UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Historical Status

Please keep all discussion on this page, not the main.

Don't Forget

The constant POV rubbish. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:24, 27 September 2010 (BST)

The use of it as a rejection criteria? 21:37, 27 September 2010 (BST)

The latter. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:38, 27 September 2010 (BST)

2/3 vs Majority

I don't think it really matters that much. All you will get is that more events and groups get through. These votes are games of meat puppets. Especially with groups. The people who were on the good side of the group for, the ones who aren't vote against; Without actually considering whether the group could be deemed "historical".

People prefer to forget things they didn't like, and vice versa. The more I think about this, the more I lean on removing these categories and the aforementioned "historical status" altogether. Didn't this once start out as way to protect important groups and events, back when these were deleted once they went inactive? Nowadays everything (apart from the worthless stuff at (sp)deletions) gets saved and archived. History is history. I just took a crap. That's a historical fact too, only it's something nobody gives a shit about. What was important will be remembered, and what wasn't will still have happened, and in case of the wiki, those forgotten groups and events will still be archived.

Right now, there doesn't seem a point in this process, other then giving people opportunity to "claim" that certain groups/events were more important then others. --Thadeous Oakley 23:13, 27 September 2010 (BST)

When the policy putting a four-month moratorium on group nominations arose, I was hoping for it to be longer - simply because, as you point out, things need to be remembered to really be considered historical. I think it was a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough, and really should have been applied to the events as well. Also, for the record, I'm not advocating reducing the majority needed, as I like that the for side needs genuine support and not just the bare minimum. I'd perhaps raise it to 7/10, or even 2/3 +1, if anything. 23:21, 27 September 2010 (BST)

Still, I forgot; what is the point besides a fancy template & category? --Thadeous Oakley 23:25, 27 September 2010 (BST)

So that those who weren't around at the time can figure out what people are talking about, look into what worked or didn't, and maybe expand their tactical knowledge based on that. This is an information hub, after all. --VVV ^RPMBG 03:23, 28 September 2010 (BST)

How does historical status come into play here? See Blackmore 4(04), if it wasn't historical you could still figure out what people are talking about, look into what worked or didn't, and maybe expand their tactical knowledge based on that. You misunderstand the problem. Historical status isn't needed for what you mention, as everthing is archived regardless. The only true point I can see is that you have the "important" groups linked in one category. Is this worth the constant hassle of this process? No.--Thadeous Oakley 10:15, 28 September 2010 (BST)

than i'd have nothing to do on this wiki. in fact it's been too quiet around here.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 12:36, 28 September 2010 (BST)

that's what happens if i leave for 2 weeks ;)--Thadeous Oakley 12:56, 28 September 2010 (BST)

Thad - I can remember really enjoying the historical pages when I first started playing UD. My first day's AP went fairly quickly, then I spent time browsing the wiki - what I saw on the historical pages showed me what the highlights of UD could be like and were a big part of the reason I logged in on day 2 Sanpedro 04:49, 29 September 2010 (BST)

"I just took a crap. That's a historical fact too, only it's something nobody gives a shit about." - Whether intentional or not that's an awesome pun.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:24, 29 September 2010 (BST)

Criteria

I think that a Historical Group or Event should require a gameplay, mechanic, or a tactical change. The HG or HE should be Game Shattering to truly be considered Historical.--Damien falcon 02:35, 28 September 2010 (BST)

And I disagree. I think that they should be memorable, involve a good number of people, and preferably be unique in some way, even if small. Personally, I'd rather loosen up Historical Event since people seem to have way too high of a bar, and either leave Group where it is now or else eliminate it entirely (as I had a policy discussion about not too long ago). —Aichon— 02:57, 28 September 2010 (BST)

i completely agree with Aichon, the QSG tour/ open air is a perfect example of that. but I don't want to change anything. it should be hard to get the title. thats the point.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 12:38, 28 September 2010 (BST)

I agree with Aichon as well, except eliminate the criteria for Groups entirely, especially since inactive group pages are not deleted. When "no" votes are being cast by voters whose reasoning is "I haven't seen them in game" on groups who disbanded years before they (voters) joined, I think there is a problem with the system. -MHSstaff 20:23, 3 October 2010 (BST)

i don't know how to use OD

why is this on the talk page? Open Discussion goes onto main pages. -- LEMON #1 03:58, 28 September 2010 (BST)

I followed the example of the most recent OD before this, which is the only other one I looked at first. 04:04, 28 September 2010 (BST)

Yeah I see, fair enough. I'm nitpicking anyway, I'll get around to addressing the actual discussion. eventually -- LEMON #1 04:35, 28 September 2010 (BST)

troll----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 12:38, 28 September 2010 (BST)

Generally Speaking

Generally Speaking, the only change you'd see is more Groups and Events becoming historical if the system of acceptance was changed. Though often times people become split, the events that really matter generally get through (and vice versa, the groups).

I remember on the C4NT page a picture of a man proclaiming, in the caption, "YOU KNOW THE RATING(VOTING?) SYSTEM IS FLAWED!" and frankly, thats just a matter of opinion.

Consider then on a %50 +1 voting system, that say there were less Zombie players than human players, and vice versa, that felt they were being nerfed, so they vote against while the other side liked it. They would overpower the ones that disliked it and get it passed. What I'm saying is with a 50+1, its easy to get things a thumbs up, while 2/3 makes it easy to get a thumbs down. Again its a matter of opinion but I prefer 2/3. --Officer Mead Sheaffer 18:01, 30 September 2010 (BST)

umm ron was talking about this. not historical voting. just thought I'd clear that up.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 18:45, 30 September 2010 (BST)

Another header

Honestly, I fail to see the point in having either category. I suspect few Urban Dead players give a rip about either, and the entire concept strikes me as somewhat self-flagellating. If even the former groups don't care, why bother with them? The historical events I can kind of see, so long as they are EXTREMELY noteworthy in the sense of UD historical perspective, i.e. Big Bashes, the original Siege of Caiger Mall, etc. But as a whole, both are mountains made of molehills, of interest only to those who were once participants, and once they leave, to no one in particular. Do you care what I had for breakfast yesterday? No, of course not. I see this as no different, but might well be in the minority opinion on the matter. Thanks for reading my diatribe. -Fallout11 15:50, 3 October 2010 (BST)

Isn't flagellation done to the self by definition? 19:19, 3 October 2010 (BST)

No. -MHSstaff 19:44, 3 October 2010 (BST)

Big bashes aren't really that historic, its really just a lot of players clubbing together. Plus the fact we've had three of them.... --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:47, 3 October 2010 (BST)

I think you are confusing the word "historic" with the word "unique." Anyone can look at Malton's history and see the impact the Bashes have had on the game on a multiple-suburb level; these are events that helped dictate to a large degree what happened in Malton during those years. -MHSstaff 19:51, 3 October 2010 (BST)

I'm more looking at the "How did they change the game?" Question. They didn't. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:55, 3 October 2010 (BST)

By "game-changing," do you mean "a new tactic/way of playing" for UD, or affecting the dynamic landscape of the game? -MHSstaff 20:02, 3 October 2010 (BST)

I mean a new way of playing or an event that caused a change in the rules of the game, such as On Strike, The Battle of Pitneybank, or The Fall of Monroeville Mall. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:06, 3 October 2010 (BST)