Log in

View Full Version : What kind of survivor would you be?



YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 11th, 2012, 10:41 AM
Z-Day will happen someday - maybe.

So, what kind of survivor would you be?


Ringleader - you like to get involved, you love decision making & confrontations and know what is best for the group
Follower - you just want to live and keep a low profile within the group
Libertine - you know what to do and and to survive. There is no need to join a group on a regular base
Scoundrel - Z-Day is wonderful, it helped you to get rid of your burdened life with all these responsibilities. Do want you want to do, even if that means that someone else has to get the short end of the stick


Who would you be?

turbo
Dec 11th, 2012, 04:28 PM
I'd go for Ringleader but can easily follow if there is a better leader.

pinkstarmary
Dec 11th, 2012, 05:09 PM
I don't think I can handle being responsible for others, I wouldn't be able to handle the loses. But I also can't follow someone.

Osiris
Dec 11th, 2012, 07:22 PM
Scoundrel.

scbubba
Dec 11th, 2012, 08:23 PM
Ringleader until I get fed up with the whining. Then 25% libertine/75% scoundrel

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 11th, 2012, 11:29 PM
Ringleader until I get fed up with the whining. Then 25% libertine/75% scoundrel

So true. "Hey, maintenance man, stop whining!" :)

+1

7oddisdead
Dec 12th, 2012, 04:20 AM
Ringleader......of the scoundrels. (that's about a 20%/80% mix)

reaper239
Dec 12th, 2012, 06:07 AM
i get this odd feeling that i would wind up taking charge.

cPT.cAPSLOCK
Dec 12th, 2012, 06:23 AM
I'd definitely take control.

I'm convinced I can work well under pressure, and that I address problems constructively and rationally.
Additionally, I have a decent medical background and I've been told I have an air of calm and trustworthiness around me. Assuming that's true, that'd make things much easier to get people to trust my judgement and to build a community.

scbubba
Dec 12th, 2012, 06:25 AM
Looks like we're gonna have quite an interesting group around here.... :-)

Wonder if we should add another category to the poll: Redshirt :D

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 12th, 2012, 07:49 AM
A mild variant of redshirt would be bullet catcher -> or: Saul

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 12th, 2012, 09:38 AM
A mild variant of redshirt would be bullet catcher -> or: Saul

It is indeed interesting that anybody voted "Follower". Is it even possible for an all-Burt-group to survive, an all-ringleader-group so to speak?

Osiris
Dec 12th, 2012, 10:22 AM
Burt is not a ringleader.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 12th, 2012, 10:29 AM
Burt is not a ringleader.

My fault, he is not. What about a group of Michaels?

Osiris
Dec 12th, 2012, 10:54 AM
My fault, he is not. What about a group of Michaels?

A group of Michaels wouldn't be much of a Ringer leader group either. They would be followers. Ringleaders would be guys like Kimmet, Durai, that fuck from the colony... etc. They take control right out the gate. Michael always seemed so reluctant. Sure he made decisions, but he seemed like he was doing it simply out of necessity.

reaper239
Dec 12th, 2012, 11:02 AM
A group of Michaels wouldn't be much of a Ringer leader group either. They would be followers. Ringleaders would be guys like Kimmet, Durai, that fuck from the colony... etc. They take control right out the gate. Michael always seemed so reluctant. Sure he made decisions, but he seemed like he was doing it simply out of necessity.

honestly, that's the kind of leader you want. a good leader doesn't neccessarily want to lead, they do it because someone has too. anyone who is too eager to lead tends to corrupt easily. they turn abusive, and restrictive.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 12th, 2012, 11:03 AM
Hhmm, you are probably right. However, it is a shame that Durai was not prominently featured on the show. He had some dialog in "The War" but besides that... I expected him to act more prudently / canny when he had a go at Scratch at the colony. Has he really been a ringleader at all? Or was he just Scratch's puppet?

Osiris
Dec 12th, 2012, 11:16 AM
honestly, that's the kind of leader you want. a good leader doesn't neccessarily want to lead, they do it because someone has too. anyone who is too eager to lead tends to corrupt easily. they turn abusive, and restrictive.

Perhaps it's the leader you want.

Osiris
Dec 12th, 2012, 11:19 AM
Hhmm, you are probably right. However, it is a shame that Durai was not prominently featured on the show. He had some dialog in "The War" but besides that... I expected him to act more prudently / canny when he had a go at Scratch at the colony. Has he really been a ringleader at all? Or was he just Scratch's puppet?

I don't think that he was really Scratch's puppet. She certainly has her own agenda, that much is perfectly clear to anyone with ears and that has successfully completed the second grade. Durai still held the reins right up until he... well... didn't.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 12th, 2012, 11:51 AM
Latch and Scratch introduced him in their dialogues as someone that they feared and had to meet with respect. But naaaa, he was not


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GPLFg38St4

KHAAN !!!!

Osiris
Dec 12th, 2012, 11:57 AM
It's entirely possible that Latch feared him. I maintain that Scratch fears nothing... except maybe spiders.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 12th, 2012, 12:00 PM
Come on Osiris, at least she fears that she cannot have her revenge on Pegs, regarding her current level of knowledge.

Osiris
Dec 12th, 2012, 12:07 PM
Come on Osiris, at least she fears that she cannot have her revenge on Pegs, regarding her current level of knowledge.

:hsugh: She's not afraid of that at all. She knows that she's going to get Pegs. You'll see.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 12th, 2012, 12:17 PM
:hsugh: She's not afraid of that at all. She knows that she's going to get Pegs. You'll see.

I'll take you up on that. By the way, as Pegs is a floriste, Scratch will not simply kill her, she probably will deflower her. Sorry, bad joke.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 12th, 2012, 12:24 PM
Back to topic, does not every group need a descent amount of followers in order to work?

Osiris
Dec 12th, 2012, 12:43 PM
No, I don't believe that a group needs to be large in order to function well. It simply needs to be well-trained and prepared. Armies require mass in order to function properly. Groups (small groups) do not even require leadership in order to function well. Again that leads back to proper training and preparation. Working towards a goal does not require anyone pointing the way.

LiamKerrington
Dec 12th, 2012, 02:34 PM
With so many leaders and scoundrels around, this might become challenging. But, yeah, sure: follower - more likely then any other of the remaining three options.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 13th, 2012, 12:39 PM
No, I don't believe that a group needs to be large in order to function well. It simply needs to be well-trained and prepared. Armies require mass in order to function properly. Groups (small groups) do not even require leadership in order to function well. Again that leads back to proper training and preparation. Working towards a goal does not require anyone pointing the way.

I have to disagree - at least to a certain degree. I think that there are always the same laws of group dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics) involved when a new group is formed. In WA, we were dealing with a quite heterogeneous back in season 1. Most of the people were not trained and prepared. And there was not just one goal. At the moment, it was crucial that Michael took the lead. His to-do-list was processed - fortify and clear the tower, water, electricity, food, supplies, recon on the enemy. Without the leadership skills plus Saul and Angel at his side who excepted that he had the final word - it would have been a mess. They would not have made it.

LiamKerrington
Dec 13th, 2012, 03:06 PM
And there was not just one goal. At the moment, it was crucial that Michael took the lead. His to-do-list was processed - fortify and clear the tower, water, electricity, food, supplies, recon on the enemy.

Well ... it is one goal. This does not change, if you explode it and list all the details that need to be done; these are just minor achievements in order to get to the safe haven.
I also wonder if the group dynamics within the Tower-folks are comparable to what you have with a group of, let's say, just three or four or maybe up to six or seven dudes ...

LiamKerrington
Dec 13th, 2012, 03:07 PM
And look, what did I do? Did I break the ice? All of a sudden there are three followers! Awesome.

scbubba
Dec 14th, 2012, 08:07 AM
No, I don't believe that a group needs to be large in order to function well. It simply needs to be well-trained and prepared. Armies require mass in order to function properly. Groups (small groups) do not even require leadership in order to function well. Again that leads back to proper training and preparation. Working towards a goal does not require anyone pointing the way.

I agree here. I'm a proponent of small, skilled groups getting things done. A lot of people mistake decision-making with leadership. They often go hand-in-hand but do not have to be. How ever the decision on the goal gets made, the small, organized, cohesive group can get it done.

The bigger the group gets, the harder it is to function in this small group way. I've not had any experience in "life-or-death-survival" situations but I have done it in start-up businesses before (and currently). I'll take the small, dedicated, skilled group in those situations every time....

Luna Guardian
Dec 14th, 2012, 10:38 AM
A touch of everything :D

A ringleader in the beginning until I get tired of people being idiots, then I turn into a Libertine. After a while and the chaff has been weeded out, I'd enjoy the Scoundrel life and make myself a nice little life. And when shit finally starts getting organized, I'd join the community and make a happy life for myself. Maybe get involved in running the community, as a minor Ringleader.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 14th, 2012, 11:34 AM
A touch of everything :D

A ringleader in the beginning until I get tired of people being idiots, then I turn into a Libertine. After a while and the chaff has been weeded out, I'd enjoy the Scoundrel life and make myself a nice little life. And when shit finally starts getting organized, I'd join the community and make a happy life for myself. Maybe get involved in running the community, as a minor Ringleader.

A minor ringleader. Nice.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 14th, 2012, 11:39 AM
I agree here. I'm a proponent of small, skilled groups getting things done. A lot of people mistake decision-making with leadership. They often go hand-in-hand but do not have to be. How ever the decision on the goal gets made, the small, organized, cohesive group can get it done.

The bigger the group gets, the harder it is to function in this small group way. I've not had any experience in "life-or-death-survival" situations but I have done it in start-up businesses before (and currently). I'll take the small, dedicated, skilled group in those situations every time....

I concur, decision-making and leadership are two separate things, often mistaken for being one single entity. However, I think that Michael can do both.

Privateer
Dec 14th, 2012, 03:00 PM
As always, Not One is not on the list. I think I'd be a mite arrogant even assuming I'd make it. :P

LiamKerrington
Dec 14th, 2012, 06:58 PM
5 followers ... Awesome.

scbubba
Dec 14th, 2012, 10:30 PM
As always, Not One is not on the list. I think I'd be a mite arrogant even assuming I'd make it. :P

Maybe if you just fell in with the right ring leader and not any of those scoundrels... :-)

FelixTheLastJumper
Dec 14th, 2012, 11:59 PM
As embarrassed as I am to say it I'd be a follower, with a bit of scoundrel in me. Good for a fight and calm under pressure. If it happens after or during my paramedic training and such I could see falling into a more leader like position. I'd always have a scoundrel streak in me.

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 15th, 2012, 02:02 AM
As embarrassed as I am to say it I'd be a follower, with a bit of scoundrel in me. Good for a fight and calm under pressure. If it happens after or during my paramedic training and such I could see falling into a more leader like position. I'd always have a scoundrel streak in me.

Felix, there is no need to feel embarrassed, because there is no right or wrong answer to the poll. I voted for Follower as well, probably with a scoundrel streak as well - just waiting for the right moment to be activated when a Coup d'État is about to happen. :p

Luna Guardian
Dec 15th, 2012, 05:29 AM
As embarrassed as I am to say it I'd be a follower, with a bit of scoundrel in me. Good for a fight and calm under pressure. If it happens after or during my paramedic training and such I could see falling into a more leader like position. I'd always have a scoundrel streak in me.

Leaders are only as good as their followers, there's no shame or embarrassment in being a follower. Hell, if someone knows what they're doing, I'd be perfectly happy following them, less stress for me :D

scbubba
Dec 15th, 2012, 06:15 AM
As embarrassed as I am to say it I'd be a follower, with a bit of scoundrel in me. Good for a fight and calm under pressure. If it happens after or during my paramedic training and such I could see falling into a more leader like position. I'd always have a scoundrel streak in me.

Follower doesn't mean "less valuable" it just means you're in a different job than the leader. Without followers, there is no leader. There is no shame in not being a "leader" and a really good leader will utilize the strengths of the followers and not try to do it all himself.

LiamKerrington
Dec 15th, 2012, 07:17 AM
What about solitary people with split personalities?

YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Dec 15th, 2012, 07:26 AM
What about solitary people with split personalities?

Are you talking of the ordinary "nine voices inside my head tell me that I am sane, one hums the A-Team theme" type of guy?

scbubba
Dec 15th, 2012, 08:48 AM
What about solitary people with split personalities?

I think I will be fine. And so will I. :-)

yarri
Dec 15th, 2012, 06:39 PM
Ringleader......of the scoundrels. (that's about a 20%/80% mix)

I'd follow you.

HorrorHiro
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:51 AM
Liberator - free people from oppressors (like the original Colony situation)

scbubba
Dec 16th, 2012, 10:12 AM
Liberator - free people from oppressors (like the original Colony situation)

By yourself or with a team?

DeadMen_Walking
Dec 17th, 2012, 04:19 PM
I'd like to say ring leader, but that may be too big of a pain in the ass. Can't I be an advisor? Like a Consigliere in the Mafia? The brains behind the power...Ah, screw it. Scoundrel with a heart of gold is my answer. lol

reaper239
Dec 18th, 2012, 07:41 AM
I agree here. I'm a proponent of small, skilled groups getting things done. A lot of people mistake decision-making with leadership. They often go hand-in-hand but do not have to be. How ever the decision on the goal gets made, the small, organized, cohesive group can get it done.

The bigger the group gets, the harder it is to function in this small group way. I've not had any experience in "life-or-death-survival" situations but I have done it in start-up businesses before (and currently). I'll take the small, dedicated, skilled group in those situations every time....

i also (somewhat) agree, small groups are the best way to maintain effeciency, however, large groups are capable of managing large projects that small groups would have no way of undertaking. large groups can be easily managed by turning them into small groups and assigning each small group a task in the larger project. i go into this a bit in my survivor colony manifesto mock up (would it be called a manifesto? not sure) which you can find here (http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/showthread.php?72-If-all-hell-broke-loose-right-now-what-would-you-do&p=46549&viewfull=1#post46549) by scrolling down to post 270. i welcome further discussion on the topic of small v large groups.

also, in small group dynamics, there are naturally leaders and followers. by introducing the idea early on of shared governance, you can make living and working together much more manageable, simply by virtue of removing some aspects of tyranny, but in a clutch, snap decisions will always be deffered to the groups natural leader.