Talk:Molebank

Too many revive points

Seriously... I just wandered into town... and looked at the RPs... Eeep. And 2 are right next to each other. And the cemetery, which is actually very well located next to an NT, is not listed. Locals -- wanna chat about which RPs are actually active and then clean up the RP list, maybe agree on some new ones? And... to that effect, I might suggest an RP somewhere like a carpark (16,42) or Hollyman Lane, which is well placed right in the middle of a whack of NTs... --WanYao 14:34, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Afaik, Shenton and Farrant were the original (Pre-Sacred Ground Policy) revive points since before I even joined the game. I guess revive tactics were still a little shaky when they were designated back in 2005. Obviously, now there's a lot more strategy to mass revival, but considering most of the local populous knows where to get a needle (if there were survivors in the suburb that is), we don't need to change it up just yet.--Wronghorn 15:24, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Well ought not it to be pared down and made accurate then? A lot of people, especially these days, find themselves a-wandering in search of revives... Also, for people like myself... rolling into town with the hopes of doing some suicide reviving, etc... IMO it's good to have accurate information... for everyone... in general... So maybe some of those locals who know where the revives get got could update the list? Especially, those two that are right next to each other ought to be fixed. --WanYao 16:30, 10 April 2008 (BST)

True, but they actually are all "active" in the sense that you stand at any one of them, someone should come by... someday. Your point is still valid; we could try and combine these things into a more convenient location. Right now, it's a little touch and go all over the Mole; the Dead seem to be camping it pretty good and the usual PKers always seem to survive.--Wronghorn 21:53, 10 April 2008 (BST)

On second thought - Holland Alley isn't a point I've ever heard of, so that can be ditched. We can probably ditch Shenton Crescent for the Cemetery_14,42, even though it's one of the oldest in Molebank. The other two points are not really my jurisdiction (as far as group activity goes, they are maintained by the KoSJ and 10mfh groups. --Wronghorn 22:00, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Hanlon Park is maintained by 10 minutes from Hell. We also check Holland Alley and Farrant Monument when Hanlon is clear, as we know that they are listed as revive points. The 'burb is still getting back on its feet and we didn't want to remove a revive point from the Wiki until we are sure that the group designated as maintaining it is no longer active.--Lois Millard 8:27, 2 June 2008 (EST)

I know that I check all the listed revive points. Usually Hanlon and Farrant clear out pretty quickly. Shenton isn't as popular as it once was, but I still see a few zombies there from time to time. --Wronghorn 03:28, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Posting Group Status

Yesterday, Saromu stripped Molebank bare, leaving only Extinction as the only active group. I have encountered two other zombie groups, and am aware of four living groups operating very actively in Molebank. There are barricades on quite a few buildings and a few are showing lights. This can be shown from reading Extinction's own public site with reports. The vandalism has been reverted. A repetition will result in a complaint to the Sysops. Dylan Mak Tyme 01:53, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Saromu is Sonny Corleone from the RRF (I believe). It's not been over a month so I'm not sure why we put that, apart from he made exactly the same edits to most NW suburbs too. Probably just a little overzealous in trying to remove survivor groups from suburbs where they've been effectively eradicated. Extinction are mostly leaving the wiki to itself at the moment - "the wiki isn't the game, the game is the game", as we like to say. 'arm. 03:56, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Thanks for the clarification. However, "effectively eradicated" not withstanding, reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated. Extinction cannot shift its vanguard to face the rising threat in the NW interior and credibly claim eradication in the same breath. To clarify, it is not that zed has eradicated the living for less than a month, it is that that objective has yet to be even approached. Let's not demean the zed accomplishments, which are many and significant in this campaign, by exaggerating them beyond all recognition. Dylan Mak Tyme 15:18, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Add groups that are active, don't revert the change. It's actually a good thing that should probably happen more often, without something like this suburbs without the groups never get updates from when they leave, especially those in the North West.--Karek^maps?! 14:44, 6 September 2007 (BST)

The process you are proposing is deleting other users' content, which is expressly prohibited within the rules. In this case it was done transparently for propagandistic effect, utterly and recklessly POV, and clearly intentional vandalism. This very incident points up the weakness of the process proposed. Were this process to actually be instituted, I can have a bot go through hourly and remove all references to Zombie and PK/DK groups as a challenge. There is no reason that continuously active groups should have to defend their continued existence in a vandalism rooted process assigned by an adversary with a propagandistic agenda. Zed is seeking credit on the wiki for a level of victory they have been unable to accomplish on the field of honor AS TESTIFIED TO BY THEIR OWN, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE REPORTS. If one were to propose a rule change instituting a fair and balanced process for challenging whether a specific group was still active in a given suburb, involving direct notification of the group and a reasonable waiting period, there would likely be support. Dylan Mak Tyme 15:18, 6 September 2007 (BST)

I seriously doubt your intentions here are all that clean and good, but I'm very sure Saromu had no intent to do what you are accusing him of. By the way, it is perfectly acceptable to do what he did there are no rules against it and it is actually more useful to the page if they do get the groups removed periodically then have to re-add themselves. I'm saying to do this for all groups, not just survivors. A rule change isn't needed except to satisfy people like you who see a conspiracy theory in everything.--Karek^maps?! 15:32, 6 September 2007 (BST)

As usual you bring no new actual facts to the discussion, just snide insinuations and further pro vandalism campaigning. The vandalism policy is very clearly against it, so no rules changes are required, changes in the enforcing personnel obviously are. If you would like to see the policy you describe instituted, then propose it in the appropriate forum, or ask someone that knows how to do it. I notice that on the proposed Sysop Performance Review Policy, users were 2:1 for regular review of Sysop conduct, sysops 9:1 against, including yourself. Not a good time for you to be casting aspersions on others motives. --Dylan Mak Tyme 21:44, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Keep showing your complete ignorance of the wiki, it amuses me. I am not, nor have I ever been, a Sysop. Now, show me where in the vandalism policy it says that removing groups is vandalism. I won't wait up.--Karek^maps?! 23:38, 24 September 2007 (BST)

--

I believe the CotR are tied up in EastonWood and East Becktown at the moment, their attacks on Molebank has not even started.

Truth to be told, the Eclessiarchy Militants aren't doing much either. I've camped on the Cathedral for a few days taking down barricades, and no organized defenses are there. -- Lynx7725 05:23, 1 Nov 2005 (GMT)

--

There was a preliminary failed attack I believe, but i'm not sure if it was by the CotR. In any case, it was a big failure as far as i know, i dropped a number of zeds. Personally, i can't wait for them to get to molebank, it's been really quiet lately and i could use the XP. Nothing like the sound of a shotgun shell exploding a zombie head to wake you up in the morning!--Lordcyberghost 01:51, 2 Nov 2005 (GMT)

There's a mob of 20 @ Farewll PD in Lerwill Heights 3 blocks from the hospitals. I've been taking down the strays. Hit about 4 so far.--Celt 09:29, 2 Nov 2005 (GMT)

thanks for the update celt, and good job on contributing! Keep us posted!--Lordcyberghost 16:52, 2 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• November 2005

Hospital @ St Elizabeth's came in for the heaviest attacks. Fell briefly on the 8th and was retaken very soon thereafter. Not much activity since the Mall siege. Things have been pretty quiet. --Celt 18:14, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• December 2005

It is really great eating the brains of Molebank survivors, also this page has the history of their futile resistan... er... I mean "valiant struggle". --Contaminated 11:55, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

TMH has largely been scattered by the Fall of Burrell Way. Alot of us are moving south to help with the Siege of Thompson Mall, but there are still those among us, including myself, willing to stay and fight. I'm not giving up this kind of easy XP for anything.--TMH Ben 01:25, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

A salute and sincere respect to the fallen in Molebank - we have had more enjoyment out of our rampage through your fine suburb than anything else in recent memory, and appreciate greatly the quality of conflict we've had here. Cheers to the Knights of St. Jude and the MCV. Keith Moon 21:21, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• March 2006

Are the The Ecclesiarchy Militant still active in Molebank? I have't seen them around in ages. Jonny America 20:46, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Revive Point Conflict?

The use of the BWPD point as a revive point is under heavy debate. MCV and KoSJ do not support the establishment of a revive point over a what is a Tactical Resource Point. They believe this is a zombie tactic to paralyse the suburb. As such, both groups have begun attacking zombies both inside and outside of Burrell Way.

NARC does not support the killing of zombies at a revive point and views the actions of MCV and KoSJ as a form of griefing. NARC is attempting to revive zombies by using the already established pointers and resources in Molebank.

MCV and KoSJ claim that these tags NARC refers to have been placed there by griefers on many occasions throughout the past in an attempt to misdirect survivors.

This conflict has been resolved by the disappearance of NARC. Without their support, the BWPD revive point has hastily been abandoned for other active, nearby revive points.

Rumors began to circulate that NARC is and/or was a front for the Devivication experts of Malton DeVM.

Safehouses/Strongholds

I've got a question - what's the nearest safehouse/survivor stronghold to the Farrant Monument (preferably accessible by Free Running, and within 40-45 AP of Farrant)?

--Sgt. John Taggart^{UNIT 11/5 NEVAR FORGET WCDZ} 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The safehouses I've seen don't last longer than a day or two, tops. Hope you have better luck than me finding one. -CatEar_Alucard

The Loose Cannons and the Cannonball Crew are trying to maintain safehouses in the neighborhood. Join our forum for locations; obviously we're trying to keep these places classified.--Koppie 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Phone Mast status report

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

Brain rot revive clinics

this suburb has 6 NTs. I hope you guys aren't too selfish to allow at least one of them to be a brainrot revive clinic. The man 10:15, 8 July 2007 (BST)

NPOV

I have to wonder about the objectivity and the intent of dialogue between these 'news' statements when both are produced by the antagonists of the assault. Either there is a sincere dissolution of self and psyche here resulting in an example of authentic objectivity - or it stinks of propaganda and enticement. To me, the aroma is tangible. - Krommos

I'll defend my NPOV to the end ... but your accusation and my defense belong in the discussion page.--Zeug 17:08, 23 August 2007 (BST)

As long as your 'inevitable' opinions clothed in newsiness and your literary style of journalism are going to be represented here as neutral, so shall my opinions stand as counter-ballast and with as much right for representation as yours. Not that I do not like and appreciate your submissions - because I surely do, they are highly entertaining - but to suggest they are neutral points of view would be like saying the RIA Novosti is a purely objective source of information for Russian politics. As one whose varied vocations have included writing 'the news' for a handful of newspapers, including The Fort Worth Star Telegram and The Dallas Times Herald, and working as a HUMINT operative providing battlefield data to be turned into intelligence by Uncle Sam, believe me when I say I know what it is to proffer to the reader an objective and factual point of view capable of undergoing intense editorial scrutiny. Not that this I'm writing here is, because it most certainly is NOT. What is written in this wiki rarely obtains that position. But neither am I suggesting or trying to defend that what I write here is NEWS from a NPOV! So I say - Expunge your red-herrings and opinionated adjectives if you desire to sincerely achieve that level of journalism. Actually search for a spokesperson if you are going to imply that you did. State the facts, simply and concisely. Otherwise don't complain when somebody questions your intent and spirit of publishing. However, the lion's share of my reservations concerning the 'news' provided are held for the RRF representatives statement, and its implied tone that he is a survivor, and the timbre of innuendo carried with it that the opinion spoken is his - when surely it is not since he is one of the leaders of the assault. That, my friend, is the spin of propaganda. - Krommos

Although I will agree rarely with a member of Extinction I think Zeug is right in one capacity, this is a conversation for the discussion page and I welcome someone moving it there. News sections on the wiki are rarely NPOV. My statement WAS partly propaganda, and it was made in a human context because previous, non-propaganda posts made from a zombie context (and often spoken with the limited zombie letters) have been removed unceremoniously. If you truly object to my post here I ask you to search the posts from the previous months for news that is not POV, as it is rare indeed. --DonTickles 19:06, 23 August 2007 (BST)

<ahem> That's all very nice but do you mind if we move this discussion to the discussion page? --Zeug 18:57, 23 August 2007 (BST)

red / orange status, april 27th

if it's so safe, why did you NEED to get revived twice in one day? --Lenglon 19:22, 27 April 2008 (BST)

The revive queues are empty and have been for days but they are being serviced. Have you ever lived in a Very Dangerous suburb? They don't look like this. Why are you people erasing valid wiki information if you aren't trying to hide? Ask any independent observer, this is not Very Dangerous. --George Decay 20:06, 27 April 2008 (BST)

The question, "have you ever lived in a dangerous suburb?" Is a little silly; we reside in the Mole. This place is continually trashed and we rebuild it each time. We're getting quite good @ it. Yes, we know what a dangerous burb is, thank you.--Pastorjeff 05:13, 29 April 2008 (BST)

This is actualy a "safe" suburb. But the reason for the lack of updates is because we dont feel like getting stomped on by The Dead. We arnt vandalizing anything, we just dont shoot up flares every hour telling the hordes where we are.--Spencer J 21:14, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Nope. If you are in a suburb which is red on the map, and you know that it should be green or orange, you aren't under any obligation to update the wiki. It's a completely different matter if someone else has updated the wiki, and you change it back to red when you know it isn't. Thats vandalism, and that's what's been happening. (It's also cowardly, and a dis-service to nearby survivors who *are* in very dangerous suburbs, who want to know where they can rest and stock up, but I'll leave you to work that out for yourself.) Garum 21:29, 27 April 2008 (BST)

"Cowardly" Ouch, that one hurts... I don't want to agree w/you but it's hard not to. @ 10 minutes from hell we will try to be more objective in our postings from here out. Thank you for the challenge.--Pastorjeff 05:13, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I've made several grumpy comments here and over at beerhah, because deliberate disinformation meant that I had was wandering round a completely red north last week, and had to find safer places without any help from the map. I guess I haven't taken into account the playing style of people who feel one burb is 'home' because I'm nomadic. I still think that disinformation on the map hurts survivors at least as much as zombies. If survivors adopted the tactic of mending and powering a red burb in a coordinated way, *spreading the word* so that survivors who only use the wiki and don't metagame can benefit, and then off to another one when the horde appears, then *we* would be setting the aganda for them, and planning which areas at least have access to powered TRPs for the benefit of all survivors.

It also lowers survivor morale (especially for newbies) if they're killed in the middle of a vast sea of red, and it encourages the Dead to believe they can 'win' (which will never happen). Garum 09:58, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Garum... you're absolutely right. Deleting valid NPOV info is vandalism ... and it was reported as such... By me... You're also perfectly validated IMO being grumpy... What they did was just cause for irritation. --WanYao 08:10, 30 April 2008 (BST)