Category talk:Recruitment

Help Desk

• Need help figuring out how to use / follow / get the most out of the new advert guidelines? Post here!
• Previous discussions? Look in the archive!
• Try reading this guide for a quicker result!

Sample Question

Blah, blah, blah blah. Blah blah? --User: Blah 16:53, 17 August 2007 (BST)

yeah i gots a question

wheres the archive of this page? or did you just delete years worth of discussion?--Bullgod 17:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here. Sorry, I archived the part which explained that I created an archive.... - User:Whitehouse 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Other Discussion

New Maintainer

Of the two people who have been maintaining this page, Whitehouse has left the wiki, and Iscariot reports internet difficulties. So I'm volunteering to help maintain this page for a while. If you got a friendly notice that your ad was about to expire, that's why. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

if you need any help with shit i have alot of free time lately, and ive been on the recruitment page since there were only three groups on it, so ive seen whats worked in the past and whatnot, all the dissent as to how the system works, blahblahblah, complaining, etc.--Bullgod 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep on eye on the monroeville/borehamwood adverts.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, gents. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 06:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My computer is still dead but I can use a friends pc most of the time if I need/want to. I'll help out whenever I spot anything that needs doing. - User:Whitehouse 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please revisit the "large group" rule

From the opening section:

• Large Groups or Organizations with significant subgroups are limited to one ad. This includes groups such as the DHPD and the Department of Emergency Management, they may use their ad to direct players to the separate sub-groups.

We of the DEM are currently faced with the demands of a group of detractors who claim that our single recruitment ad is evidence that the DEM is in reality one large group instead of the "umbrella organization" term that may well have had its genesis on this very page. Interestingly, it's also been claimed that the large-group rule actually gives us a recruiting advantage that other groups don't enjoy, the ability to recruit many varied types of players all at once, and even encourages multi-abuse by offering a sort of "one-stop shopping" for all the types of characters a player might want to enjoy. We therefore believe that the large-group rule should be reviewed and, consensus willing, abandoned. Thank you for your attention. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 06:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)

I wouldn't have a problem with you having separate group ads, but simply saying you are all more separate than before doesn't really prove it? Or is this to be your proof, that you now recruit separately? Whatever, I'm fine with it :) Iscariot and everyone else, your opinion? - User:Whitehouse 13:33, 9 September 2008 (BST)

No, this isn't intended to be proof, merely a concession to the folks who believe the single ad for eight groups gives us an unfair recruiting advantage. Thanks, Whitehouse. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 16:32, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Also, as a minor clarification: when we say that we wish to have multiple ads, we mean to indicate that we would like each of our member groups to place their own ads and remove the old "DEM" ad- not advertise both individually, and as the DEM, which I believe may have been an issue in the past.--FT ^MCI 17:37, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Whoops, forgot to make that clear in my prayer for relief, prolly since HardRock removed the DEM ad when he put up his group thing. Yeah, I blame it on HardRock. :D. Thanks, FT. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 18:07, 9 September 2008 (BST)

AH Recruit Page.

The rule states a restriction on "Large Groups with multiple subgroups". Axes High is not, in fact, a subgroup of anyone. We are our own group which recruits, trains, and operates separately from any DEM regulation other than those regarding fair play and participation of multiple characters within the DEM.

If a policy-related exemption is out of the question, then please respect the fact that Axes High was formed outside the DEM and has quite the history as a survivor group in our community, and that we are in an intensive period of reconstruction that necessitates the bringing in of recruits. --Hardcore Rockabilly 03:22, 9 September 2008 (BST)

The above post was moved from my talk page (the user in question following the standard DEM modus operandi by ignoring the established local rules and doing exactly as they please). It was moved here as it broke the aforementioned rules and is relevant to this issue.

Firstly, Atticus. I must be reading your post wrong because I see no compelling reason why we should alter the rule. The crux of your post seems to be that the noble Uprising has problems with you and you want the guidelines here altering so you are less likely to get shot. The notion of 'one stop shopping' draws a fallacious conclusion, any reasonable player should be following the anti-zerging rules and separating their characters' existences. Saying that the ad can be seen to encourage that is not the concern here, if your group image is negatively impacted due to concerns of potential zerging, it is the responsibility of you group to take steps to discourage zergers and not the problem of this page.

Secondly, the person who cannot follow basic page rules. Do not misquote page guidelines at me in order to obfuscate the issue at hand and try to force through your point. If Axes High is a separate entity, why is it listed a member of DEM on the DEM wiki page? If your training is separate from the DEM, why do you send your recruits to the DEM Academy? Simply put, you are demonstratively lying, and thus are the lowest of the low.

Thirdly, the guideline. That guideline is there to prevent large groups swamping this page with every little subgroup and strike team they possess. If we lift this restriction, we'll have 8 DEM ads, 8 RRF, at least 3 MOB, 6 Imperium and God knows how many when a small group realises that they can invent groups to increase the number of clicks they might get. This guideline serves to protect the small group, those who actually need to use this page to gain an extra member here and there. This guideline protects them by not having their ad lost in the confusion of a million subgroup ads all being run by the same person. I am firmly opposed to any change or alteration of this rule for this reason.

Finally, priority. A DEM subgroup ad was removed by myself yesterday under this guideline. The aforementioned idiot is a representative of Axes High. As the group representative for that group, and given the description on the DEM page, I view him as being eligible to remove the main DEM ad, which he did to make space for the Axes High ad. As the guideline currently still stands, provided that ad maintains a valid timestamp and does not fall foul of other guidelines, I will, in my maintenance, view that as the single DEM ad, and delete any others. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:14, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Axes High is not a DEM "subgroup", nor is the MPD, nor MFD, nor MCDU, etc. All of those groups existed before the formation of the DEM, were recruited into it, and exist as separate groups. If you intend to indicate that groups which formally share common agreements or goals relinquish their individual group nature and become "subgroups" of the larger organization, then the following groups should have their ads removed or consolidated for the listed reasons:

1. Blackhawk brigade- members of the Uprising, an organization with shared rules an objectives.
2. Creedy Guerilla Raiders- members of the PKA, an organization recruiting on this page, and members of the uprising.
3. The Flowers of Disease- members of the Malton Uprising.
4. The Imperium of Man- members of the Malton Uprising.
5. The PKer alliance- easy one, right? The CGR and PKA obviously can't both recruit here under the current rules.

This is if I understand your definition of a subgroup correctly. If you don't feel that these groups need to be removed, please explain why. In any case, please clarify the terms you're using- because it seems an awful lot like somebody just decided that the DEM was one big group with subgroups (in spite of the fact that most DEM groups existed well before the formation of the DEM) and that we therefore shouldn't be allowed to recruit separately (which is really a bit arbitrary).--FT ^MCI 20:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Ooooh...is this the part where we get to start arguing with wiki Nazis or something?

@ the DEM: Actually, I can't say I disagree with a lot of what Iscariot says. "If your training is separate from the DEM, why do you send your recruits to the DEM Academy" IS a pretty darn valid question. And you'll note that the series of, "recruit, train, and overall start ACTING more like separate groups" were all a part of even the milder appeal to you folks. Making separate adds is a very good start (and one we support, assuming you ARE actually the alliance you claim to be), but certainly not the end of the story. How the MPD/MFD/MEMS/MFU operate IS very much like a meta-group. I think it's dastardly unfair that Axes High has to suffer for that right now, though. :( And the MCDU, too, in a lot of ways.

Also...you guys keep bringing up the fact that each group once existed separately. I really don't see how this matters. What matters is how they act and operate right now. And right now, there's a lot of justification for considering many of these previously independent groups as mere "subgroups."

@ Iscariot: I don't think its quite fair to equate the DEM with the RRF/MOB/Imperium. I personally think the DEM currently falls somewhere inbetween groups like that, and an alliance like the NMC or SWA or DA or PKA. They're strongly of the opinion that they fall on the "alliance" side of the equation; lots of folks disagree, and think they fall much more on the "group" side of the divide right now.

But assuming (and it's a huge assumption) that the DEM is actually an alliance, and not a group (or that they're at least trying to take strides in that direction, and put a new public face on themselves that reflects that change), what Axes High did was perfectly acceptable. If the SWA had been advertising as a single group, and Tikhon Medical, say, deleted the SWA add, and put in a Tikhon Medical add instead, and said, "in the coming days, the Legion of the Octopope, TMS, and the CAPD will all be putting up separate adds"...I don't see how this would be a problem. The Tikhon Medical member would have the authority to both remove the SWA add, and to add the own add of his particular group. And other SWA members would have the right to then add their adds. Just because a member of an alliance has the authority to remove both an alliance add, and substitute his own, doesn't mean that the alliance and group are one in the same. --Jen 20:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)

I am using shorthand when I use the word subgroup, in order to establish clarity with the guideline "Organizations with significant subgroups". DEM, by its own admission IS an organisation. I would easily make the case that the groups to which you refer are significant subgroups of this organisational structure. Accordingly the one ad rule would apply.

This is not about group sovereignty at all. This is about the specific guideline that organisations with significant subgroups (i.e. groups smaller than itself that do not arbitrarily make policy for all) cannot have more than one ad. Please do not confuse the issue by using weasel words to provoke sympathy or empathy for any example.

Your example of the Malton Uprising is fallacious. As far as I am aware, the Uprising is an event, similar to the Big Bash. Such event are not groups, they are causes. They usually dwindle after about 9 months or after their objective is achieved, whichever is sooner. After this, members 'return' (although they never left) to their own individual groups. As this is the expected outcome, events must be considered separate, provided they do not advertise as a group, in which case group rules would apply.

Your example of the PKA does interest me however. It has been something that has occurred to me over the past few months, the extent of the PKA as a group, alliance, treaty organisation and forum. If you think there is a disparity between the treatment of the PKA and the DEM, please start a new section detailing this (this section being about the potential rule change) and I will ask Secruss to join us and clarify his position. We do not allow favouritism here at all.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:57, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Was edit conflicted by Jen when posting the above. Will respond to your points tomorrow Jen sweetie, as well as any other responses formed in the meantime. Also at this point I'd like to point out how pleased I am with the majority of the DEM members in this discourse. Regardless of my personal view of the DEM, their hierarchy and policies, they have not tried to add many adverts to this page and cause an edit war. Instead they have approached the disagreement through discourse. This should happen more often on the wiki in general. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)

I'm not attempting to confuse the issue, I am asking for clarification and definition. Your definition of "Organization" is ambiguous. The relevant dictionary definitions of "Organization" are:

1. "the state or manner of being organized." - would apply to the DEM, PKA, and MU. Each serves to bring a disorganized group of groups into an organized state.
2. "something that is organized." - would apply to the DEM, PKA, and MU.
3. "organic structure; composition: The organization of this painting is quite remarkable." - the DEM, PKA, and MU each undeniably comprise an organizational structure into which their member groups fit.
4. "a group of persons organized for some end or work; association: a nonprofit organization." - again, would apply to the DEM, PKA, and MU.
5. "the functionaries of a political party along with the offices, committees, etc., that they fill." - again, applies to the DEM, PKA, and MU. Each have selected representatives, each have goals and rules of order.

Semantic ambiguity in policy is significant; you're obliged to enforce the policy as written, and we to comply with the policy as written. If it is written using words which have, by the authors, been intended to possess special definitions, those definitions must be provided in order for those expected to comply with the policy to do so. As the word "organization" does not obviously have any special meaning which would allow a strict interpreter to omit the PKA and MU while including the DEM in the scope of the policy, and this seems to be just what you're doing, one can only assume that you have a special definition. When I ask for that definition, I'm not using "weasel words", I'm attempting to discern what the policy means.

The Uprising is a significant example because you seem to have ruled that organizations may have only one ad, even if they are not also recruiting as an organization. Now, the Uprising has, in fact, recruited for "The Uprising" in-game, on forums, and on talk pages and the like on the wiki- but has not done so on this recruitment page. If they would be considered an organization for the purpose of this page if they were recruiting as an organization on this page, why has the DEM been prevented from ceasing to recruit as an organization on this page with the intention of instead allowing member groups to recruit individually? A simple rationale for the exemption of "events" from the recruitment page could be that events don't generally use the recruitment page, instead drawing on the recruitment of participating groups. Certainly, if an event did use the recruitment page, the redundant recruiting would be quite analogous to the outcome of an organization representing itself in double, through an ad for the organization and an ad for the member groups.

The definition that you provide for subgroups- "groups smaller than itself that do not arbitrarily make policy for all" - is not consistent with the nature of DEM member groups in relation to the DEM. The "DEM" technically has no members, although it could be interpreted to have one (the DEM chairperson) or around twenty (the DEM council). In either case, I believe that only two DEM member groups fall short of that membership mark, and the DEM council does not "arbitrarily make policy for all" but instead relies on the votes of member group representatives to reach policies through agreement which may or may not apply to all member groups, without limiting the right of member groups to make policies which do not conflict with those to which they have agreed to as members of the DEM (keeping in mind that their membership in the DEM is not binding, and a group may opt to leave the DEM if they choose to no longer adhere to DEM policies and cannot persuade other member groups to change them through a vote).

Academy participation is discretionary. It's a service, and most (not not all) groups make it a requirement for membership in their group (most of the time; exceptions are often made), but it is not required by the DEM of member groups.

I do think that there is a disparity between the treatment of the DEM and the PKA, and I don't think that your suggestion would actually remove favoritism. As far as I can tell from perusing the archive, the DEM was not given a hearing before the enactment of the policy and subsequent removal decision was made to alter the way in which we are allowed to recruit. Creating a new conversation to discuss the status of the PKA with input from its leadership before determining whether it is subject to this policy would be inconsistent with the treatment of the DEM; if you wish to avoid the appearance of favoritism and maintain the current policy my opinion is that the appropriate course of action would be to remove either the PKA or CGR ad and merely respond to Secruss if he wishes to represent himself after the fact. Of course, I'd be of quite a different mind if I've simply been unable to locate a prior conversation with the DEM about their status. And just to note, I don't think that that would be a desirable outcome, because I disagree with the policy as written, but it would certainly be an equitable outcome.

EDIT: In response to your satisfaction with DEM attitudes (assuming it still holds after my commentray ;) ) I'd actually like to thank you for a conspicuous absence of profanity and general disregard for what we're saying. I hope that my reluctance to accept your suggestion about the PKA doesn't come across as a reluctance to engage in useful discourse; I simply feel that the suggestion is representative of an underlying prejudice.--FT ^MCI 23:28, 9 September 2008 (BST)

(Response to Iscariot, not you FT.) To start off, this might sound like an angry message. Well, it is, but you brought it on yourself by choosing to use as many ad hominem attacks on my peers as you did.

Onto your main "point", Favouritism runs rampant on this wiki. Always has, likely always will. It is shown every time you look at the Spam votes section on the suggestion pages, or even with this suburb group clean up thing, where the MFD was asked >9000 times if we were active in various suburbs despite their own policy being to only ask about 1. They only stopped when I called them out on it on their talk page.

And now you guys are enforcing a policy which seems to deliberately target and penalise larger organizations, under the banner of equality or whatever buzz-word is popular on the wiki nowadays. The DEM isn't a group. Member groups can follow whatever policies they like, they can leave at any time, and anybody can join. Do we work closely together? Yes, we do. Should we be punished for efficiency? That makes no bloody sense whatsoever. You don't need to talk to many DEM members to find out just how different we are, though you may never know because the heavy bias against us keeps a whole lot of us out of public places. (It's better than it used to be but it still ain't great.)

I'd just like to conclude by saying it's a crappy policy written by one of the most anti-DEM survivors I know of, and you just might want to consider revising it, or at least enforcing it for everyone. (Not just us)

Warm regards, Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 00:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Care to enlighten me as to who it was written by? - User:Whitehouse 14:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Conndraka, here. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 19:19, 10 September 2008 (BST)

I was aware of that Atticus, I was just unsure as to who Labine was suggesting it was. He didn't make it very clear and I was wondering if he believed it to be made by Iscariot. I at least was not aware that Conndraka was anti-DEM. - User:Whitehouse 19:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Ah, IC. Can't speak ofr Labine on that one, but I assumed from the context that he was referring to Conn, who could possibly be characterized as anti-DEM based on his participation in the CFT. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 19:50, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Ok, fair enough. Though I wouldn't call him anti-DEM for that. - User:Whitehouse 20:14, 10 September 2008 (BST)

The CFT was a load of bullshit, and I only thought Conn was horribly, horribly mistaken. I started thinking he was anti-DEM when he called us fascist.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 23:53, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Actually, Axes High not only recruits separately, operates separately, and coordinates separately, but we train separately as well. At this time, Axes High does not send recruits to the DEM Academy, though this is not reflected on our wiki at the moment, pending discussion and logistical planning of the final method in which cadets are trained.

I think it may be to your benefit to put aside your personal opinions of the DEM and be open to what we are trying to communicate, rather than to assume that what we are saying is an underhanded attempt to further what you imagine would be shady goals of domination, rather than an overall effort within the various DEM groups to make changes which will work to satisfy the concerns of the public that we are not operating in a fair manner. Rather, I urge you to give us the benefit of the doubt, as it were, and give us your constructive advise as we try to find a manner in which we can organize and work that will improve not only the DEM, but the defense of the survivor community.

To address your personal insult to me and the group to which I belong, that was apparently a result of my failure to notice a regulation of which talk page to use, I'll say this; Axes High doesn't disregard the rules of its community, in game or meta game, in fact, we are as community oriented as any local group in Malton. Being as this December will mark the third anniversary of our official residence in Barrville, I think we know as well as anyone how to work with our neighbors rather than against them. ~ --Hardcore Rockabilly 02:19, 10 September 2008 (BST)

This page has gotten so full of responses and counter-responses that I'm really not sure where to put this. So...err...I'll just start a new paragraph.

a) Perhaps there should be a separate section for "organizations" and "events" that want to recruit groups to join them. The DEM, DA, NMC, SWA, PKA, Big Bash, Crusade, Uprising, etc. etc. could all recruit there.

b) The Uprising is an event. We've also used the word "coalition," to try to get across the idea of a "a very temporary alliance full of people who would otherwise be killing one another, working both ingame and out to raise awareness for various issues and create change."

c) As things stand right now, the PKA ad should be removed from the page. --Jen 19:41, 10 September 2008 (BST)

There is (or at least was) a separate section for "organizations" seeking to recruit entire groups. DEM doesn't belong there because we don't recruit groups. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 19:50, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Section no longer exists, think it was removed when we switched to the alphabetical sorting. - User:Whitehouse 20:14, 10 September 2008 (BST)

This is turning into a wall of text, so I'm going to respond to the individual responses and then start a new section concerning the core issues here.

Jen - On the authority of removing ads, I'd allow a member of the RRF War Council to remove the RRF ad and replace it with a TA ad. If the next day another member of the WC added a GC ad, that would be deleted under the large groups rule.

Father Thomas - Let's clear something up, these are not policies these are guidelines, there is a significant difference in the two on this wiki. I had considered developing a policy for this page, but decided against it for reasons like the current discussion. Neither myself or Whitehouse are obliged to do anything. We are not sysops, we are not answerable to anyone, if I removed every ad that was over 14 days old and left one of my groups up even though the timestamp had expired 2 months ago, precisely nothing would happen to me. I cannot be convicted of vandalism or misconduct. We volunteer our time to maintaining this small section of the larger wiki. The conflicts I have with people elsewhere on this wiki do not, however, affect my conduct when dealing with issues with their group. I try to maintain an objective view and look at issues with the page, in regards to this page only.

On the subject of dealing with other perceived large groups differently (this has been brought up by more than one person, it's just you're the first one I'm responding to in the list who made the point), please start a new section on this page detailing the specific group and we'll ask representatives to come here and discuss it. I have no problem with ads being omitted from the page, it gives me less work to do. At the same time I don't think it would be a good idea for members of the DEM to arbitrarily remove ads of other without discussion as this would aggravate the general situation and could lead to edit wars.

You say Academy participation is discretionary. The DEM page clearly states "All new members of any DEM group receives rigorous survival and tactics training at The Academy before receiving their first assignment." Emphasis mine. Which is it? When the group wiki page (editable only by group members as per wiki policy) states one thing and you state another when the point is brought up against a change in guidelines requested by your group, which should we believe? Without meaning offence, why should I believe you? How do I know you and your fellows aren't making things up to press your point?

On the enactment of the original guideline and DEM treatment. I was not maintaining the page at that time, I am at this moment in time. Precedent from my time of beginning to maintain this page shows that multiple DEM ads should be removed and PKA ones shouldn't. As we would be removing the ads of the PKA I think it only fair to them to speak with them first and explain why the course of action might be taking place. Doing this will prevent edit wars etc.

On attitudes. Apart from the one member of Axes High who I dislike due to his continued proven lies, I am very pleased, and after your response continue to be so, with the attitude and manner of the DEM in discussing and attempting to reach consensus here. My personal views do not rate the practices of the DEM any higher than those of Extinction, but the conduct of the members here has certainly encouraged me as to the value of attempting to reach a satisfactory conclusion to this issue.

Labine - I have added extra spaces between your own and Father Thomas' replies as they tended to appear as a single wall of text. I did not attack your peers. I attacked a single member of Axes High who was demonstratively lying. If you choose to consider him a peer, that is your choice and not mine.

On favouritism. What happens elsewhere on this wiki is not my concern (for your information I am a big user and advocate of the Spam vote), however here I am trying to maintain a level playing field. I am not trying to penalise any large organisation, one of my concerns is that smaller groups might be swamped, but I am in no way trying to penalise anyone. The guideline that the DEM are only allowed one ad between them is clear. I have enforced it in the past with other groups not mentioned on the guideline such as The Imperium and would do if the RRF tried to use multiple ads.

Your notion that the guideline was written by an anti-DEM user with the implication that it was there to soley attack you does not wash with me at all. Conndraka wrote the guideline, and you'll notice he put his own group, the DHPD in there. It is reasonable to assume therefore that the guideline was written in good faith using groups he was familiar with as examples.

Axes High Moron - Still darkening my door I see. You say Axes High recruits separately, last week it was in the DEM advert with the others. Another lie. You speak of "defense of the survivor community", have you even read the links in my signature? Do you really think I care about the defence of the survivor community? You say "failure to notice a regulation of which talk page to use" again you show you inability to read what is written. Not which talk page, only the way in which to respond. The fact that you failed to comply casts doubt on your eloquent propaganda about Axes High getting on with their neighbours and respecting local rules. QED.

Everybody - I'm now going to create a separate section to discuss the two major points that I feel are the crux of this issue. Please keep discussion regarding this section in here, and discussion of the points in the new section. Thank you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:28, 10 September 2008 (BST)

The Crux

I think there are two main points to this:

1. Remove the rule and allow the DEM, DHPD et al to have multiple ads

2. Enforce the rule on those other groups perceived to hold an equal status with DEM and DHPD

Regarding point 1. My major concern is the saturation of the page by large groups, the maths means that small groups would be swamped under the many ads of large groups. Also, if the rule is altered and the DEM in its current form have many ads, what is to stop any small group declaring that they have multiple groups (and therefore deserve many ads) and flooding the page to increase their exposure? Absolutely nothing. It would have to come down to a subjective judgement call, something I'm not happy even contemplating for any page I maintain.

Regarding point 2. The DEM is specifically mentioned in the guideline, that is why they are limited the way they are. If there was a move to designate others in the same category for the guideline I would be wanting the matter discussing with the groups in question to avoid edit wars.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:28, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Regarding point 2. The guideline includes the DHPD because of an analogy Conn had made to the effect that if each DEM group were to be allowed its own recruitment ad, by extension each of DHPD's precincts and squads should be allowed their own ads as well. Don't get me wrong: I loves me some DHPD, had an alt there for a year and they're a great bunch of folks. But the analogy is completely wrong-headed. A correct analogy would be to say that MPD shouldn't be able to run separate ads for its suburb and/or district crews unless DHPD could run ads for its squads and precincts.

• Most of DHPD's squads, at least when I was in the group (back when the total number of group members was higher than it is now), had between four and seven members; most precincts even lower. On the other hand, the MPD is one of the largest survivor groups in Malton by itself, with upwards of 90 members last time I checked. Even its so-called "sub-group", the MFU, has been over 40 members consistently for over a year.
• Additionally, half of our member groups began life as independent groups that later joined the DEM. DHPD can't say the same about any of its squads or precincts.

At the time the editorial fiat was imposed, one of our members pointed out the hypocrisy of enforcing such a quideline against only us, while the Big Bash was allowed to recruit as such while its member groups' ads remained unmolested. So down the line, a special "events" category was created, allowing recruiting on both the group and organization levels -- in other words, allowing multi-group organizations everything the DEM groups had been denied, plus an ad for the organization as well. Granted, such "events" are generally not intended to be permanent structures; in the absence of a set expiration time, though, what is to stop such an "event" from continuing in perpetuity?

Back to point 1. I can certainly understand a concern over adding eight more ads, especially owing to the way the recruitment page has thinned out. On the other hand, seven of those groups' ads are going to be lumped together in the "M"s. They'll own the "M"s. The rest of the page will be largely unaffected. IMO, the slippery slope of a raft of tiny groups declaring themselves to be coalitions or confederations or whatever DEM's regarded as this week is unlikely to occur, if for no other reason than the fact that, as I said before, most of those potential groupspawn didn't begin life as independent groups as the MPD, MFD, MCDU, and Axes High did.

Thank you for your willingness to discuss this matter rationally. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 04:44, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Thanks for making the statement about DHPD squads, it's been on my mind ever since this discussion started but I really had a hard time finding out how to phrase it and I wasn't sure if I was 100% right. I don't know that much about the DHPD, but I did feel that it was one group and not an alliance like DEM and PKA. As I've stated earlier; I would have no problem with each group (and I mean whether in an alliance or not) being allowed to have one ad of their own. This would of course forfeit the right to an alliance ad unless we get a section for recruiting entire groups which is hardly relevant to you at the current time as you don't recruit groups.

The point about occupying the "M" section, while good to prove you won't swamp the entire ad page, might be frowned upon by other "M" groups. And you have to remember that if this goes through, we have to allow the Imperium the same rights. Same for any other alliances that are being limited by the current rules (not that any spring to mind). All in all this will see an increase of about 15 or so groups (DEM ads + Imperium ads). And I can live with that, it just makes the page a bit longer for the editors. I just hope this won't harm the smaller groups. But as long as you advertise based on the merit of your individual groups rather than stressing the alliance it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Anyhow, procedure for successfully changing the rules is pretty much everyone agrees or no one disagrees. Waiting on the next wave of "For/Against". - User:Whitehouse 13:32, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Re: Your first paragraph, we really don't mind losing the advertisement for the "DEM". Frankly I don't know why we had one in the first place.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 23:53, 11 September 2008 (BST)

A question about procedure- well, two really. One, how long do we have to wait, and who all is involved in the decision? Two- since this is a guideline, as was stated when making the point that Iscariot didn't have any particular obligations of enforcement, wouldn't it technically be well within the scope of existing rules for us to just do what we want with our ads? That is to say- if it's not a rule, breaking it isn't technically vandalism, is it?--FT ^MCI 19:24, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Somehow I don't think logic will work here, FT.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 20:17, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Procedure: Convince naysayers that it's a good change, hold a poll. I'd set a poll for about a week or something, leave a big message at the top of the Recruitment page asking for attention. Then wait for results. No one is officially in charge of this page. Me and Iscariot simply do our best to keep it up to date.

Vandalism: I can't answer for Iscariot when it comes to this, so the following is how I see vandalism when it comes to the recruitment page. The list at the top of the page is a set of guidelines, agreed upon guidelines. Now you may disagree with the guidelines, but they have been established so that this page is as manageable and as useful as possible. The good thing about them being guidelines is not that they can be ignored, trust me they can't really be ignored (that would defeat their purpose) for anything more than minor cases, the good thing is they are easier to change than policy. If you begin to ignore the guidelines, I will ask you to desist in the interest of the "well being" of this page. If you refuse to desist after several warnings about this I will take you to vandal banning on grounds of bad faith.

A final note about our obligation and the right to do things. True, no one is under obligation to enforce the guidelines, but we do it all the same because we want to, we are however under obligation not to sabotage this page (or any part of the wiki), as is everyone who uses this wiki. - User:Whitehouse 20:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Oh, Golly- I wasn't saying that I was going to just tell people to do whatever the heck they felt like! I agree that guidelines are important; however, Iscariot argued that because they were only guidelines, not policies, you guys could enforce them or not enforce them in any way you pleased and weren't accountable for anything. He specifically stated that nothing could happen as a result of that, and that you weren't accountable for it. The guideline specifically names the DEM, but under the false premise that it's a "large group." It'd be like saying "planets, such as the moon, should be given their own sections involving the solar system." If somebody didn't give the moon its own section, they would technically be violating the word of the guideline, which specifically mentioned the moon, but still be in compliance with the intention- to give planets their own sections. IMO, that's not bad faith. But certainly, changing the guideline would be a far cry better than getting into an edit war over it!

A poll it is, then? Alright, thanks. I'll likely post one soon.--FT ^MCI 20:15, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry all, been caught up with real life. Will try and respond to all the points in the next few days. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:41, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Apologies all, real life has been distracting. Now I've got a spare hour let's see if I can respond to some of the points made.

Atticus - We can disagree on analogies all day, personally I'm inclined to agree with Conndraka's reasoning. If we did change this there would be nothing to stop groups from declaring their strike teams to be 'separate groups' or even 'conceiving' them outside their group before bringing them into the fold to take advantage of this precedent. As this would mean Whitehouse and myself would be forced to make judgment calls on each and every ad posted on that page. This would move us from maintaining the page to actively moderating it and making arbitrary decisions on other groups. This will increase drama/hostility on this page and decrease participation by the community, something I'm looking to avoid.

I was not maintaining the page when the First Bash was around, but I was involved in the planning of BB2 and now maintain this page. I would be loathe to allow 'Event' ads on this page on the simple principle of the fact that this is a page for group recruitment. However I categorically disagree with your notion that events such as the Bash or the Uprising are in anyway comparable to the structure, form and outlook of the DEM. The DEM was never designed to end, events by their nature have two simple end conditions, they achieve their aims (see The Invasion of Gibsonton) or the effort outweighs the fun (see The Second Big Bash). DEM is by definition a categorically different entity.

The fact that the majority of the ads would be in the 'M' section does not alter the fact that it will saturate the page with ads from one organisational construct. The simple fact is it adds 7 ads, pushing down the ads of other groups, take St. Ferreol's Hospital Noise Abatement Society for instance, your additions will push their add down and simultaneously reduce the chance that a casual reader will even bother continuing to the bottom and read their ad. The fact that the response of the DEM is that the majority of the ads will be in a single section demonstrates a lack of concern for the well being of other small groups and the wiki community.

Your notion of 'groupspawn' is indeed a valid concern, and not one I'd be so quick to dismiss. Let us remember that the DEM has previously influenced groups to perform questionable actions based on their own precedent of rules interpretation. Ever wonder where Extinction got the idea of the Extinction Alliance from?

Also, there is the point that regardless of DEM terminology, those 'groups' could be considered 'strike teams' as there is no precedent (unless you'd care to educate me otherwise) of a 'group' leaving DEM and remaining successful. In fact I can only think of one group that has had a strike team leave and become successful, surely this should mean that all of that group's teams should be afforded the same status as DEM's 'groups'? By doing that we add DEM's seven ads and add another six for this group. Thirteen ads before we consider The Imperium, that's an increase of close to 50%.

Father Thomas - The length of this discussion is based on the principle of wiki consensus. It will take as long as it takes for a consensus to be established. My point on enforcement and guidelines was clear. I could not be punished or reprimanded for the example I gave (removing ads over 14 days whilst leaving my own group ad that was months old), however if I went against the guidelines (removing an ad with a valid timestamp that had no other guideline breaking attributes) or established wiki policy and precedent then I could be taken to Vandalism. Precedent on Vandal Banning has shown that the breaking of established guidelines on major community pages leads to a ruling of vandalism. The way to go around effecting change is to discuss the matter on the talk page, as you have done.

The guideline does not falsely call DEM as a large group. The actual guideline in question is "Large Groups or Organizations with significant subgroups are limited to one ad.", emphasis mine. The DEM wiki page clearly states "The DEM is not a group itself, but rather an organizational construct", again, emphasis mine. The DEM call and conduct themselves as an organisational structure. The guideline clearly prohibits organisational structures from having more than one ad. I do not see how this guideline is falsely calling the DEM a large group.

A note on the rest of the discussion - consensus in a wiki format is not a popular vote. Posting a poll does not achieve consensus, it achieves inappropriate canvassing, block voting, forum shopping and 'kitten piling'.

The members of the DEM who have responded here (again with thanks from me for engaging the discussion and not causing this to degenerate to bad faith edits or edit wars) seem to be responding to my first point with "Well I hope not", that to me is not a valid reasoning given the spirit behind the guideline being made in the first place. The second point I made has not really been engaged at all in the section so I am unable to speculate on the DEM's position, however the lack of focus on this leads me to assume that the DEM are unconcerned with designating others as large groups or organisations and more with increasing their own profile. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:17, 18 September 2008 (BST)

Iscariot, I just thought of something. All previous discussion of rule changes have had a message left highly visible on the recruitment page pointing to the talk section explaining what is going on and that their opinion would be valued. As of this time it is mainly you and me and the DEM talking, with a contribution from Jen. As this affects the whole page we should be seeking the opinion of others before we attempt to make anything final. Preferably we need a definite worded change that the DEM want implemented, then people can give opinions and eventually we will need to sum it all up somehow. Which is why we might need a poll of some sort, although I do see why you do not want to hold one. We'd need to find a way to stop people shopping for votes on various forums as that would definitely not leave any smaller groups voice heard at all. Slightly ironic suggestion: Allow each group using the recruitment page one vote each... but is the DEM one or several groups (no offence to the DEM). :P - User:Whitehouse 12:30, 18 September 2008 (BST)

I'd be happy with an ad/notice directing peoples' attention to this discussion. I feel it would be best to place a note both on the main recruitment page, and the wiki news section as this would give the entire community the opportunity to give their opinion and this would satisfy consensus. I'd be against the idea of reducing the consensus to just groups on the ad page at a arbitrary time, as this would be inherently unfair to the DEM. If we do limit to regular users of the Recruitment page (say in the last X months or whatever) I think it'd be best to assign one vote per user, as otherwise it could endow people with block voting power if they regularly maintain more than one ad.

Of course this would all depend on having a defined alteration to hand for consideration by the community. We could hash it out here before taking it to the community. DEM members, it's your proposal, would you care to put your heads together, find something acceptable between yourselves and bring it here for initial checking? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:07, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Hehe, I was not 100% serious about giving votes per group. And we have a problem with the regular user voting idea. We can't confirm it very easily. Histories were wiped by Kevan recently. Which means we can only go so far back via the recruitment page history, what we can do however, is check user contributions. I'm still hoping for a better idea though. - User:Whitehouse 23:27, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Are you suggesting that the member groups of the Dulston Alliance and the SWA (and the PKA, for that matter) shouldn't be allowed to recruit separately, either? The DEM's argument in all this is that they're an alliance/organization like those groups, not a group like the Imperium or RRF or DHPD.

And the PKA add should be removed...I don't understand how it got up there in the first place. If you're going to enforce the "one add per larger organization - no individual adds" thing across the board, you're going to have an outcry from all the small PKer groups, at the very least. --Jen 01:46, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Excuse me, but can I take a moment to point out that this has been incredibly blown out of proportion? I'm going to try to make a short argument here to give people a break from all the TL;DR above.

This page has a policy that penalises efficiency, and we're all going to need that when the number of people playing this game is getting as low as it is. Say whatever you like, but allowing organizations only one ad is ludicrous. Iscariot, Whitehouse, whoever else is involved... You shouldn't be afraid of changing policies that are old and outdated. Regards, AFC Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 05:54, 20 September 2008 (BST)

This page has no policies. If you'd have taken the courtesy to read what others have written then you'd know this. It is your opinion that the page "penalises efficiency", I think the guideline in question actually increases efficiency, and personally I'd use a lot of adjectives to describe DEM, efficient is not one of them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:12, 21 September 2008 (BST)

I disagree. Large, well-organised groups get mentioned in suburb news, there's various horde-tracking threads in the meta, and they have enough people to go tagging/speaking ingame if they want to do a recruitment drive. Their profiles are high enough. I don't think they need adverts here for every chapter/platoon/strike force, and it will swamp the page. I've been trying to start a group, and it's difficult. I'd rather my ad on this page was one of 20 not one of 75 - and no-one has addressed Iscariot's point that people could just designate an arbitrary number of subgroups solely to put more ads up here. Can I call my sole henchman the 'Strike Unit' and put another ad up? Billy Forks 08:18, 20 September 2008 (BST) (founder, St. Ferreol's Hospital Noise Abatement Society)

Has everyone missed the fact that DEM's main argument, in all this, is that they're an alliance? Not a group? One can debate whether or not they actually ARE an alliance...but are you folks seriously suggesting that any alliance should be restricted to one joint add?

I agree 100% that small groups get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways, and need more advocacy all around. But is the wiki recruitment page the right place to try to fix that? If a large and established group wants to advertise, aren't they as much within their right to advertise as a new group? If the recruitment page is intended primarily to raise awareness for newer and smaller groups, and groups just getting their feet under themselves...maybe y'all should revise the page to make that clearer. And just flat-out discourage any group of 30+ members from recruiting here. --Jen 09:39, 20 September 2008 (BST)

The guideline as stands is clear that large groups and alliances should be allowed only one ad. DEM and DHPD are specifically named. The guideline has been enforced by myself previously on non-mentioned groups, namely The Imperium. If you are suggesting, as has been the slant on this side of the discussion, that there are other groups that should have their ad removed then a new section should be started to discuss and debate this as this is a separate issue to altering a current guideline. However, since I brought up the two distinct issues in this case, the DEM representatives have be persistent in going down the 'change the guideline' route. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:12, 21 September 2008 (BST)

In your last two comments you have insulted me, my group, the coalition/alliance/organization/whatever the hell you want to call it that my group is in, and dodged every damned point that has been made. I think we all realise that the guideline as it stands calls out the DHPD and DEM, I think that was established a year or two ago. Right now what I am saying is that the guideline (And sorry for saying policy. You really are anal about specific wording, you know that?) should be changed, yet you seem to be clinging desperately to the biased pile of crap.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 21:10, 21 September 2008 (BST)

Suggestion for change

Current rule:

• Large Groups or Organizations with significant subgroups are limited to one ad. This includes groups such as the DHPD and the Department of Emergency Management, they may use their ad to direct players to the separate sub-groups.

Suggested:

• Groups are allowed one advert each. Subgroups are not allowed individual ads, this does not include or limit member groups of alliances.

That is what the DEM want as far as I can tell. Want to know what my problem is? What stops the DHPD (DHPD is used purely as an example and I mean no offence) from declaring they are an alliance and not a group with multiple subgroups. I'll tell you what, nothing. But we can make it more difficult for people who would try to circumvent the rules. We can implement a definition of a subgroup and an individual group along with the guideline change.

• What is a subgroup? A group that has no individual name, no individual wiki page, and doesn't appear on the stats page.

Change your group name, make your own separate wiki page, and change your groupbox in game to circumvent the rule? You just made yourself an individual group. Congrats.

Does this sound workable? Am I really just way too tired? Comments please, I want to see an end of this pretty soon. I did have one other idea, it was that alliances put a header (example "DEM - Survivor Alliance") under the relevant alphabetical character (D in the case of the DEM) and have all their member groups ads beneath that. Anyhow, comments. - User:Whitehouse 22:29, 21 September 2008 (BST)

Of course I would prefer to see the suggested change enacted. Our member groups, except MCI which is considered a subgroup of MCDU, have met the "not-subgroup" criteria you mention and have done for years now. OTOH, if what we end up with is your second suggestion -- a "DEM - Alliance" heading with member groups' ads below it, each with a level n-1 heading -- I think that's workable although it may not satisfy all of the folks whose complaint about our recruitment ad led to this conversation in the first place. Thanks, Whitehouse. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 00:27, 22 September 2008 (BST)

The next step has to be a poll. Unless someone has another good way of deciding. Our discussions will yield nothing at this point as there will always be nay-sayers. And because if we were to wait until everyone agreed.. well we'd be here for a long time if we did. So, either someone comes up with a really good suggestion for decision making, or I put up a poll within the next few days. This can not be allowed to go on forever, because it's just delaying the inevitable which is that it goes one way or the other. - User:Whitehouse 20:47, 22 September 2008 (BST)

I'd like the DEM to comment on the "What is a subgroup?" question. Is it numbers? Background? Wiki presence? The fact remains that by altering this we open ourselves up to flooding by a few select groups that will render this page useless as a resource.

The idea of having an alliance entry with sub headers is fine on the surface, but I'd be wanting the word count available to be altered, the wall of text from flooding will apply whether it's in one separate place or in several. Therefore if we go down this route I'd suggest a 100 word limit for the main 'alliance' entry and 50 for each 'group' section with the image limitations for the entire section remaining as it currently is. If it is the DEM's wish to pursue this action I'd like them to comment of the criteria to designate other groups they perceive as similar to themselves. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:15, 25 September 2008 (BST)

*pokes topic* So...is this going anywhere? Or are you just going to wait the DEM out on this, and hope they give up and get bored? Right now, they're just not advertising, at ALL (except for Axes High). Which is great for Axes High, and not so great for any other (sub)groups of the DEM...but, really, this does need to get resolved, not just left hanging. :P --Jen 21:01, 8 October 2008 (BST)

I can't speak for Whitehouse, but I'm waiting for the DEM representatives to forward their draft proposals and engage with the points raised. I can only assume they've decided to leave the status quo as is, or that they're too busy with other things, the Uprising perhaps.

Also, Axes High aren't advertising, their ad was removed when its time stamp expired. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:53, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Well I'm not sure what it is that you want us to do. You want us to write a new wiki proposal? You want us to define what a subgroup is? What is it that you want exactly?--Kristi of the Dead 11:24, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Hello?--Kristi of the Dead 21:38, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Hi Kristi.. sorry. I'd completely forgotten about this page, again. To be honest, because of lack of procedure on how to get a new rule through, it's kinda difficult to organise a change. As I have previously suggested, I think it should be a simple vote. I think what Iscariot wants you to do is just make a suggestion for what a subgroup is and then say (write out as suggestion for change) that you want organisations which have member groups, not subgroups, to be allowed to have their member groups recruit separately. I did make a suggestion for change and was going to set up a vote. But Iscariot seems to be suggesting he would rather see a version by the DEM (rather than my version). I'm kinda lost as to what to do, but if you think my proposal for change is fine then you (or me) could simply set up a vote below somewhere and make sure to leave a message pointing to it. For anyone still arguing against voting as a method for deciding: A) Can't see any other way, and I don't want this to remain a stalemate. B) Last time a major change was implemented (and it was major) it was done by simply saying that it would be done if no one could find good objections. Voting seems somewhat more democratic, so I can't see why not. - User:Whitehouse 21:59, 13 October 2008

(BST)

The working definition I have for a subgroup is a group which acts within the context of a larger or more prominent "parent" group's orders or compositional intervention (i.e. control of membership). This could be expressed either in a "strike team" format, in which orders can be given to the group by persons from the parent group, or an "elite team" format, in which a group does not recruit on its own but instead is composed of members hand picked from a parent group and put together from constituent components of that group without abandoning the parent group (as I believe occurred with Manei Domini, which, IIRC, was formed by TZH but split over some conflict- although they may have subsequently returned to the fold). In other words, a group which is substantially controlled at an operational or compositional level by another group, which I would generally refer to as the "parent group"- but which does not necessarily have to have formed the subgroup, and may rather absorb it.

But that may be too wordy. The last sentence will probably do on its own for a definition.--FT ^MCI 03:22, 18 October 2008 (BST)

Thank you Father Thompson for your continued input to this process. Although comprehensive I feel your definition still leaves an awful lot open to interpretation and therefore abuse. If we take the DEM as an example, you say in your definition "a group which is substantially controlled at an operational or compositional level by another group" In this sentence I see your definition as effectively saying that "If a larger 'group' controls the organisational structure, the member composition or the operational conduct of a smaller 'group' then the smaller group will be designated a part of the whole and not be allowed to advertise. Assuming I am reading this correctly, as all DEM groups are forced (as a condition of membership) to abide by the DEM Policies, then the 'subgroups' that you are wanting to allow to advertise would be prevented from doing so. Another example would be the Gore Corps, the group was formed outside the RRF, as it did not allow culting at the time, and it does not recruit from within the RRF by and large as the majority of the rest of the horde have Rot, this by the definition you have given will render it able to recruit separately from the RRF on this page.

Please understand that I do not intend to be obstructive here, it is just that in the future Whitehouse and I will be forced to maintain this page with the new guidelines and I do not want to 'moderate' this page, i.e. make decisions based on my own whim, but rather maintain the page according to the clear guidelines that any user finds easy to understand. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:37, 22 October 2008 (BST)

DEM policies do not control what a group does on a day to day basis so the claim that its member groups would fall under the term subgroup isn't really applicable in my mind anyway. I mean what we're trying to get at here is that other groups that join up with the DEM shouldn't be punished on the wiki for their membership in our organization. Axes high for instance has a long history of recruiting on its own and doing many things on its own. The fact that they are now in our alliance shouldn't hamper them from continuing to be a unique addition to UD and the UD wiki is all.--Kristi of the Dead 08:26, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Just a small side note: My computer is dead (has been for some days now), this means I am not available for this discussion or to work on the page, sorry. Hope you get this sorted soon. - User:Whitehouse 20:52, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Hey Iscariot any chance you could put your noggin behind this with me and together we can figure out a policy that's fair? Many of us don't have any experience with the Wiki and in particular this sorta stuff. I mean you guys managed to lump us as a group without any input from us. And the rule as it stands would not apply to us if you guys hadn't specifically (and mistakenly) listed us in it. Seriously man can you lend a hand here Iscariot.--Kristi of the Dead 16:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation? Don't advertise here, instead go and advertise on Suburb Recruitment, that page was set up by some idiot who didn't feel like exhibiting the good faith consensus building the DEM have shown in this process. Instead this idiot just unilaterally created a page and then removed the large groups rules to obviously try to get organisations like yourself to support him. I refuse to do twice as much work, particularly when the content is a duplicate of this page but with less rules, which will cause endless drama. I put the page up for deletion, citing the fact that he had not built consensus and that the content was a duplicate of this page and the groups template on every suburb page (it would be a rare group that appears in those templates and wouldn'taccept new members). The community in its infinite wisdom decided it wanted more drama and didn't delete it. Therefore I expect this page to die as people choose not to use it because it has actual restrictions on it. Eventually it'll just be me here removing ads that are duplicates from the other page that break this page's community discussed guidelines.

That's my recommendation. Of course since they unilaterally removed guidelines that were standard on this page there's nothing to stop them putting those guidelines back when it suits them and for people to post page breaking images/code on that page, but at least for the present the DEM could advertise all of its subgroups there legally. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest we don't want to use that as I agree it's a waste and I don't want to put my group behind that sort of thing. What needs to be done here is fix the current policy so that it doesn't punish people for joining our alliance. When the Black Berets join us they shouldn't be punished by having their wiki removed and lumped with ours. That's not really far and I dare say not the intent of the rule. Lets fix this problem not add to the lots of other problems the wiki already has.--Kristi of the Dead 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like you won't be of any help at all Iscariot and I think I know why. Here's what's gonna happen I'm gonna make the policy I like then I'm gonna get every DEM member I can find to vote for it. And just like you did without any input from us we're gonna put ourselves back on the recruitment page. You should prolly try and help because who knows what will happen the PK knights getting to advertise in two sections of the wiki.--Kristi of the Dead 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll vote for it too. :P As far as I can see, under the current policy, the member groups of the NMC can advertise independently; the member groups of the PKA can advertise independently; the member groups of the SWA can advertise independently; the member groups of the DA can advertise independently. In the interests of anything resembling fairness, DEM groups should be allowed to advertise independently as well. And not be prohibited from it because you all once upon a time decided they were a different category of group - somehow not an "alliance," but rather an "organization with significant subgroups." Stop the hair-splitting. Honestly, just try to define "organization with significant subgroup" without also ending up including the NMC, SWA, DA, and PKA in the list, too. As the current policy stands, it theoretically should prohibit adds by any membergroups of these as well.

Kristi's right. Because of some misunderstanding and lack of communication a long time ago, all the current policy does is punish groups who elect to join the DEM alliance instead of another alliance. Something needs to be standardized. Either require all alliances to advertise with one add (allowing sub-adds, like I think was proposed somewhere above), or let all member groups of any alliance be allowed to advertise individually.

In terms of defining "separate group" or "member group," as opposed to a "subgroup"...I think it's perfectly fine to go with 1) they have to have a different name in the group tag, and 2) they have to have separate wiki pages (not be the sub-page of another group). I'll vote for that. It allows the NMC, SWA, DA, and PKA to keep advertising individually, as they always have, along with the DEM. It doesn't allow the Imperium (they all have the same tag) or the DHPD to start doing so (same tag AND subpages). Stop worrying about hypothetical boogeyman -- your current policy is doing HARM to several groups right now (and would be doing harm to a lot more, if if you actually went around applying it consistently). It needs to be changed, and the sooner the better. --Jen 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Catagorization of Groups

Why are they categorized alphabetically, rather than by the basic "type" of group that each one is? (Survivor, Zombie, PKer?) Did you have problems in the past, with groups that saw themselves as too distinct to fall under any one catagory? If so...couldn't you just create an "Other" or "Mixed" listing?

Arranging the recruitment page by "type" of group strikes me as a much more logical way to arrange the page. And much more convenient for new players, who won't be as intimidated by the crazy long list and mix of groups on the page. It's also how groups recruit on the various other forums -- they post in Survivor/Zombie/PKer categories, not in alphabetical categories. Is there any good reason why you on the wiki don't do this?--Jen 05:18, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Drama. It's bad enough to arrange them like that on the suburb pages (something I vehemently disagree with) but here is going to cause copious amounts of drama. It'd mean that anyone who disagreed with a group could remove their entire ad on grounds of it being in the wrong section (look for example at the perception KOTD has of the Order) the subsequent edit wars would turn this page into a battleground. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:55, 7 October 2008 (BST)

it actually used to be like that, with a section for each, one on top of the other. the problem was that people were always upset as to how they were placed, survivors were arbitrarily on the top, followed by zombies, then PKers, and following that mixed groups and organizations. every one at the bottom was pissed off they were at the bottom, and the people at the top were saying "whats the big deal, your just as visible way down on the bottom of the list as i am on the top", so people just argued non stop till the alphabetical system was put in(even that was a remarkable change, it used to be the oldest ad on top, new ads on the bottom). really in all variations of the page since it was put up this is the best version ive seen.--Bullgod 21:43, 8 October 2008 (BST)

what view do I have of the order?--Kristi of the Dead 11:25, 10 October 2008 (BST)

In this thread a direct quote of yourself would be "Like I said earlier it's Better to place ya under D for deluded humans". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:39, 22 October 2008 (BST)

That has nothing to do with the order they're listed under or anything of the kind. And in fact wasn't a complaint by me as I don't really have one in regards to that. It was a response to a joke is all.--Kristi of the Dead 08:19, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Straw vote on "large group" rule

The current rule reads: "Large Groups or Organizations with significant subgroups are limited to one ad. This includes groups such as the DHPD and the Department of Emergency Management, they may use their ad to direct players to the separate sub-groups."

The DEM has asserted that their member groups are, in fact, seperate groups and that the current rules discriminate against them. Specifically, DEM leadership has asked that Axes High and the MCDU be permitted their own recruitment ads.

The follow vote is not binding in any way, but is an attempt to gage community opinion. I request that everyone vote as follows:

• Yes, allow both groups their own ad.
• Yes, but allow only one (specify) of these groups a seperate ad.
• No, do not allow the DEM to post seperate ads.

Please keep comments concise, and refrain from "cluttering" the discussion. Thanks. --WanYao 22:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely why consensus does not equal a popular vote. DEM have made themselves out to be some persecuted entity and will not accept any discourse that isn't complete capitulation by the community. The DEM do not seek to have the rule removed, they merely seek an exception to be made for them. I predict they will be the first trying to restrict other groups' ads after this page gets flooded by subgroup ads. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a straw vote, Iscariot. Straw votes are common as part of a consensus process. They're used to get a feel for the community's position. And the accusations of intransigence and bias can be very aptly levelled at you. Also, the "DEM exceptionalism" in the wording of the vote is unfortunately merely a result of my own sloppiness... --WanYao 01:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Iscariot, the DEM are not trying to get an exception made for themselves. They are trying to make sure that a rule is applied fairly, across the board. I'm no fan of the DEM, but they are most definitely being discriminated against here, with a whole rule written so as to unfairly single them out. Again, I've never seen the "large group rule" applied to members of the SWA, the NMC, and the DA -- the groups that are the closest parallels to the DEM's group labels and organizational structure. The DHPD, the Imperium, and the RRF are not parallel to the DEM, in the way this rule seems to imply they are --Jen 02:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting

• Yes - but as long as those ads clearly state that they are a "subgroup of the DEM". Linkthewindow  Talk  22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Yes - Allow both groups seperate ads. But the MFD, MPD and thw various specialty groups are branches of what remains of Malton's municipal emergency response ogranisation. They are too similar and too closely related in their mandates IMNSHO to warrant separate listings. The MCDU, however doesn't fall under this description of municipal Emergency Response organisations -- barely... And Axes High is a very different type of group and is most certainly deserving of their own ad. --WanYao 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Yes - But this isn't quite enough, The rule needs to go with an understanding that large organizational structures can't post an advert if they are made up of multiple groups that are allowed to post advertisements. More than that groups that show up on the stats page should be free from being barred from posting advertisements. I think this current vote is just a way to try and go about making an exception to the rule so that it can't effect future instances off this somewhat ridiculous standard.--Karek^maps?! 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop trying to read my mind, karek... It's not working, you don't have teh skillz. --WanYao 23:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to read your mind, I'm just pointing out what will be the effect of this vote. It's worded in a way that it can be ignored as precedent because it's a situational vote on whether one group is allowed to ignore the rule instead of actually addressing the problem of the rule.--Karek^maps?! 01:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Your comments are all perfectly valid, except for this: "I think this current vote is just a way to try and go about making an exception to the rule so that it can't effect future instances off this somewhat ridiculous standard." That sure looks like you trying to make presumptions re: my intentions. And, the implication therein is incorrect. If that's not what you were trying to do, you really ought to have worded your comment differently... However... the record is now set straight, so as far as I'm concerned, it's over. --WanYao 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - But only because the blinking current rule is RIDICULOUS, and needs to be rewritten. We don't need a one-time exception for two groups of one alliance -- we need a new rule. As Karek: "this isn't quite enough, The rule needs to go with an understanding that large organizational structures can't post an advert if they are made up of multiple groups that are allowed to post advertisements. More than that groups that show up on the stats page should be free from being barred from posting advertisements." --Jen 02:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)