Category talk:Historical Groups

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 23:00, 1 November 2009 by Thekooks (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Obtaining Historical Status

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

  1. Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game.
  2. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups.
  3. Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No.
  4. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  5. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.


Nominations for Historical Status

When nominating a group, please add a note to Template:Wiki News and add {{HistoricalGroupVoting}} to the top of the group's page.

New Nominations

Detulux_Inc

Detulux_Inc has disbanded (per news banner on their forum) but was a longtime presence in the Kempsterbank area, contributing much to the general fun level for survivor and zombie alike.

  1. Yes - Nominator vote. - M arcusF ilby T 21:14, 17 October 2009 (BST)
  2. No - Who? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:16, 17 October 2009 (BST)
  3. Um Marcus you need to convince me. Although having eaten them for a few years, Im more than aware of their existence, what have they done that is historical? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:23, 17 October 2009 (BST)
  4. No - Never heard of them. Oddly enough, never been to Kemsterbank either. Historical groups need to ahve exuded their fame beyond their suburb.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:09, 17 October 2009 (BST)
    Which is a bit weird, since they (histr. groups) usually only get specifically mentioned in suburbs they were active in.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:53, 17 October 2009 (BST)
    General historical (namely this page and the associated category) have traditionally been separate from suburb historical. Some groups that have never passed here have been placed in the historical section of suburb pages due to the consensus of their input there rather than the game as a whole to gain the nod through this process. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:58, 17 October 2009 (BST)
  5. No - Who?-- Adward  22:27, 17 October 2009 (BST)
  6. No - Calling these guys nobodies would be a massive overestimation of their significance. --Papa Moloch 22:53, 17 October 2009 (BST)
  7. No - I'll second Yonnua, Drawde, Iscariot and the Hierophant. --Goa'uld 0:04, 18 October 2009 (MET)
  8. No - I have been playing this game for years and i just head about you all. -- Emot-argh.gif 23:18, 17 October 2009 (BST)
  9. No - as moloch. --Papa Johnny 01:02, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  10. Yes I originally Led the KT, and they came to K-Bank just after I quit the group, and just before I took a hiatus from the game. All these years later,... I still know who they are by the mere mention of their name. If I'm not mistaken, they were active in a couple suburbs prior to going to Kempster. -Poodle of doom 01:17, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  11. Yes - If poodle of doom vouches for them they must be worthy of historical status, surely? It increases the validity of the bid greatly, so yes from me.--CyberRead240 01:51, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    wait no, I'm totally lying, he makes it so much more no worthy, SORRY LOL--CyberRead240 01:52, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  12. No - A group, yes; with a presence, yes; of historical significance, not quite. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 02:00, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  13. No - As the Papas. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:17, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  14. LOLWUT??? - --WanYao 06:33, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  15. ...No. Cyberbob  Talk  09:40, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  16. No - Not historically significant. --RahrahCome join the #party!09:43, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  17. Yes- 0have you people not seen this image??xoxo 09:47, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  18. No - Sorry. It looks like you were a fun group and I enjoy your wiki page, but even as a zombie who spent some time in Kempsterbank I didn't know about you.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 10:40, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  19. ALiM, you've got me convinced. I vote Yes on that picture alone. Nothing to be done! 12:30, 18 October 2009 (BST)~
    I don't think anyone's actually called me alim before. I mean i practically am alim, but to be called it - what an honour sire! xoxo 09:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  20. No --Orange Talk 16:08, 18 October 2009 (BST)-
  21. No Sorry but just being fun doesn't make it historic. For that you need to make a really big impact on the game and just being big in 1 'burb doesn't quite cut it for me. --Honestmistake 08:08, 20 October 2009 (BST)
  22. No I thought they disbanded and were nominated a long time ago. Asheets 20:16, 21 October 2009 (BST)
  23. No as everyone else.. or convince me that urban dead really is fun.----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 11:06, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  24. The ONLY time I've ever heard of them was through Recent Changes stalking.it doesn't help that I haven't played the game in ages and when I did I never payed attention to anything but the target-- SA 14:44, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  25. No - We came to kill them at their "HQ" once and no one was there. :sadface: --Blanemcc 16:38, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  26. No - Haven't even heard of them before now. -- Papa Jadkor (RRF) (MotA) (MT11) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  27. No - I have heard of this group, but I don't see them receiving the historical status. --ZsL 02:09, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  28. No - As...uhm...everyone. --Met Fan F 03:32, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  29. No - I have never heard of them.--Roland 01:35, 25 October 2009 (BST)
  30. No - ORLY? I've been at Kempsterbank for over 4 years and never dealt with this group other than seeing their annoying propaganda and spraypainting my sweet home over and over. --Moogoogaipoo 01:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  31. No - For all the above mentioned reasons. -- DarthRevan 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting is over. This group has failed to be added to the category of historical groups. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Flowers of Disease

Flowers of Disease have disbanded and they have been a strong PKer presence in Malton for years. I have had the pleasure in battling them in the streets myself as a Bounty Hunter. Their Campaigns were often well organized against any who they deemed a target. You could always expect them to be part of any PKA organized attacks or get together. From Samhain Slaughter and Samhain Slaughter 2. The Malton Uprising, and Silent Night Slaughter at Fort Creedy. That is why I am nominating them for Historical Status.

  1. Yes - Nominator vote --Josh Clark 02:03, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  2. Yes - Flowers=Win ♥AU10♥Pantomime Mistress of Pain┌∩┐(◕‿◕)┌∩┐03:41, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  3. Yes - For Democracy!-- SA 15:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. Yes ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:09, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  5. Yes --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 06:44, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  6. Yes Flotsam. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:23, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  7. Yes --Jimaine Dunwich 09:56, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  8. Yes Of bloody course! --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:09, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  9. Yes - I used to be in agroup that fought them, and I am proud to say that I have done that. Obvious yes! (Funny, the Blackhawk died before the Flowers did. T proves that God is a racist/hawkist son of a bitch.)--Dedling 02:01, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  10. Yes I LOVE PK GROUPS! Criminally Insane 10:22, 22 October 2009 (BST)\\
  11. Yes Yes but only cause they get me high ----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 11:08, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  12. Yes for obvious reasons ConndrakaTAZM CFT 11:09, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  13. Yes While a small group, they brought a lot of fun to the PKer community and had a lot of presence in game. --Papa Johnny 13:14, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  14. Yes Without a doubt, one of the most inventive, and brilliantly done groups out there. Original and always coming up with amazing events. Not to mention every member I have met in game is a stand up person. Matt Aries 14:30, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  15. Yes - Our allies, our friends. Massive driving force in the PKA, and great guys. They'll be missed. --Blanemcc 16:37, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  16. Yes --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:36, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  17. Yes - Johnny said it best, they did a lot for Pkers in game. -- Emot-argh.gif 18:08, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  18. Yes - They meet the criteria to me. But if this is some kind of trick to get historical status and they aren't really disbanded I'll be upset.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 19:26, 22 October 2009 (BST)
    We are disbanded, but for a celebration for the two years of Pking we will be attending the Samhain Slaughter 3 [not confirmed].--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:08, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  19. Yes - As Giles, however. —Aichon— 20:59, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  20. Yes - Pretty fun group in the past --Haliman - Talk 22:33, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  21. Yes - Excellent PKers and an awesome group. Also: Frighteningly effective. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 23:38, 22 October 2009 (BST)
  22. Yes - One of the best and will be missed --Gus ThomasSpartaZHU 01:40, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  23. Yes - I'm sad to see this awesome group go. --ZsL 02:09, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  24. No - Did nothing to change the game that I ever noticed. --WanYao 03:19, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  25. Yes - --Met Fan F 03:33, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  26. Sure why not - Never heard of them, but I like PKers Cookies and Cream 07:46, 23 October 2009 (BST)
    Wow... --Obi + Talk!|TZH|MDK 21:39, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  27. No --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:54, 23 October 2009 (BST)
    Essentially, as Moloch. I don't think Flowers fit the greater picture of a historical group. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:51, 24 October 2009 (BST)
  28. Yes - Oh fuck yes. Nothing to be done! 16:38, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  29. No - I can't believe this is even being considered. These people had a flimsy gimmick and image. Their impact on the game as a whole was negligible outside of one or two internet forums, and most importantly: they haven't been around that long. --Dhavid Grohl 17:26, 23 October 2009 (BST)
    We love you to.--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:41, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  30. No- Historical on what grounds? Srs question... Sorry, I'll have to say no. --Obi + Talk!|TZH|MDK 21:39, 23 October 2009 (BST)
    Well it certainly wouldn't be based on our visits to your two groups Obi. --Hib
  31. No - I think this vote is a perfect example on how far you can get on the bandwagon. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 21:52, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  32. Yes - Cuz if there's all this butthurt over them they must have been doing their jobs right. - M arcusF ilby T 23:04, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  33. Yes - Without them, some of the biggest and best PKer strikes in Malton may never have happened. As a group they were phenomenal at racking up hundreds of kills in many different campaigns. --Toothdecay 23:34, 23 October 2009 (BST)
  34. No - I like the Flowers a lot, both as players and as people, but I don't see in what way they can genuinely be considered significant enough to be an historical group. They were all very good at what they did - probably the best 'griefing' team in the game - but to me that's not enough. Too often nowadays the historical tag is used simply to differentiate between good and bad groups, hence the number of middling groups who now bear the accolade (Ghetto Cow spring immediately to mind). Flowers of Disease were undoubtedly good, but for me an historical group needs to have made a difference to the game itself. Sadly I don't think that they achieved that, so my vote here has to be no. --Papa Moloch 00:21, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    At least you said no in a good way :D --Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 00:26, 24 October 2009 (BST)
  35. Yes - The Flowers were famous for their group tactics and warfare strategy. I can't help but see anyone saying "no" as being butthurt by the fact that either A) they'll never be in a historical group they made or B) were stomped into the ground by the Flowers. If you need proof of why they deserve historical group status, well look up Samhain Slaughter and Silent Night Slaughter. Goribus 01:18, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    If you can't see 'no' votes in any other way than those that you outline then you have a truly risible understanding of both the voters concerned and of the game itself. --Papa Moloch 01:29, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    Most of the 'no' votes come from TZH and other Pro Survivor groups that the Flowers have come in contact with. I'm also blunt, and don't give a fuck about pretending I know everything about a browser game on the internet. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but I can't help but see most, if not all, of the 'no' votes as spite. However, do correct me if I'm wrong. That's always more helpful than snide comments. Goribus 01:50, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    That you have the audacity to make, yes, a snide remark about 'snide' remarks, having posted, yes again, a snide remark ('I can't help but see anyone saying "no" as being butthurt by the fact that either A) they'll never be in a historical group they made or B) were stomped into the ground by the Flowers.') only serves to demonstrate that you are not only a poor commentator, but also something of a fool. TZH are twats (no surprise to anyone there), but Wan Yao and DDR have been around a long time and do not vote in enmity. As for me, Hibernaculum and I have been meta-game friends for a couple of years. I voted no because for me they do not fit the tag 'Historical' as they lack lasting influence. But naturally, anyone who disagrees with you must be 'butthurt' and lack any other reason for their decision, right? --Papa Moloch 02:03, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    Most =/= Moloch. I can't stress that enough. I'm sorry you decided to jump up and say "Fuck you! I'm not being spiteful" when it wasn't directed at you. It was directed at TZH, the Umbrella guy, and anyone else being spiteful. All you really had to do is say something along the lines of "I've known them for years, and I don't agree.", but no. You jump up and make a scene. And over what? You thinking some stranger on the internet thinks you're being a dick? *shrugs* Sorry man, but I think you need to calm down. You're taking shit that wasn't aimed at you personally. You know what? If you want to continue arguing let's do it on our talk pages or in PMs, or where ever. This ain't the place for it. Goribus 02:17, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    You don't have a clue about my voting motivation, so don't call me out for something you don't know about. I heard only once or twice from FOD, and I have never met any member of them. If you don't like my personal opinion then just stay away. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 16:30, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    I will say Moloch though I don't agree with you (and I think the disparity is in what we interpret is and isn't considered "historical"), I respect your opinion. At least your decision was made based on what you believe, not because you were crushed by the FOD and are still upset over it like the TZH chumps. Which is what Goribus took issue with. Lets leave it at this then and let the vote play out. My opinion is that we were not as historical as some already considered historical but more historical than others. Certainly as Pkers, I think we did enough during our time to warrant consideration. - HIB
    Everyone's interpretation of "lasting" or "Historical" is quite different from each other.I voted yes because the Flowers and Hib made a big difference to me personally as mentors.The Flowers were one group that affected my game play, and because of this, indirectly effected the game as a whole. One of the reasons LoD is growing strong as a Death Cult/PK group is because of how they played. A long time ago I watched from a distance as best as I could on how they conducted themselves. I read forum banter, watched them in game ect. to help me be a better leader. Now you could say, is this relevant or lasting? Why yes, it is to me. These votes are of a personal opinion and The Flowers of Disease made a lasting impression on me, which indirectly effected the game. In my opinion, this is well deserving of a yes vote. I am only but one voice. Freedom of opinion and an equal right to vote is Democracy. It's not perfect but it will be the ruling factor here.♥AU10♥Pantomime Mistress of Pain┌∩┐(◕‿◕)┌∩┐03:33, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    As far as I can see the formal criteria for being a historical group no longer includes having a lasting influence on the game. Is that right? --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 18:10, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    +1, Mr. Dignam.-- SA 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  36. No I don't feel the Flowers impacted my gameplay or the others around me. Therefore, I do not think they are historical. Now don't get it wrong, they were pretty amazing, but not quite historical. --RahrahCome join the #party!09:47, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    Thats because we never had to vist your groups.(Thats a good thing)--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 10:32, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    You know you sound like every other fucking trenchcoater with an over-inflated opinion of himself and his lame-assed group. Just thought I'd mentioned that....
    I never encountered your group. To me, you were nothing but a wiki page a tiny bit of hype (mostly created by your feud with fellow attention-whores, TZH). You never had any impact on the game that I play, you changed nothing and contributed nothing original to UD/Malton. So, no matter how awesome you may think your group was, they aren't historical. --WanYao 14:13, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    Everyone is entiltled to their opnion. --Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:33, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    Ahhhh, good to see we can still cause a ruckus amongst those who don't like us even when we've closed shop. Anyway, take a pill and settle down Wanny boy. Perhaps the concept of humour has escaped you but he was saying it tongue in cheek. lets get the historical definition straight since there seems to be some confusion. Here is the policy definition that is laid out on this page for obtaining historical status. Groups are added to historical groups if they have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton. So we never had any impact on the game you play? So you actually play then? And not just do your best impersonation of WOOT on Brianstock? Think on this. How many groups have actually made an impact on the way the game is played? If that's the only criteria, you better remove everyone but The DEAD. And maybe there is a place for the DEM when they are done and possibly the RRF. Thats it. The others all fall into the second category and that is otherwise contributed to the history of Malton. Now that contribution is up for debate which is what this vote is about. We earned the respect of our peers (as you can see from the votes), helped plan the 3 biggest Pker strikes in the game in the last two years, and had one of the highest, if not the highest kill count of any Pker group over that span. Basically, you really don't follow the game much if you think all we did was attack TZH. TZH was one campaign which lasted just over a month. And the hype was created by them, not us. We could care less about them but they still carry on as if it happened yesterday. I've seen your posts before at BS WAN. And it's always negative, pontificating...like the rest of us are all a bunch of dummies and your word is gospel. By your own admission, you never encountered us but yet to you we were just a wiki page and hype. Good to see you made your judgment based on the facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course. If you honestly think we aren't worthy of consideration, so be it. Vote NO. But it would be nice if the opinion would be based on some sort of fact or true belief and not just I've never encountered you but Your a lame assed group and you're just a wiki page and hype. I don't like you. Sorry Moloch. Goribus was right. Wanny's vote has as much merit as TZH's. Just another guy with an axe to grind. -- HIB
    '...possibly the RRF'? 0.o --Papa Moloch 16:37, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    I think you need to learn how to sign, before you puke out a wall of text like that.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 16:22, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    {SIGH}...Sorry Thadeous, is this better? But you are correct. That was excessive. Especially here. I'll say no more. --Hibernaculum 17:04, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    Wow. I've voted against a LOT of whiney trenchcoater groups who yelled and screamed at every No voter who wasn't willing to acknowledge their obvious greatness -- but you guys really take the take. Really, really, really sorry if your in-game antics made no difference to my gameplay or impacted the culture of Malton as far as I am concerned. Also really, really, really sorry if the only place you seem to know me from is Brainstock -- a shyte board full of shyte trolls which I never took seriously. Maybe you were big and mighty there, but as I said, I considered Brainstock a joke and treated it as such. Maybe if you'd influenced some stuff over at Barhah.com... maybe if you'd made a difference to groups like COMBAT REVIVE / The Big Prick or 404: Barhah not found... Or to events like the Second Big Bash... Maybe then I'd have voted Yes. But, you didn't... So quit whining like such butthurt morons. Oh... and your idea of focusing on PKing lame and stupid survivor groups was most certainly not original or new. --WanYao 01:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    Wan, someone made a silly joke. You came out of nowhere acting like an absolute asshole. Hib's mistake was responding to your trolling, not being "butthurt" about your vote. Nobody cares about your vote, or was interested in your description about what it would have taken to get it. You were insulting and got an unhappy response. Congratulations. If you feel the need to continue this, please do it in a manner other than a collection of insults designed to cause an internet pissing contest. --Allan Friedman 04:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    You're obviously reading a completely different thread than me... I am far from alone in thinking that FoD are not worthy of historical status and neither am I alone in my reasons for considering the nomination unjustified. Meanwhile, several of FoD supporters have been saying that those voting "No" were either personally butthurt by the group or just ignorant for not having heard of them. News flash: most of us are neither. And, if I choose to defend myself vigorously in the face of such an comments... well... if that makes me a troll... Brave for me, where's my lumpy wooden club?
    Meanwhile, seeing as a significant minority of users -- many of whom know UD very well and have been part of the communtiy for a long time -- are in agreement with me... my opinion isn't as irrelevant as you'd like to make out. Anyhooo... I'll let you go back to being a pot calling a kettle black now. Cheers and thanks for your "valuable input"! --WanYao 12:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    If you think you were defending your views, perhaps we are reading two different threads. Because in the one I'm reading, there had been exactly one negative comment made about the "no" voters when you jumped all over Michaelson. It wasn't made by him, or a member of any of his groups for that matter. So if your intent was to "defend yourself vigorously" I suggest that next time you aim your defense at somebody who has actually attacked you in some way. --Allan Friedman 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    When I used the word "thread" I meant the entire conversation taking place here. If you'd been reading this page instead of making lame attempts to insult me, you'd know exactly what I was talking about, i.e. every No voter getting called "butthurt" or "stupid" because they don't agree that FoD merit historical status. You can pretend you don't know what I'm talking about... you can pretend that I had no justification in calling out yet another egoist trenchcoater whinging and crying over someone's No vote... but the facts will be against you. --WanYao 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Christ, I knew what you meant by thread. I'll make this simple for you. On this page, this entire fucking page, there was exactly one negative generalization of the 'no' voters when you decided to attack Michaelson. That comment was not written by Michaelson. It wasn't written by a member of any of his groups. Now you have claimed repeatedly you were insulting him to defend against people lumping all the 'no' voters as butthurt. Do you seriously not see why that makes no sense?--Allan Friedman 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  37. Yes - They always seemed a little above the game as far as PKers go. One of the classier groups. Really sad to see them go. Who'll take care of all the flotsam now? RinKou 17:55, 24 October 2009 (BST)
  38. Yes Hibernaculum took out a genny for me while my PKer slept, never had the chance to return the favor. I'm a lower working-class American, that's how I vote, yo. --Bobby the Hatchet 18:06, 24 October 2009 (BST)
  39. Yes - I respect Moloch's opinion and double-checked the definition of a historical group. "Historical groups if they have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton." (right from the policy discussion of Historical Groups) Now, I have not been playing long so I cannot comment with confidence on what kind of impact FOD has had, but I have read enough about various events to know that they have helped shape things. If we consider events like the Samhain Slaughter, etc to be events worthy of note, then I think FOD qualifies as a historical group. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 19:04, 24 October 2009 (BST)
  40. Yes - simply yes. --Sir WV 19:31, 24 October 2009 (BST)
  41. Yes - History should be recorded for anything... to lose the history of a grain of sand is a tragedy, to purposefully delete the history of entire group is an atrocity. -Devorac 22:05, 24 October 2009 (BST)
  42. No - Negatory. "Good group" and "classy players" and all that noise is totally irrelevant. This is about whether or not they're historical, and... I just don't see it. - Subotei's Crotch 22:13, 24 October 2009 (BST)
    Wow, this is a great read. It seems most of the no's are from folks who never really knew the FoD or, got there asses handed to them by the FoD.I can tell you that I started this game sometime in 2005 and wandered around doing the survivor thing long enough to get to level 41, and then got bored and subsequently stopped playing for quite a while. Then one day I was logged in and doing some research and found the FoD! Oh, what a glorious day that was. I went through the process of joining the group and it was balls to the walls for around 2 years! Great folks, great PK'ers (some of them, the BEST I have ever seen) and Great fun!
    They made me a far better player and most defiantly changed the game in my eye's.--Roland 00:02, 25 October 2009 (BST)
    Can you and the other punks stop crying every time someone fucking votes against? Fact: Butthurt players ALWAYS vote against in historical nominations. Deal with it. Fact: This nomination is going to pass despite their votes, so who cares? Fact: You idiots are behaving more butthurt by retaliating to EVERY no vote with such ferocity. Just shut the fuck up and let the voting progress, sheesh. You are going to pass, stop doing it so ungraciously. It's disgusting. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:06, 25 October 2009 (BST)
    Punk? I was just posting my opinions dude! That's it you are going on my list. hehe--Roland 01:14, 25 October 2009 (BST)
    And no one cares about them, least of all the people you are aiming them at. Why not focus on having the bid pass rather than engaging in text wars with the minimal opposition? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    Sheesh dude, I was not really engaging anyone, just speaking my piece till your sorry ass showed up! Heheheh MMOGA's are many, and you are one of them. It must suck to be stuck in the basement at 37... That is all. Sorry for the tasteless crap folks.--Roland 01:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    Bringing up the very notion out of thin air that I am in a basement at 37 years old makes it more likely that you are in such a situation rather than me. And I was aiming my comments at all the morons needlessly bitching to the no voters. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    God damn. I make a simple vote an' come back a couple days later to check on things and am greeted with this? Christ. - Subotei's Crotch 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Yes- I was a member back in the day. Simply put I felt we were the best at what we did for a long time. FOD certainly helped create a unique niche in the city by means of "educating" many a group. They were "anti useless survivor" making them pro survivor in a warped kinda way. I thought that was a great angle to work from, and certainly a first. As others have mentioned Hib was vital in the planning and success of many of the cities biggest pk outings ever. I can't say to what was after I left, but as far as I know, they were still takin names and kickin ass. Are they worthy of historical status?....I think so. Bootsy funk Improperly signed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:06, 25 October 2009 (BST)
    Stop removing the strike, Roland. Improperly signed votes are not counted. Tell your friend to come back and resign it properly. Unjustly remove the strike again and I'll put you up at A/VB. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  43. No - As Moloch above. Seemed like a decent group of people, but not historical. --DonTickles 11:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  44. No -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  45. No - Although one of the better organized "griefer" groups, they weren't around long enough or did anything really noteworthy enough to be properly considered historically significant. Again, a ditto for Papa Moloch's general assessment --Fallout11 01:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  46. No - Never heard of you, and I've been around since 2005. And the best "griefer" groups were ASS and Gankbus in my book, not to mention DARIS. Superior tactics and efficiency always is nice but not enough to be considered historic. --DarthRevan 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  47. No. Moloch is a lying faggot about Ghetto Cow though. :'( -- SA 14:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  48. Yes - Absolutely. --LEt 17:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  49. Yes - I firmly and definitely believe the FOD deserves this status. --STTinywhitemask.GIFPK 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  50. No - Nothing historical and they're rather pompous. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  51. No - Mediocre group, never did anything big, mediocre goals, never really succeeded in these goals (inb4 made TZH quit, whoopedy-fucking-doo), unoriginal idea (flotsam? you copied the pknights but called the ignorant people flotsam... nice)--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  52. No - "Groups are added to historical groups if they have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton." In other words, this is simply a popularity contest. Nothing against the FOD but, as WOOT, they were a little too much like the Philosophe Knights, who really did change the way the game is played. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  53. Yes - I see most of the No voters are non-PKers who have no idea what contributions FoD have made, which tells me their vote is based on popularity instead of substance. FoD has done quite well. --Headless gunner W! 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Is it yours and a few others job to try and justify why people voted no? It doesn't matter why. There's also no reason to make comments which you have almost no evidence to back you up. The fact you use the phrase "no idea what contributions FoD have made..." tells me that they are fully entitled to vote no based on that, as, for historical staus, the group must have made an impact. If they didn't feel that impact, they why would they vote yes? --RahrahCome join the #party!19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    I see that most of the Yes voters are PKers who have no idea what contributions FoD have made, which tells me their vote is based on popularity instead of substance. More seriously, please do not accuse those who disagree with you of being ignorant simply because their are on the other side of the lines. It is just as likely that any one of the "No" votes came from an ignorant/"butthurt" survivor as it is that any of the "Yes" votes came from a PKer who just wanted to support their friends without consideration of what it means to be "historic". There's no need for all this bitching and drama going back-and-forth on account of oh who the hell am I kidding it's the Wiki. Why do I keep checking this? - Subotei's Crotch 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Well said. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Pro. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    The irony of what you said was ASTOUNDING, headless gunner. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    If you look at the first vote Nominator vote you'll see it's a Bounty Hunter, also a few other yes votes are Bounty Hunters as well. That should tell you not all Yes votes are PKers. I also agree that where the game is now there is no possible way a group can change the way the game is. So You will have to go with otherwise contributed to the history of Malton for Historical consideration. FOD although Loved by Some and Hated by others has contributed to the history of Malton. I tangled with them myself back when I first started playing the game, they contributed to my history by helping me be less trenchy as a Bounty Hunter. --Josh Clark 03:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    He was being sarcastic :|. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  54. No - I hate popularity contests. --Private Mark 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    Also - The order the votes are made in don't matter AT ALL. So don't move my ages old comment that I put a new time stamp on because it makes sense that way to conform to some sort of "order". Cocks. >: ( -- SA 15:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    OK, seriously SA? Is there a wiki 'sysop' around here to delete this stupidity? Preferably one who has some neutrality? Really, should I go and vote for myself 10 times? SA? You cast your "No" vote once. What is the problem with letting the vote play out? You keep coming back. We get it. You don't think we deserve your vote. Is it so hard to cast your "NO" and then get lost?...Oh wait! You gave a yes vote up there too! You're an Idiot.--Hibernaculum 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    LOL! I just noticed I asked for a Wiki 'sysop' to bring some order to SA's stupidy and HE IS A WIKI SYSOP! And so is DDR! I guess the deck is stacked against me then isn't it? Are you going to "WARN" me now SA because I called you an idiot? We aren't going to get a fair shake in this kangaroo court... --Hibernaculum 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Trust me. I wish there was something we could warn you for, with all your bantering and anti-sysop bullshit. Just learn that the word "please" is just as effective as spluttering random screams of injustice and treachery. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Please read it again DDR. Ok? Really read it this time instead of just flying off the handle as you like to do. It wasn't anti-sysop 'shit'. It's aimed directly at you and SA. By Kangaroo Court, I am referring to this so called 'discussion' which you two seem to have a vested interest in for whatever reason. I don't recall mentioning or otherwise saying anything about the other sysops other than I'd like one who's neutral to step in and bring some order to the proceedings. Then you desecrate my wiki talk page with not one, not two but three posts full of profane rants? I think you are the one who needs to go my friend. For your own health. Looking at your posts on my page, you take it waaaaay to seriously. Cheers DDR. --Hibernaculum 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  55. yes - I see yea votes from across the board. BH'ers, Survivors, and Pkers.. Yes, I was a member for a bit in the mid times. The FoD deserve it because they did make a difference in the way a lot of folks played the game. Take the BH nation for example.. I have no space for it , but just look it up.. The FoD did make a difference in the way folks play this game.--Roland 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  56. Yes - Is this really being put to a vote? The FOD has had a huge influence on UD!!! --Chekken 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  57. No - pretty much as Moloch. Good group, and pretty effective at what they did, but not really that historical. They haven't substantially changed the landscape of Malton, or change the way the game is played, hence the against. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  58. Yes - Simple as that. --Thomas Hayne Cutbush 17:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  59. Yes - Effective, good organised group, tis a shame they have disbanded. --Kooks 23:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Nominations

There have been no recent nominations

Previous Discussions

There are 3 archives for this page.

General Discussion

Books.jpg Things Best Forgotten
This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Succeeded

Books.jpg Things Best Forgotten
This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Failed

Books.jpg Things Best Forgotten
This Category talk page has an archive.

Historical Groups Use Discussion

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Category_talk:Historical_Groups&oldid=1591138"