In Fallout 1, the factions are the Brotherhood of Steel and The Unity (super mutant army lead by the Master). Additionally, there is Shady Sands, the town in that eventually goes on to become the center of the NCR. There are also smaller factions like the Khans and several towns and communities that make up factions of their own like Necropolis, The Hub and Junkyard. Essentially, it's the Unity versus all other factions in the wasteland. They wish to transform every single human into a super mutant, ultimately wiping out human life. The Brotherhood is a secretive faction, reluctant to initiate contact with the outside world, but their adversaries are definitely the Unity.
"Death is a preferable alternative to being added to Fortnite." *Shoots lasers from eyes*
^Yup, no one beats Frank Horrigan. This towering brute will rip your head off like it's nothing. The Master is a pretty good boss too.
I don't really know why I went with the Institute the first time. I guess they just seem like they have better plans for the future compared to the other factions. The railroad just wants to save robots, the brotherhood are weapon-hungry war mongers, and although the minutemen are just helping people, the institute is thinking of mankind as a whole. They are researching, creating new vegetation, looking at ways to restore life like it should be.
Wazer Wifle
The atmosphere.
That's an interesting idea. Image how cool it would have been to meet a group of people that have embraced medieval culture in the Fallout universe. Maybe some Skyrim-like assets and references, and some such. Maybe they'd have their base in a museum, and therefore have swords and armors.
I regret becoming bureaucrat and have considered resigning for a while. I had no idea that right after I became bureaucrat, all this drama would happen.
Bleep has been staff longer than anyone else around. He is trustworthy and good at moderation as far as I have experienced.
As you apparently left after sending your message, you may have missed Bleep's response, therefore I will recite it: "To clarify on Laat's post here. That post was made in the Overseers Desk not long before it was accidentally opened to the public. That post was also made based on evidence the admin team and BCs had collected, which at that time, led us to believe that Laat was the leaker. Since then, its become apparent that things are far more complicated than that, and we remain unsure who the actual leaker was at this time. The Admins and the BCs are very much looking at every detail." Yes, you were a suspect and there was several things pointing towards you. We were investigating all options. If you perceived it as a witch hunt, I am sorry, there is a reason we keep some things private, it was speculation at that point and the bureaucrats would never have made any moves without a solid case with solid evidence being provided.
Raider, removal of rights are done through motions of no confidence or resignations. If I do not have a good reason to file a motion of no confidence I cannot do so.
I have no idea what message you are talking about, what date did you leave the discord so I can find it? Or better yet, send it to me in any DM
If I misinterpreted your message, sorry. Last time I checked, you do not have access to the admin-only channel. We are not, as far as I can tell, plotting to nail you. You seem very offensive, trying to peg me as a 'politician'. I am trying to act diplomatically in a situation where people are at each others throats. As far as I can see you are doing quite a lot in spreading misinformation with you seemingly lying about what is taking place in admin-only chat (if you can provide proof I am happy to see it). If there really is a select group of staff wishing to remove others, please tell me who. It is an issue I'd very much like to deal with.
You say I don't act, but what exactly is it you expect me to do? Is talking not part of solving an issue? Tell me what you think I should do, right now.
To Raider: The staff have the right to question him about it, just like any other user. To propose removal of rights is something anyone has the right to at any time, it does not mean it will happen. I cannot dictate the opinions that users hold about other users.
Hm, Augustus I see you are busy at work trying to fix the gap too, great!
Do you not think it is acceptable for other members of staff to hold negative opinions about what Autumn did? It is not our legislation, and as such nothing has been done about it. But it still happened, and it was a very bad show of character. It was not done as a moderator, it was done as a person in another chat room. But still, I think it is just fair for him to be judged for it, just like anyone else would had they done the same. I think, in that specific case, he learnt from it and improved.
I would not call the staff corrupt. I recognize that users hold their personal opinions, maybe ones that may conflict with what is expected of a staff member. I expect them to leave these things at the door when they come in to "work". I don't think your rating is fair, I don't think you know most of the staff. Many simply want to edit the wiki, others want to have a good time in chat. If you are referring to any specific user in this comment, I'd tell you to consider the fact that there is more than one side to every story, not everything may always be the way it appears.
The whole wiki doesn't concern you, Laat? I don't think that is the right view to hold. You are present in the chat, you take part in that stuff. Also, even a user that only ever is on /d is affect by problems that take place in chat, because they often leak over to other parts. This is what I am talking about, we must not see the wiki as something with three parts, it has to be one. We can not have two sides opposing one another, hating one another, not really knowing what the other is up to, making dangerous assumptions.
Our judgement is based on the voice of the community, and rarely do we go against that. The votes have dictated the outcome on all requests that I've seen in my time. We put our foot down if we see it clearly that passing a vote could impact the community in a bad way, but the community nearly always sees it if a user is unfit, and votes accordingly.