User talk:Misanthropy

Please post new comments at the bottom, using the highest-level header (=header name=). You might see a little "+" buttom up at the top there, if you're using an older browser. Don't click it. Just don't fucking do it.

I'll reply on your talk page if you contact me here.

Cheers.

For any users posting a sixth (or, indeed, seventh or beyond) topic on this page, full permission is granted to move the oldest topic in its entirety to the relevant archive.

Not that any of you will ever do it, but it's worth disclaimer-ing it to avoid unnecessary A/VB shitepipery.

Favor to Ask

Now that your dead... bite my ass! -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 03:29, 29 October 2010 (BST)

Check the talk page of that image, Poodle. You actually helped him. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:30, 29 October 2010 (BST)

If you're after an infection, I'm all pooped out for now, but sit tight and you can have one in the morning. 03:31, 29 October 2010 (BST)

*you're -- LEMON #1 05:27, 29 October 2010 (BST)

That's what I said. You are. You're. 16:05, 29 October 2010 (BST)

He was talking to poodle who got it wrong.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 16:09, 29 October 2010 (BST)

Oh that's so common it's not even worth pointing out. 16:10, 29 October 2010 (BST)

Let's not even go in to how he spelt "Favour". ;) --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 16:11, 29 October 2010 (BST)

He totally forgot the L. F-L-A-V-O-U-R! -- Spiderzed▋ 16:14, 29 October 2010 (BST)

I have been known to taste delightful. 16:15, 29 October 2010 (BST)

barbara

who knocked that shit open? omg! -- LEMON #1 01:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That shit's open? 16:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I like

I likey alot-- Skoll ^Die 01:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sig

Hey Mis, much as I like your bold and colourful sig, doesn't it read MISANROPY? Where's the TH?--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct you are. Well spotted. 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Fight Factory

I figured you might want in. Give me some time to get it together. Think Fight Club, just much badassier. ~ 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I had been thinking that already. No shirts, no shoes, no weapons, no leaving, no healing, no anything-that-isn't-punching? 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, we'll have our own rules. My idea is a Fight Club group. Not pro survivor, not pro-zombie, no PKer. We participate in manhunts and fight one another in the interim. Hold our own mini-manhunts, hone skills, challenge others to fights, etc. ~ 22:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Like an organised Red Rum? 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much. Except all the victims are willing. I was actually wondering if you could throw up a protected subforum for the group. Maybe just temporary. Maybe not. ~ 00:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Where at? 00:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rummers forum, unless I'm incorrect in thinking you are a mod there. ~ 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That you would be. Rev, Nanners and Karl are the three stooges to ask. 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool I'll see what I can do. Comms might be IRC at first. ~ 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough to set up, that. 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm on ur talk page

Clikin ur magik plus sign. ~ 01:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

HI BAY I'LL BATE YER ARSE TIL IT'S RED RAW SO I WILL HI. 01:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Abnoxious images

Case Precedent - Obnoxious images on admin pages that don't serve the discussion at all have never been allowed. 300px is more than ample enough, and it doesn't cause a massive image to be in the middle of everybody's page, derailing the discussion. I'm going to revert.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm in no way "editting your comments" - that's just utter bullshit.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain how it is bullshit please. Content added in a discussion section by one user should not be edited by another user simply because they don't like it. 15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also I remember your shitty precedent, that image stretched the page horizontally. Mine doesn't. It's not page breaking in any way, so don't touch it again. 15:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I did.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, somebody's comments should not be editted. My edit in no way changed the meaning of your comment, it just stopped it taking up the entire screen. And it isn't "Simply because I don't like it", it's because it's massively obnoxious and distracts from conversation on an admin page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It was deliberately made at that size so as to not take up the full screen, so don't try that lie on me. You're simply being a fucking asshole over something so trivial as a genuinely harmless image added as part of a comment. 15:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's taking up most of my monitor, so fuck off. No image should be that big on an admin page. 300px is even pushing it. This isn't your personal playground, the admin pages are a place for serious administrative business. I'm going to keep reverting and I'd wager you are too. Arbies?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've as much right as anyone else to post what seems relevant to the discussion there, which I did. You have zero right to remove it - especially without even simply asking if I would reduce it. You just charged in, edited someone else's comment, then accuse them of treating things like their personal playground. What the fuck is your problem? Discussion there is essentially over, it'll be archived in a short time anyway, you have no reason to start something so needless, petty and plain wrong except to be spiteful. 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not "About to be archived", it's going to be there for at least another fortnight, after which there'll need to be more discussion there. Admin pages are not massive image arks, which is why only one image has ever been used on demotions before, and it was a respectable size. And whilst I've given several compelling arguments why it should go, you've said nothign about why it should stay that size. I in no way "editted your comment" as you keep bullshitilly saying, I reduced the size of a massive unneeded image. It is in no way relevant to the discussion, it's your typical attitude of pissing around with serious things. If you want to post a massive angry face to him, do it on his talk. It's unnecessary on an admin page. Get an arbies ruling or I'll keep reverting.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

All that is needed in the next two weeks is confirmation on or before the 25th (which has already been given anyway), followed by one of the crats simply noting the action completed. After that it's dead and buried. And seriously, I fail to see how you can't understand that anything added by a user as part of a discussion on a discussion page or area is not to be edited by other users if it doesn't break pages (which, oh look, no page breaking, and clearly added by this specific user as my comment on the proceedings). You've changed something which you had no right, as a user or an admin or anything, to change. You might think you can consider it good faith but it's simply not, and it's borderline (not outright, but verging on) impersonation. You have no pressing reason whatsoever to change it other than simply thinking that you'd personally prefer it to be smaller, which I frankly don't give a shit about because you've been so pissy about it. You get the ruling, which you won't because you're in the wrong, because otherwise, my comments are my territory, to be edited by me alone. 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the last sentence if it were about comments - which it isn't, it's about an image - and since it's abotu an image, it isn't part of your comment. I am in no way editting the comment, I am in no way impersonating you, you stupid fuck, I'm making the image smaller. Does that change what you said? No. Does it change the meaning of what you said? No. Does it make it so that admin pages aren't being spammed for no valid reason? Yes. If you honestly think you're in the right, it just shows how clueless you are about the rules of the wiki and the wiki as a whole. This has nothing to do with my personal preference - I started by giving you a case precedent, something you seem to be hesitaiting about doing. This is about making sure that admin pages aren't spammed up. I gave you one case that I thought of which was particularly relevant, I could probably find hundreds more with much less minor infractions moved to talk pages for being spam. Your comment adds NOTHING to the conversation, it makes a mockery of a serious page, and it's massively annoying and obnoxious. It make the above text hard to read, and it demeans the importance of a system operator leaving the community. Since you're being massively stupid, I'm about to open arbies.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is my fucking comment. There is no fucking way you can say that something added by one user in a discussion, immediately bookended by their signiture and a timestap, is not their fucking comment. It isn't spam, and I've already explained a while back that your precedent is useless and irrelevant, as it SPECIFICALLY dealt with page breaking images, which this isn't. Presence of the image doesn't make anything harder to read, as it falls below all of the text comments, and doesn't touch or affect them in any way. That's fucking nonsense right there. As for not adding anything, it sums up exactly my feelings on seeing the retirement of the colleague I respect and trust the most, without resorting to the kind of "good luck and goodbyes" that I find inane. It adds feelings on the matter succinctly and I don't see any genuine reason whatsoever to reduce the impact I gave it simply because you're unhappy about something that in no way adversely affects anything. 16:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suburb Danger Levels

I hate the danger levels for suburbs. They'd be much easier to grok if they mirrored the building reports. Nothing to be done! Misanthropy 21:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 

So...ummm..how serious are you about having the danger map automatically update from the building reports? Because it probably could be done.

You could pull the danger status from the building reports, and assign a flag based on the status, say 1 for safe, under attack, 0 for ruined, siege, etc. This would be done for each TRP type (mall, hospital, PD), and the status flags would be used to make a binary number: {flagloc1}{flagloc2}{flagloc3} etc. So let's say you have nine hospitals, and three were ruined, you might get something like this for the hospital status ranking for that suburb: 001001100. That string would go into a counter that determines either how many buildings are safe or assigns a grading on how damaged that resource is in general (e.g. 0000000 = 0, 1111111 = 10, 10 being very safe) (both ways would work the same, right now it just counts the number of ones). Right now, I can give a status for a building type with up to 10 buildings.

Each suburb would have a rubic template that would take in the TRP grading flags, and using a similar type counter, assign a danger level. For example, maybe 1/2 the hospitals, PDs, and Factories were ruined so your flag variable might 555 which a template similiar to the counter one would translate as "Dangerous." The more categories you have, the more cases are required, which might limit how this works. Making the actual counters is fairly easy with a program though. The other thing that is challenging is how to handle "unknown" because it turns this from a binary to three values, which gets out of hand.

Interested?

-MHSstaff 16:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha, that's a whole different direction than I was thinking (I just meant replacing the statuses with "Under siege", "in zombie hands", etc), but if that was to work that would actually be incredibly useful. The only problem I can see with it is that it won't take empty blocks into effect, since they're never given individual reports. I'm already very lost with the technical stuff you're talking about, though, but I could grunt through the updating if it was shown to me how. 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me try a test suburb and make sure I can determine a danger ranking for all the TRPs automatically, and then get some sort of danger value from that. The big thing I could use a second opinion on is what is a good "first pass" rubic for determining when a suburb is safe, moderately dangerous, dangerous, and very dangerous - for example, what percentage of a suburb's buildings need to be ruined/ransacked for a suburb to be dangerous. Do Malls and Forts count more..that sort of thing? Doesn't have to be perfect; we just want to see if the general idea could work before maybe making it a wiki project or something along those lines. Can I run the test page by you at some point in the future? -MHSstaff 18:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Count each block as 1, so forts/malls count for 9 or 4 buildings, respectively. I'd say maybe 75%+ safe is green, 50-75% yellow, 25-50% orange and 0-25% red. 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but there are a few holes:

1. Such a plan will rely on danger reports being up-to-date. I know the MOB is really good with doing this, but I don't see too many other groups doing this. Of course, with he right connections, we might be able to get some other groups like the RRF or Fortress to start out. Of course, that brings up another point...
2. Falsified danger reports. Specifically, survivors fudging bad reports while a suburb is being reclaimed. Now this is admittedly still done to the suburb status under the current system, but it would be a bit harder to counter if danger was derived from danger reports.
3. Undercoverage. How would this system account for zombies in non-TRPS or empty squares? Theoretically, a huge horde could amass in a park, and the suburb would remain "safe" until they started attacking.

Don't get me wrong; it's a good idea, but there are some (potentially) serious flaws in it. I'd say you should try to address them (specifically 3, and to a lesser extent 1) before getting too deep into this. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 19:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The underlying assumption is that safety is somehow tied to buildings that are under attack or have been attacked; this will fail when the data is not there or the assumption is wrong. We can't really do much about 1 or 2 since that is outside our control. I can't force people to update building reports nor can I force people to not lie. That said, we also can't really force people to either update suburbs in a timely manner manually or to not lie there as well.

Number 3 is a concern, and maybe what we can do is to weight the report with information from the external military reports which should tell you how many zombies are outside and the general infrastructure of the suburb. What do you think? It might be that this will go no where but it might be worth a stretch to see how it works for one suburb. -MHSstaff 19:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)