildings and changing the RRF group pounding on the rubble isnt an event all of a sudden? --Grim s 21:34, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

where do you say you do that Grim nowhere...you simply state that it's been pacified it hasn't there are in fact people that have never left that burb the whole time still there.

Sign your comments. And Pacified doesnt necessarily mean that everything has been exterminated. It meant that the fighting had appeared to cease (As people were near impossible to find) --Grim s 21:40, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

I'm just going to go through the entire efffing thing and remove anything that could be considered propaganda, period. You guys are all pissing me off. --Jorm 21:33, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Great Jorm...that's all we asked...to be fair. And in all honesty Hatchet has been pretty mellow with you guys and if you had asked him to change it or alter what he had posted he would have without doubt. It's much more fun and easier for everyone to be nice. Kristi of the Dead

Could you PLEASE sign your edits here?--Jorm 21:39, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

sorry I forgot Kristi of the Dead

I am still confused about what gives you, Jorm and Grim, the authority to make the final call on what goes on the front page. I thought this was supposed to be a collaborative thing that captured not only the headlines, but the color and flavor of the action in the suburb. Your rude stripping of the page, Jorm, does neither. You are both entirely missing the point. I entered into this activity hoping to enjoy that productive activity that serves both our purposes. But with little exception I have encountered only the rudest and immature faces of the RRF. It's not worth my time. Enjoy your page, boys. I won't bother you again.--Hatchet Job 21:44, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

If you take a look at the entry for Ridleybank, arguably the MOST CONTENTIOUS SUBURB IN THE FUCKING GAME, you'll see that the Barrville entry now more closely matches that style of event reporting. Where there are quoted text strings, they have a back-up event (hell, even the RRF announcement of taking over Barrville came originally from a forum post). The wiki isn't a place to *tell* your story; it's a place to point people *at* your story.--Jorm 21:47, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Hatchets way or the highway *rolls eyes*. We tried to keep crap off the page and let it be fun for everyone, but stubborn insistance on posting blatantly ignorant crap on the page has forced jorm to strip it down to the bare essentials. FYI:, When it says current events, it means current events. Your last edit, Hatchet Job, was not an event. It was propaganda, pure and simple. --Grim s 21:59, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

It's about manners ... Don't go around deleting others work, please try to have some respect for others effort in this area and request them to change it, We're always willing to negotiate we don't hate zombie players. propaganda is a matter of opinion Grim and simply because you feel it was doesn't give you the right to go around deleting others information. --Kristi of the Dead 01:46, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I made this reply on your discussion page, but since you made the comment here as well, here is my response.

Contentious work, if it is removed (For very good reasons i might add), should stay down until discussed and the matter reviewed by all sides or reworded into something that is appropriate and placed on the page. What you ask is similair to me killing jews, one after the another, and you demand i stop, citing valid moral objections to killing jews, and then me demanding that i be permitted to kill jews for as long as the discussion goes on. It is completely unethical. Also, nice to see you use the signature code.--Grim s 05:54, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Listen you puerile twits, I've met five year old children that act more mature than the two of you put together. The nonsense you've been pulling over a wiki page is unbelievably immature and uncalled for. We are stating opinion, yet you see fit to go in there and change ANYTHING put down by somebody other than yourself. How long do you suppose you can keep this up, because I know we can go back and forth on this as long as necessary or we can come to some sort of agreement. Barrville does not belong to any one suburb and I resent the fact that you see fit to change these entries to reflect on the RRF instead of the MFD. What you're doing is tantamount to vandalism and I have half a mind to report you. Knock it off before I end up doing just that. Barrville doesn't belong to the RRF nor does it belong to the MFD or any other survivor group. It's contested ground and my entry simply reflected that. Do be a good chap and PISS OFF. One would think that the RRF would be ashamed to have the two of you representing them on the wiki as you've done nothing but show you enjoy being antagonistic and immature. Please do prove to me that you can act otherwise by not changing the wiki to reflect only your point of view and I will profusely apologize. --Torvus 06:28, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Torvus, the wiki is not the place for opinions. It is a place for FACTS. If you cant lay down FACTUAL information without grossly exaggerating the whole thing, then you have no place on the wiki. I am in Barrville scouting it out personally, and i can tell you right now that i have not seen ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that indicates what you are saying has even the slightest foundation in reality. --Grim s 07:18, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

The latest entry should be deleted. It is a speculation and not a historical event and adds nothing to the entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball--Mookiemookie 05:59, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

we have sitreps which verify the post...I'm getting a mod in here to deal with you people. Grim it has nothing to do with jews you martyr...it's a game get over yourself.--Kristi of the Dead 06:27, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Just. Stop. Everyone. No more edit wars, no nothing. Kristi, go get your mod if you want. Torvus, do the same; I don't care (I find it amusing that you delete everything and then say you want to report people for vandalism, but whatever). I just want the propaganda removed - all of it - including the RRF's. Mookie's link above should be read by everyone here.--Jorm 06:45, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

listen Jorm I like the edits you've made they're fair...I'd just like for grim to reign himself in for a bit...we are capable of talking about things I'd rather this be fun than a pain in the ass. Just talk to us we're willing to edit our posts in a fair way if you don't like it...but don't just delete it...it's wrong.--Kristi of the Dead 06:58, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I agree wholeheartedly with Kristi and I do apologize for coming across so strongly. I did read Mookie's link and it made sense. I'll do my best to follow what was laid out there. This is a game and we are all here to have fun. Just understand that because you're finding empty buildings doesn't mean you've gotten an automatic victory. Your force is mobile, so is ours. There can't be any victory condition for Barrville because the state of the suburb is constantly in flux.

The following is *out of character*: I'm glad we can settle some stuff up. I'd prefer not to turn on the flame jets, and from what I can see the MFD may have the makings of being an interesting foe (which we are terrifyingly short of right now - all our honored foes are now dead or have disbanded). The following is *in character*: there very MUCH can be a victory condition in Barhahville: one needs only look at Ridleybank, Stanbury Village, and Galbraith Hills to see that. We've held Ridleybank for MONTHS. We get incursions, sure, but no one has taken it from us: all are eaten. So come little harmanz, fill the stadium; the DoHS is hungry. --Jorm 07:11, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

It's not so much the MFD in particular but the DEM as a whole that is acting here. Please consider Kristi's request to have Grim s rein himself in a little. I get the impression that he is the one that's causing a lot of the angst levelled at your group. He appears to be the one not listening to your request to not edit the page any more. Yes, I am still editing, but only to revert back to what shows both sides of the story in a fair manner, not junk as he would put it. --Torvus 07:20, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a Op/Ed page. Phrasing such as "chances are" and "it is rumored" do not belong in a factual description. Thanks--Mookiemookie 07:26, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Torvus, the information you posted is redundant, stated already in the previous days comment. Its a waste of bandwidth. --Grim s 07:27, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

So, I propose a moratorium on edits for BOTH sides. Let's let everyone cool down for, say, 24 hours (tempers are high, frustration is high). During this time, let's hammer out what would be an acceptable format for posting and removal of information. Does this sound acceptable? --Jorm 07:21, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

That seems fair and acceptable Jorm... if you'd ever like to get ahold of me to discuss the format I'd be more than willing to do that at any time...just message me here and I'll give ya my email address or you can message me on the Brainstock forums where we hang out or just put a message here.--Kristi of the Dead 07:32, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Heh. I'd rather avoid creating an account on the Brainstock forums. I don't know how the others there would take to one of the RRF's tops joining a survivor forum (we get enough accusations of OMG ZOMBIE SPIEZ as it is). Here is fine, or our forums (forums.ridleybank.org), which are open to everyone (survivors and zombies alike).--Jorm 07:37, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I can understand where you are coming from but I can assure you that we're very friendly over there and there many members who play zombies...it's not just us there at all. I play a zombie and the RRF is VERY well thought of in particular. WE're very happy to be going up against you guys...you're famous after all. Also after the numerous posts on my personal page from him I would like to request not to have to deal with Grim--Kristi of the Dead 08:13, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Attention RRF members: Please do not edit this article until such time as we can come to an agreement as to format. Thanks. --Jorm 07:26, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Attention DEM personel: Please refrain from editing this wicki entry until such time as we can come to terms on the format as mentioned above, thank you.--Kristi of the Dead 07:32, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Editorial Style Discussion

My first request is that we stop using the word "claim" everywhere. I'm seeing sentences where it's used a zillion times and it grates on the writer in me. It also smells like edit chastizement, which I want to avoid.--Jorm 07:37, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Excuse the length of this, but I thought I'd share a a few selected nuggets from Wikipedia's guidelines for editing controversial pages (found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles)

"When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct."

"Be careful with weasel words. The term "weasel words" refers to expressions such as "is claimed", 'is thought to be', and 'is alleged.' While these may be legitimate rhetorical devices, they should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden bias, since claimed implies that the claim may not be true and that there is some reason to doubt it."

"If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones. If the controversial edit is reverted by another contributor then at least the non-controversial edits will be maintained." This will help cut down on the sheer number of edits. --Mookiemookie 07:52, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I request that only factual information be placed on the wiki. I also request the following definitions:

1. -That humans holding part of the suburb is defines as having 6 building barricades and populated with 5 people each (10% of the suburb).
2. -That subduing the humans requires pushing them below that boundary.
3. -That Fierce fighting be defined as six buildings or more being broken into per day (With casualties)
4. -That no opinions be allowed on the page itself. All such belong on the talk page alone.

That is all... for now. --Grim s 07:57, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I disagree. I think we should avoid using ambiguous terms like "fierce" and the like, that require agreed-upon definitions. One man's fierce is another man's calm. The same general idea can be expressed without opening up that can of worms. And since no one can ever "win" UD, I think final declarations of victory and "holding a suburb" should be avoided.--Mookiemookie 08:06, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

plus I don't really like grim setting victory conditions for survivors...--Kristi of the Dead 08:26, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Setting victory conditions? I did no such thing. I proposed some possible definitions for arbitrary terms that the MFD seem to like, nothing more. --Grim s 09:49, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Seriously I'm fairly ok with the format Jorm set out and would be willing to stick with that...save that if someone has a problem with a post just simply speak up to us...we're not jerks...hatchet would have changed what was on his update if someone had just bothered to speak with him...instead well we see what happened. We're not children we're not gonna post something childish just to have our way...I try to be repectful in my posts as you can see from Gulsonside I've worked just fine with the MotA in this regard. I will show you respect we just ask for a little in return by just talking with us if you have a problem with the post I would do it for you if I saw something I didn't like I'm more than willing to discuss it without name calling or getting angry...Also I would be willing to ask that the DEM limits who it is that posts here to make certain that all the groud rules we discuss here are followed. I would very repectfully ask that you make sure the same happens for the RRF ....these groud rules are good for information though and should help us move forward.--Kristi of the Dead 08:22, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I think Mook's got the right direction, here. --Jorm 08:39, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I agree, the claimed thing is starting to bother me now that it's been mentioned we should edit that somehow to look better. And I don't mean to bring up a bad point but the February 23rd entry where you say "the RRF claims to have pacified the suburb. The RRF's Group 2 has moved into Ridleybank while the RRF..etc... I could be wrong (and I often am) but it seems to me pacified isn't really a fact that can be agreed upon without a special agreement similiar to the word fierce Mook brought up...and that the point of the entry really is the RRF's group 2 has moved to Ridleybank while the RRF Department of Homeland Security has moved in to Barrville to patrol the suburb so when you add the pacified part you must understand to us it seems bragadocious...ya know? While I will admitt that Hatchet's post was bragadocious as well personally I'm having trouble seeing the large difference between what he posted and your post that said "Ridleybank Resistance Front, in response to claims of defeat in both Barrville and Ridleybank announce the "Third, Bi-Annual Brain Festival". both are statements about strategy both were backed up by posts in popular forums I'm not trying to be mean I'd just like someone to explain the difference other than hatchet's was longer? I honestly don't know. Also I don't think we claim to hold a mojority of the suburb only that it's not over, also our beef was with your ability to post something like in reponse to to claims of defeat the RRF...etc, when our reponse to defeat statement was summarily deleted, it seemd to us, becuase it wasn't RRF stuff.--Kristi of the Dead 10:00, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Lots of good discussion last night, from what I see. I'd like to know who we put forward to edit the Barrville page? It might be wiser to have somebody that isn't as involved with the action so the stance can be more neutral. Hatchet Job and myself are probably not good candidates in this case, but if people wouldn't mind I would like to ask if Kristi could represent the DEM in this matter. She's well-written and not involved with the battle so the news can be more or less reported neutrally. Kristi, would you be willing to step in and do this when we have a major update? Jorm, if she accepts would that be okay with you?

I'm okay with that. I've put Nervie in charge of the Barrville wiki page. That's what competence gets you in the RRF: more work. He's got a pretty solid head on his shoulders. --Jorm 19:34, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Sure I've got no problem with that at all...I'd like to say I hope we can move on, I'd like to even get to know you guys better if possible, this is my first interaction with the RRF in any offical way.--Kristi of the Dead 21:01, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Sorry guys, I've just made a couple of edits before reading the talk page. I'm not going to revert my own changes, because I like them, but I defer to Jorm and Nervie in this. Revert if it needs to be done. --Brain Masticator 00:29, 27 March 2006 (BST)

March 4th News

I created a news update about Barrville saying how it is once again safe. It is. I've spent about a week in Barrville. It's safe. As long as you're not in a building with zombies banging on the doors then you're fine. Saromu 02:55, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

June 16th

Ok theres a few groups in here trying to take the place to help with the 5th of November movement, but regardless of how many survivors there is here, staying over night is suicide. With the last update, nobody here will stand a chance unless they're in a building with a couple hundred other people. Travel advisory:Kevan hates survivors. Stay out unless your crazy.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 15:54, 16 June 2006 (BST)

I can't speak for everyone working with the Channel 4 News Team (and a lot of our friends and members love you guys), but I should point out that I did not come here with the sole intention of helping with the 5th of November movement. We'd love to work with you guys, but we're here for Glorious Battle and nothing more! Also, staying the night isn't suicide at all. Large numbers of survivors have been in the area for days and we've been doing just fine; nearly every building is extremely heavily barricaded, many are powered, and there's nothing to worry about. Most of the RRF people aren't here yet. When that changes, so will the situation, but until then, it's safe as milk! --Ron Burgundy 23:30, 18 June 2006 (BST)

Dammit, Ron - You should have learned about the milk by now! On a more serious note: A Ranger or two have been scouting out Ridleybank/Stanbury for some time now solo, it's not nearly as dangerous as made out to be. That, of course, only really being the case courtesy of the RRF's overall absence - when our actions hit a high enough profile (and with Ron onboard, they will), things will really change fast. --Major Grippy 11:42, 25 June 2006 (BST)

Old Barricade plan

We've got a few ideas for a new barricade plan. Is anyone who cares still active in this suburb? If so, let us know before we start changing it. --Monty Prickett 21:21, 17 July 2009 (BST)

As a point of reference, here's what the plan looked like before the revive nerf threw the contest for Barrville squarely to the RRF. It is provided as a point of comparison for the new survivor groups coming to join the renewed struggle for the liberation of Barrville in reviewing what worked in the past and discussion what a new plan should look like, particularly in the near term.

There was already a discussion on the new plan in the DEM forum. I invite you to post at http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/index.php?act=ST&f=13&t=5113 in order to join in the discussion.--Koppie 01:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrville Barricade Plan

	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49
40			Bl			NT			AR
41			AR		Cl		L			Bl
42			C
43
44		Sc
45
46			AR
47					NT
48
49	H	SC

Legend

Unenterable Buildings
	Extremely Heavily Barricaded		Phone Mast
Enterable Buildings
	Auto Shop		Fire Station
	Hospital		NecroTech
	Police Department		School
	Other VSB Buildings		Unbarricaded Buildings
Other Locations
	Street		Monument
	Cemetery		Revivification Point

Phone Mast status report

If you time, can we get you to update http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Mobile_Phone_Mast#Locations with the current status of your local phone mast? Thanks. Asheets 20:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

left out on a cold autumn night

I ran out of AP trying to find an open building in this wonderful suburb, and I'll probably be dead by the morning. because I'll probably be dead, I need someone to revive me, if it's not too much trouble.

New Barricade Plan Proposed

Greetings to the survivors of Barrville! I would like to propose an official barricade plan for Barrville, which has been devised through the joint efforts of the Crimson Clan and the DEM. I would like to allow people to view the plan and discuss and constructively criticize it before it is put up on the main page.

EDIT: Following some feedback I have recieved, I have added another entry point close to the Gilling Crescent revive point to make sure that revivers stay safe. Please leave your feedback here; it will be much appreciated!

EDIT: Olivey Library [45, 44] made an EP, because it's close to the Gilling Crescent RP, breaks up the sea of EHB buildings in that area, and would allow easier passage between the NE and SW building clusters.

Here is the proposed plan:

Barrville Barricade Plan

	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49
40			Bl
41					Cl
42
43	NT
44				Ch		L
45
46			AR
47					NT	FS
48			F		Ch
49		SC			H

Legend

Unenterable Buildings
	Extremely Heavily Barricaded		Phone Mast
Enterable Buildings
	Auto Shop		Fire Station
	Hospital		NecroTech
	Police Department		School
	Other VSB Buildings		Unbarricaded Buildings
Other Locations
	Street		Monument
	Cemetery		Revivification Point

--Kolossov 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved non-News

December 16^th

Members of Barrville's survivor population are left wondering what, exactly, the MOB claims to have ruined, and revels in their valiant victory. Hardcore Rockabilly, Retired FAE Axes High ^{AH RR RRF}

NPOV-adds no real news, and non-neutrality should be obvious. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)