Free Allegiance Forums

Okay, I've been talking with TE for a while and we came up with the current page. "Why create" was removed, as was "Links". The rules part was bumped to the top (if you don't follow the rules, you don't get a squad period) and the advice part within distributed to the other advice sections. The "Look at me" part of DooM was removed, but the good advice (third paragraph) was kept. Its now strictly advice on how to create a squad. History and crap like that can go in a different page. I'll be contacting Striker, MadAcc, and Badger regarding advice starting a squad.

TB

Added quote markup but for some reason it killed the heading for Rolling Thunder, I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Looks like wiki doesn't handle quote bbcode very well. If you stick any more quotes in (Steel Fury, for example) more headings will be killed. It's like it doesn't recognise the end of the quote properly, and it's messing up the section.

It's reading it as though you typed in
==heading==

quote ==heading== another quote

==heading==


Obviously it's not gonna header something which is in the middle of the paragraph, it just treats it like text.

Hmm, I'll revert it back on Monday unless someone finds a solution then, bizzare.

Well, that was a fun puzzle. For now, its h4x'd until the bug is removed.

TB

Why does the quotes section of this page lead with a quote about a squad that never officially formed? Irrespective of the circumstances, surely that quote shouldn't be there?

Hey guys,

I just read this page recently and noticed the rather arrogant-sounding opinion included in this page.

Can we try to keep the content in the wiki based on fact and not based on opinion?

Yes, I know that new players really should believe us when we say "Don't advertise your squad in a new thread," but despite that fact, it sounds really bad for us to say "Publicity. You don't want it. Really, you don't."

Can we remove these insulting implications and replace them with suggestions and reasons?

"Publicity. Although your first instinct may be to advertise your fledgling squad as much as possible, this may not be the best course of action. In the past, there have been very immature players who have attempted to create a squad creating a backlash from the community against them. Since then, anyone who attempts to create a new squad is greeted with resurrected jokes insulting both the proposed squad and the aspiring squad founder. Because of this, be advised that you may encounter unexpected resistance to your new squad no matter how honorable your intentions are. The best recommendation is to PM players directly ingame, and quietly gather your 15 players."

That may be too wordy, but it doesn't insult the reader.

Thanks,

--TE

Done. Much better IMO TE.

I rephrased the first paragraph to underline the spirit under which each criterion is requested and what recognised squadrons get that unrecognised squads don't.

Please revise/revert.

I've rewritten your bit Bp. Mostly to tidy the language (it's recognition rather than recognisation btw /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> ) and search and replace squadron with squad. Whilst squadron is technically correct the word squad is in far more common usage within Allegiance (I think only SF use squadron).

Can someone (BV/TE most likely) look at the rules because I've confused myself a bit with this one as to what requirements are needed to get tag, forum, OC access and so on.