Talk:Ridleybank

Most recent additions on top, please.

This page has an archive.

Great Suburb Group Massacre 2011

All suburb wiki pages are undergoing a clean up to remove inactive groups from the group listing (see here: this suburb's groups). If you are a group currently listed in this suburb, you will be contacted on your group's talk page within the next few days and asked to reply with a list of suburbs in which you are active. Groups that fail to reply within two weeks of being contacted will automatically be removed from the suburbs where they are listed.

We're posting here in the hopes that more groups will be aware of the clean up and can respond appropriately, since our team does not have the time nor the manpower to seek out every group in-game or track down its group members elsewhere on the wiki. If you know that some groups in your suburb do not check the wiki, please be a good neighbor and let them know that they NEED to check it for this, or else they will be unlisted in the near future.

The wiki members coordinating the cleanup will be using the table below to track their progress in communicating with the various groups. Please do not edit it if you are not involved with The Great Suburb Group Massacre 2011 team.

The Great Suburb Group Massacre 2011
Group Name	Contacted On	Date Due
82nd Airborne Division	22 January 2010	Removed
101st Screaming Eagles	22 January 2010	Removed
M.E.M.S.	22 January 2010	Removed
Pagans	22 January 2010	Removed
Ridleybank Resistance Front	22 January 2010	Confirmed
This suburb has been cleared. Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please check your group's talk pages in the next few weeks, and respond promptly when you receive a communication from the GSGM2011 team. Thanks. Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation as we cleaned up the group listings for this suburb. Your help in reaching out to groups and replying to our requests has been much appreciated. Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd point out that while not reflected on this page the RRF has been confirmed through our talk page already. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 10:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that piece of news has really dumbfounded me. Never expected RRF to be in that corner too! (Also, table updated.) -- Spiderzed▋ 14:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously since I don't watch the talk pages for groups like 101st screaming eagles, and it would be illogical to check the 50 or so group talks every day, I'm going to do them all at once, at the deadline.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We aim to surprise SpiderZed ;) No problem Yonnua, after we were removed from the Stanbury page even though we were confirmed for there I just wanted to make sure it didn't happen again. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 12:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you'd never get that from TEAM NORTH EAST --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

can we pleeeese stop with the edit wars and the chest thumping.

really! it's so 07' and to quote the great overlord grim

Suburb pages are for news regarding the suburb, not organisational rallying calls. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:12, 24 October 2007 (BST)

--

bitch 17:08 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me, but it all sorta depends on if BAB wants to continue editorializing reports and adding percentages pulled from thin air, doesn't it? -MHSstaff 17:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

it's getting tiring and it's bullshit.--

bitch 22:50 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep the point of view NEUTRAL, MHSstaff. Propaganda stays in propaganda section. I don't want to start drama or piss off mods/sysops by stepping out of bounds, so I'm not removing anything. But seriously, keep it neutral man. Even if someone else starts being non-neutral, it doesn't give you the rights to do it back. Same for you, Babs.--Penguinpyro 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Kinda agree with this. Just because someone is spewing nonsense doesn't mean you should retaliate in the same manner (looking at MHStaff and Jadkor). If Babs continues with the mess, start moving the "reports" to this talk page, and contact him/her on his/hers talkpage. If all else fails proceed to arbitration, just keep the news report factual and NPOV.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The data was never "pulled from thin air" but collected through systematic scouting. You may have noticed that with numerous tall buildings conveniently scattered throughout the suburb, a near total scout of Ridleybank can be completed in 20-25 AP depending on one's approach.

And anyone familiar with the unfolding of the conflict in Ridleybank and the adjacent suburbs of Stanburry Village, Pimbank and Roftwood could tell you that my characterization of events is accurate. Do you wish to argue that you significantly damaged the SSZ over the last month? Please check the suburb reports, the suburb danger map history and mall status updates to confirm the accuracy of my assertion that you were unable to significantly disrupt survivor supply lines (although you had good success in keeping Nichols ruined, especially over the last 2 weeks or so.) And are we not now seeing greater zombie numbers focusing on destroying Ridleybank? Does this not illustrate a "refocused" and "concentrated effort" in response to much of Ridleybank being repaired day after day over the last several weeks? These reports reflect an undeniable reality not "editorializing" or "nonsense." Casting aspersions on the validity of my data also won't change the fact that many players have observed these same conditions in game themselves and your denial of the facts will appear compensatory.

And regarding chest thumping - with comments like, "Another fast turnover brought to you by the RRF" on various building updates, and Jadkor's number-packed parody of the statistical descriptions in my reports, can you really blame me for expecting a greater level of tolerance and good humor for referring to a "significant number of organized survivors" threatening what is referred to in the page's introduction as "the original standard" of "zombie dominance" in "the homeland" of Ridleybank?! I mean, come on, have you read that stuff? :P

It seems to me that the real offense here is in actually posing a challenge to the RRF's unquestioned and long-standing hold on Ridleybank. That has been met with petty complaints and accusations I would not have expected from such an indisputably powerful horde. And so we will relinquish what surely you would ultimately have taken back eventually. But understand that this time you secured your home not with tooth and claw but with your tears.--Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 07:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been fun fighting you guys. However I object to your tears comment. No one is crying here. And as far as I know the only issue was a minor misunderstanding with Jess. I think you realized that any gains you got you failed to secure and were always undone so you decided to tuck tail, flee and try to save face by refusing to admit you can't win. The facts are that most of the buildings in Ridleybank that you secured while here were barricaded and empty while you guys hid in the border burbs, cade strafed and called things safe. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 11:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we now seem to be in agreement that buildings were, in fact, reclaimed (an assertion not pulled out of thin air.) Let's just a review a couple more statements.

Babs: "And so we will relinquish what surely you would ultimately have taken back eventually."

Jadkor: "...you decided to tuck tail, flee and try to save face by refusing to admit you can't win." --Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 14:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

BAB: "But understand that this time you secured your home not with tooth and claw but with your tears." What you had wasn't relinquished, it was taken back. You couldn't hold it. Key example: Repair Mogg and it's a pinata 40 minutes later. While most of Ridleybank was being ruined you were squatting in Pimbank knowing Ridleybank wasn't as safe as you claimed. That's how it happened. You guys are leaving because we secured our Homeland with our claws, not our tears. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 14:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cry me a river, you really think the RRF even cared about you in the slightest? No. They moved out for a horde strike on Tynte because your failure of a team is too pathetic to even stay in a suburb you claim to have brought back to "survivor hands" instead just sitting there cowering in border buildings leaving the entire defence of what you so historically reclaimed to a herd of level one zergs and other groups working with you (aside from a few times at blackmore where we had the pleasure of breaking in and getting a rare glimpse before you all fled with your tails between your legs a few minutes later leaving the other teams with you to be slaughtered). You accuse me of chest thumping but you should know what i said was entirely a satire of your earlier post - you claimed Moggridge and 60% of the suburb was in survivor hands yet i was able to pinata an empty Moggridge after travelling across another nine empty blocks within forty minutes of your post? For an example of "chest thumping" i suggest you just reread your post here.
You're undoubtedly going to claim that this is just more "petty complaints and accusations from the RRF" which itself is an entirely unsubstantiated accusation but no. This is entirely written by me separate to the RRF because i take great offence to your last paragraph, there are groups that come to Ridleybank who show us respect and actually leave us with some fun. You did neither and your assertion that you posed a challenge to the RRF is an insult to every single one of them. ♥ Moonie ^{Talk Testimonials} 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonie: "...a herd of level one zergs and other groups working with you..."

Moonie: "You're undoubtedly going to claim that this is just more "petty complaints and accusations from the RRF" which itself is an entirely unsubstantiated accusation..." Substantiated. --Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 14:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonie: "You're undoubtedly going to claim that this is just more "petty complaints and accusations from the RRF" which itself is an entirely unsubstantiated accusation but no. This is entirely written by me separate to the RRF..."

BAB: "Substantiated." Unsubstantiated. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 14:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you MHSstaff and Jadkor, for the return to impartiality. Now, let's brutally and mercilessly butcher each other in the streets of Ridleybank like gentlemen.--Penguinpyro 08:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

lulz. Yet another breather turns up for a few weeks hot off the work of an effective zerger (DDarling) and then starts to make pie charts based on wiki information claiming success. (I wish I had a pie chart of the number of Lord K combat revives that lead to piniatas around Blackmoar). This incursion has been interesting but not as effective as some seem to think it is and is way down the list for memorable ridleybank experiences that I have encountered in defending the bonk 24/7 for years. Thats my personal opinion based on experience of being here all the time, and seeing the survivor reactions on various forums and IRC channels. --Zed707 10:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As a player who's had a survivor alt in Ridleybank over the past few weeks, and contributed a few news reports during that time, I second this comment: "Just because someone is spewing nonsense doesn't mean you should retaliate in the same manner (looking at MHStaff and Jadkor). If Babs continues with the mess, start moving the "reports" to this talk page". I think the mutual willy-waving about %ages should be removed by the contributors right away because it just makes people look a bit silly.

I must respectfully disagree with Jadkor about "hiding in border burbs" - Thurston has been in the Bank more or less constantly for about a month, with only a few deaths as a result - easily the safest I've known Ridleybank to be since I joined UD in 2008. Yeah, I know: n00b.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you were in the Bonk and I saw the things about you getting eaten or been seen, ect. There have been times when there has been concentrated amounts of survivors in Ridleybank but I've seen tons of GC pictures of nests of survivors hiding in the borders in Roachtown, Pimbank and Stanbury while the RRF tears through buildings and has to go through 8 before we find a single survivor. I admit there there have been times where the Bonk has had plenty of survivors but you have to admit other times it's had a handful while everyone else was hiding. Babs and Co. were seen in Pimbank (Parfit Towers and Turpin building: 11 survivors who are said to be working in Ridleybank) just the other day when Ridleybank was said to be 80% safe. Evidence suggests that large numbers were hiding outside Ridleybank. We all know Squadron1111 did it's Ridleybank work from Barhahville and then later Roachtown. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 12:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So your complaint is that survivors aren't making it easier for you to eat them? That seems rather silly to me, Jadkor. Tactics exist for a reason and from the perspective of a long-time survivor one of the big reasons is to minimize losses, another is to make the best use of available AP. Neither of these is served especially well by keeping all of your people inside of an area with 50+ zeds (note it was never described as 80% "safe").

The idea that dam tactics is effective has been completely repudiated for years, nor is distributed defense particularly effective in such circumstances, so really what you're upset about is that people aren't providing you with an unnecessary advantage? Additionally I'll note that I had initially recommended against coming here as I was concerned that the zerg in the area would taint the results and have already made you more attentive to what was going on inside the suburb.

Fortunately neither of these seems to have come to pass as I've seen few L1s in the suburb and your response as it were was quite slow in coming. One can understand how the updates prior to March 20th would have irked some; however, they were as I see it indisputably non-POV. The update made on March 20th could arguably be considered POV; however, much of that update seems a response to your rather immature news post on the 19th and the information remained largely accurate and verifiable. Predictions such as those contained in your March 19th update are neither and there is a clear dismissive tone contained in it that was not contained in any previous news update.

For an example of a non-POV equivalent examine the following: "Moggridge PD and Blackmore NT are once again ruined. Survivor numbers in the area have decreased by (x not made up)% over the last 24 hours. Blackmore NT is switching hands on a regular basis as neither side able to hold the building for long. The numbers of ruins is increasing as zombie numbers rise (alternatively you could put the current % of ruins), putting greater pressure on survivors in the area."

If the complaint is about POV news updates being made, then realistically people should primarily be complaining to MHSStaff, as the update made at 05:09 20/03/2011 contains no information and clearly serves no purpose except to attempt to antagonize or ridicule. Your response is arguably POV as well Jadkor. Perhaps in the future we would do well to respond more maturely to things as innocuous as "80% of Ridleybank is in survivor hands" and not drag things down with some unverifiable "Recent trends suggest" quip? That isn't very becoming of a horde with the sort of history and prestige as the RRF. --Lord K 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

BAB's statements and percentages give the impression that Ridleybank was just as safe (if not safer) than some suburbs while the poster herself didn't feel comfortable enough to sleep there. By BAB's projections the suburb should have been yellow and not orange. In reality there were hardly any survivors in the suburb during the 80% of it being in survivor hands but plenty of active zombies. Our disagreement, mine and BAB's, is whether it takes survivors in the suburb to make a suburb in survivor control. I understand the tactics and am not complaining about that obviously, I'm merely stating that I disagree with BAB's criteria that barricaded buildings make a suburb in survivor control despite lacking the numbers to maintain or defend against an active and hostile enemy.

In no way were any of my updates anymore POV than BABs, they are based on just as much evidence and observable trends. BABs said zombie numbers around Blackmore dropped 33% and no one complains. Did she take a full account of all the zombies in the streets, in ruins and bodies on the ground waiting to rise to get that figure? My following 87% comes from the fact that all the survivors in Blackmore were killed or fled leaving minuscule amounts in any neighboring buildings and Blackmore compared to prior Blackmore's fall. My percentage may have been off +/- but it was not grossly overstated or anymore questionable than BABs 33%. BABs reports how much survivors were projected to have gained, I projected (based on observable trends over the past month that show after survivors report huge gains it is immediately followed by major losses in the following two days) the percentage that was expected to be ruined (which did indeed happen just as the cases used in developing the trend which can be found in early suburb reports). BABs claimed on the 20th that there were a significant number of survivor opposition still in the suburb, I reported accurate and real results of what the zombies have found in the suburb (8 out of 9 buildings being empty which is still more or less the case). She stated how Mogg was repaired, I reported how it was pinata'd, both of which happened. If BAB's posts were clearly non-POV to you you can't possibly argue mine were any less non-POV without contradicting yourself, they are both equally based on observable facts and trends. Unless me being a zombie makes it auto-POV? So unless you somehow present how my projections are different than BABs and how she developed her's I ask that you kindly retract your statement. Either we were both POV or neither of us were. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 16:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no retraction merited in this case. Your post on the 19th is worded in a misleading way (100% sounds a whole lot better than 1) and utilizes speculation to push a particular point of view-namely that zeds (read RRF) are in control-which was not the situation at the time of the posting. It does not provide a summary of the suburb's status, it contains little else in the way of useful information. Babs' follow up on the 20th despite also being arguably POV itself contains relevant information including the current status of the suburb.

Furthermore prior to your post on the 19th Babs reported the current conditions and where solid numbers were not available provided ranges (i.e. 65-80%, 75-100). Where survivors were recovering more it was reported, when survivors were losing ground it was also reported (i.e. pushed back, 35-50%). They did not engage in speculation or make predictions, nor did they attempt to use misleading statistics. The fact that the suburb was not changed to yellow further indicates that Babs was not attempting to mislead anyone. They provided equal weight and were based off of the status of the suburb as verified at the time of their posting. In short, they were NPOV in a way that your news post was not. You disappoint me Jadkor, you still don't seem to get it and I really do expect better from RRF and DoHS.--Lord K 17:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My post dated March 19th is worded in such a way that details the status of the suburbs TRPs relevant to the status of the suburb and it's on going battle, so saying it contained no information on the suburb's state is wrong. Just because it was not the suburb wide analysis of BAB doesn't mean it didn't detail what was going on. Did I play with percents by saying 100% instead of 1? Definitely, but it certainly wasn't to push a certain point or mislead anyone as you state. The whole percentage thing was a playful jab at BAB and she didn't appear to take any great offense to it in her following post of March 20th, she returned it with one of her own at the end of her post. It is people other than myself and BAB (unless she was upset) who are under the impression you can't report suburb news in a playful, civil and still NPOV manner. And as for speculation that was based on sound patterns of the recent month and were in fact correct, a reading of the speculation and a walk through Ridleybank confirm that. It was more or less a three day news forecast, based the same way they do weather. I didn't say, "The whole suburb will be ruined in two days because that's what I think because that's what I want to think." Do I apologize for it? No more than a weather man who tells you there is a strong possibility based on weather trends that it will be sunny in two days and then it is. And even based on what you said about BAB's March 20th post arguably being POV but useful I'd contend my March 19th post is no different.

Indeed BABs and I did both provide reports on conditions in the suburb (as a whole or certain parts) using percentages and ranges, we differ not in that regard. And when zombies were gaining ground I reported it as BABs did with survivors. And as you can see I never disputed BABs numbers regarding what we lost to survivors, if there were changes in the situation then I would state that. And I still contend, and you haven't provided any argument against the fact that my statistics too were not made up out of thin air, misleading lies or wrong. In short you have conclusively failed to show anyway in which BABs and my posts differed in any major regards to them being NPOV or not. You repeatedly have said her posts can be argued to be POV and so can mine, and that's exactly what the situation is. I don't argue that my posts could be taken POV, but I do argue that they were just as arguably POV as BAB's (which you say can be argued as such). I don't speak for MHSstaff's posts, only the exchange between myself and BAB which I don't think either of us found offensive or overly POV unlike everyone else. We both overtly poked each other a little while reporting what was going on in the suburb on March 19th and 20th. I get perfectly where you are coming from believe it or not, you just fail to realize if there was any POV it was on both sides and not just one, and even then the original posters and posts bared no hostility against one another. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 18:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)