UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Saromu and Vandr vs Ioncannon11 and Kikashie

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Sonny Corleone and Vandr versus Ioncannon11 and Kikashie

Ioncannon and Kikashie are trying to rewrite history to their likings for propaganda. Kikashie states that survivors won the battle because their goal was "to defend". Unfortunately that goal is retarded since there is no way to fail. If goals were really like that then the French should have claimed the Battle of Paris a victory despite being killed, destroyed, and taken over. The Coalition forces have killed well over 200 enemies while the survivors barely did 75 kills. Kikashie states that because we did not drive Garviel from his group we lsot, when it was stated that wasn't a serious demand.

To make thigns short, I want Kikashie and Ioncannon banned from rewriting the page to their liking and keeping the result as "Clear PKer Victory".

I will accept the following as Arbitatortots:

  • Grim_s
  • Bobs_aturd
  • AnimeSucks
  • Hagnat
  • The Surgeon General
  • Akule
  • thekooks
  • Kristi of the Dead
  • Karek

--Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 04:38, 29 May 2008 (BST)

<schoolkid>Ooh! Ohh! Pick me! Pick me! I am ever so fair!</schoolkid> --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:41, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I'll have to go talk with Ion about a common arbitrator. But, theoretically, what happens if we don't agree on the ones that sonny chose? Also, again theoretically, what happens If neither of us want to do an arby case? NOTE: I'd really like it if someone other than Sonny answered me here. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 04:52, 29 May 2008 (BST)
heh. Funny you should ask. Ol' Grimmy pulled that one once, he rejected every single arbitrator that offered. I can't actually recall what happened but i'm sure theres others who remember. Also i can't remember if that loophole was closed...i'll go check the archives.--xoxo 05:44, 29 May 2008 (BST)
UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Jon_Pyre_vs_Grim_S - He rejected every arbitrator and it seems that Jon took him to A/M over the issue and it was ruled non-misconduct. Anyone know if the hole was patched? While i'm here i might as well offer to arby.--xoxo 05:47, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Thanks for the info, bud. In that case, I will only accept Ottari as an arbitrator. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 05:56, 29 May 2008 (BST)
If you're not willing to work out the issue you should be forewarned that it may be settled without you and your opinion on the matter may end up disregarded as it's a community page. You're gonna end up settling it one way or another, and odds are if it's not here it will turn into a shit slinging contest.--Karekmaps?! 06:02, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Also, failing to resolve an edit conflict through arbies (Which this is) as opposed to a personality conflict in my case J3D linked to will support the other side in any cases they bring against you for perpetuating the edit conflict on A/VB. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:07, 29 May 2008 (BST)
All I wanted to do was settle it. All I did was change Sonny's edit of "Clear PKer Victory" to "Disputed" and posted my opinion about it on the talk page. Then he changes it back to "Clear PKer Victory", makes derogatory comments about me and Ion, puts us up for vandalism, and starts this stupid arby case. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 06:09, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Going through the motions of the arbies case should put the thing to an end, this case would be where you and Sonny can express your views to a third party who can decide with something definitive.--Karekmaps?! 06:15, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Is it possible to have more than one arbitrator? --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 06:20, 29 May 2008 (BST)
and have them disagree and create an arby case with each other and the two parties? Nope. The whole point is all the power lies with one agreed upon community member who has total authority regarding the ruling.--xoxo 06:22, 29 May 2008 (BST)
If it were done in such a manner there would have to be a method of majority decision, which probably wouldn't be too clean. However I doubt it will, can, or should be done in that manner, choosing an arbitrator is meant to be the first thing both sides come to a compromise with, there are plenty of reasons for it including that it makes both sides agree on something and that it makes both sides choose someone they both trust to make a good decision on the matter.--Karekmaps?! 06:27, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Right. Sonny, what would you say to AHLG as an arbitrator? --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 06:29, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Oops. It appears AHLG isn't on the list anymore. I'll accept J3D as an arbitrator then. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 06:55, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I actually haven't been on the list ever, although if anyone wants me to arbitrate or help out, that'd be fine. --  AHLGTG 18:40, 29 May 2008 (BST)
These are the people Sonny said he'd accept:
  • Grim_s
  • Bobs_aturd
  • AnimeSucks
  • Hagnat
  • The Surgeon General
  • Akule
  • thekooks
  • Kristi of the Dead
  • Karek
You want my opinion? Go for Kristi of the Dead. She won't be biased in this. --PerpetuallyDead 12:43, 29 May 2008 (BST)
You want my opinion? Never accept anyone Sonny nominates... knowing their connections is what the Mafia do -- boxy talki 12:49 29 May 2008 (BST)
Nah, sonny threw a couple of decent folk in there, Myself and Karek for example. The rest are redrum buddies, or hagnat. We all know hagnat. Personally, i think sonny is a troll, and i think ioncannon11 is a troll, so your pretty much even, though being a troll doesnt in any way invalidate anyones opinion or undermine the strength of their arguments. If selected, i promise to put in a lot of hard work in finding out the truth of the matter and deciding accordingly. FYI, Sonny did contact me earlier and asked me to rule on the A/VB cases and i told him to come here instead and have the page protected for the duration. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:55, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Kristi isn't on the "Available Arbitrators" list. I said I'd accept J3D as, unlike most of the people on Sonny's list, he volunteered to do it. That and like Boxy said, I wouldn't accept anyone Sonny nominated anyway. But we still have yet to hear from Ion. This is more of his case than mine, as he actually changed the "Disputed" to "Survivor Victory" or something. Again, all I did was change Sonny's "Clear PKer Victory" back to "Disputed". The real reason I'm going to follow through on this is because he aimed derogatory comments at me and wrongfully reported me for vandalism --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 13:04, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I'm hurt -emo cuts- --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 13:07, 29 May 2008 (BST)
*sniff* I... never *sniff* get... to... be... *sniff* arbitrator... --/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 18:36, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I'm not a fan of the derogatory comments, and know nothing about vandalism reports. I'm just in this because both "Disputed" and "Survivor Victory" results of this are ridiculous considering what happened in Gibsonton. --Vandr 18:54, 29 May 2008 (BST)
here, If you're curious. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 20:10, 29 May 2008 (BST)
You do not need to be on the list of Arbitatortots to be one. That's only there to give you an idea. I picked people I know who will look at the facts. It's not my fault I happen to be friends with a lot of level headed people and not people who should be inspected for holes in their heads. Pick one of the arbitatortots I posted because I'm not picking anyone I know can't make an unbiased opinion, even if it's in my favor. (Grim was picked because despite him hating me for trolling he'll pick whichever side makes the most sense.) --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 20:42, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I will accept J3D as arbitrator for this case. If he doesn't wish to do it, I'd like Seventythree or Funt Solo. All those listed either have a personal connection to the case (such as Ottari) or dislike me for my previous vandalism. These hee, I have found, are very neutral and unbiased wiki members however. I think that they would make great arbitrators. I'd like to add that, although I believe it was an Imperium victory, I will accept disputed status because the other side disagrees with my interpretation. It is, however, certainly not a clear-cut Imperium Must Die victory. The fight was a long one, with many taunts and insults, and this is just a last-ditch attempt by Saromu to keep some decency for whatever happened. He was shamefully destroyed and battered, despite having most of the kills, and doesn't want to admit it because this is the first major defeat on his amazing record. And that hurts a lot, I'd think. Ioncannon11 20:42, 29 May 2008 (BST)
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha...haha...har... I know Saromu, he's a smart guy, and I'm pretty sure he won't pick J3D. I'd just take Grim on this one, he's an ass, but a fair ass... that's why I love him.--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 20:48, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I hope you burn in hell for actually making me read that stupidity. No I will not accept those three. As Karek said, this is gettign settled one way or the other and I don't feel any of those will settle anything. Pick one of mine. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 20:54, 29 May 2008 (BST)
All of your arbitrators are biased. Ioncannon11 20:59, 29 May 2008 (BST)
No. Being smart and you being retarded doesn't make them biased. It makes you retarded...and wrong. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 21:02, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Riiight, cause Karek, Hagnat, Grim, and KotD are SSSOOO biased towards Son-Bun *rolleyes*--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 21:05, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Kristi of the Dead is leader of the DEM, a survivor group that runs the RG (just in case you weren't aware). Karek, Hagnat, and I don't get along well...well, they don't like me at least because of my earlier vandalism. Ioncannon11 21:09, 29 May 2008 (BST)
The DEM does not run the RG. (Former RG mod -->) --Vandr 21:10, 29 May 2008 (BST)
That's a long list of people--I find it hard to believe that they could all be biased against you. If it makes you feel better, several of those listed yelled at me during my last vandalism propaganda campaign.
I don't know any of the people you've suggested as arbs, Ion, and I'm not trusting this to someone whose judgment I haven't yet seen in action.--Vandr 21:15, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Oh dear lord...and people always wonder why I win Arby's cases. It's not because people are biased towards me. It's because everyone I face in Arby's is legally retarded...or should be declared legally retarded. If you do not know that DEM =/= RG then do not even mention them. Yolu odn't get along with the rest of them because they are all smart people...and you're not. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 21:16, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I offer to arbitrate. Both Sonny and Ioncannon annoy me equally and I have had no dealings with either Vandr or Kikashie so I'm pretty much unbiased. -- Cheese 21:20, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I have already suggested a list of those I'd like to be arbies. Ioncannon11 21:23, 29 May 2008 (BST)
And you list was the equivalent of shouting "HUUUURRRRRRRRR" in a public place. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 21:25, 29 May 2008 (BST)
*HeadDesk*--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 21:28, 29 May 2008 (BST)
If I were you I'd pick either AnimeSucks (who's a friend of the DA and DORIS), KotD (who's a survivor and unbiased), or Grim (who hates both of us equally). --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 21:31, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I can guarantee that Sonny will not accept J3D, Funt or 73. In fact, I will wager 14 jars of Mango Chutney and a Haggis on that fact. -- Cheese 21:32, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I'm cool with AnimeSucks and Grim. Ioncannon11 21:32, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I'm fine with either Anime or Grim. --Vandr 21:34, 29 May 2008 (BST)

but in all seriousness, I would accept the arbitrot nomination simply because I would be most unbiased, since I personally excluded myself from the Invasion, and I have actually made a personal alliance with the Dulston Alliance with Druboo.. Also, I think Banana, and Akule (especially Akule) would make good arbitrators.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 21:33, 29 May 2008 (BST)

On second thought, I pick Nubis. Ioncannon11 21:35, 29 May 2008 (BST)
This is gonna take a while I think. -- Cheese 21:37, 29 May 2008 (BST)
No kidding. I can see this getting a Part II because Ion isn't smart enough to know how Arby's works and ends up ruining his own case. Ion, pick a damn person. I know Nubis and he won't bother taking the time for Arby's. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 21:39, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I accept the following:

  • Airborne88
  • Funt Solo
  • Seventythree
  • Nubis
  • Aklue

Ioncannon11 21:41, 29 May 2008 (BST)

What the heck? We just had a consensus and you go and change your mind? Way to compromise. --Vandr 21:42, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I'll accept Akule from that list. Just need Vandr and Kikashie to agree too. And Airborne=Ioncannon=Weedhomie=other trolls on brainstock. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 21:43, 29 May 2008 (BST)
All right, I'm fine with Akule. --Vandr 21:45, 29 May 2008 (BST)
As am I. At the very least he'll make it interesting, heh. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 21:49, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I'll accept if you want me to arbitrate. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:52, 29 May 2008 (BST)
That's all four of us, and Akule's said yes, so I think we're good. --Vandr 21:57, 29 May 2008 (BST)
So wait, he's accepting himself as arbitrator? I better recuse myself from the list because I remember Ioncannon now from the brainstock, and how many times we've had to ban his accounts--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 21:46, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I am not airborne88, and any sysop will tell you that with a simple chkuser or WHOIS website. Yeah, I'm a brainstock/DEM hater. I enjoy spamming/trashing their forums as all the mods are total dumasses, Kristi excluded. Ioncannon11 21:50, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Which might explain why you and I are getting along so swimmingly... --Vandr 21:56, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Arbitration Start

Opening Statements

So, since Sonny and Vandr are the ones who brought the case forth, they will be presenting their grievances in their opening argument first, then Ion and Kikashie will make their case in their opening arguments. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:36, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Sonny Corleone and Vandr

Sonny's Opening Statement

Ladies and gentlemen of Arby's, I am once again here not because of my love for Roastbeef sandwiches, no matter how much I love their special BBQ sauce on them, it is because I once again find myself in argument with someone who has no regards for intelligence and accuracy. This current issue is about the recent Invasion of Gibsonton. Now the argument is not about who won the war but censorship over the victory. These are the facts of the fight:

The battle started April 29th by myself and quickly grew with DORIS, Red Rum, and the Philosophe Knights soon joining. At first it was just us vs. the Imperium but then the Gibsonton Nationals and Dulston Alliance joined too.

Victories for the Coalition (nickname for those in the Imperium Must Die organization) came rather quickly. Within days the Imperium admitted to retreating from the suburb. There was also accusations of them zerging and spying (as seen in a post on Brainstock that I sadly cannot find, but ask all who viewed it for confirmation). Then there is the list of our kills (by me and 2 others) as well as Redrum kills. These lists exclude, for the most part, random shootings, the Philosophe Knights list, the first 2 weeks of the battle before we made it an official event to keep track of kills, and a recent kill list after these were posted. After counting up most of the kills we had on forums, irc, and the wiki we stopped at around 210-220 and did not continue. I felt it was enough when we looked at our casualties. In total Coalition forces suffered around 60 something reported deaths and revive requests. We upped their numbers another 15 and added a plus sign because we have to account for those that did not report deaths (although those that remain mostly out of conflict is a very small minority around 5). When looking at these facts alone it makes it clear the PKer had a clear victory. The Imperium retreated, the GN disbanded, the Imperium were caught using unfair tactics, and the Coalition killed 8 of them for every 3 dead.

But this is where the Arby's case comes in. After a full month of fighting we have found less and less Imperium in the suburb and less and less randoms to shoot. We have emptied every building at least once with the exception of a hospital and PD. To be honest we ran out of targets. There was a time where Coalition forces slept for days in the suburb while our enemies tried to fight in other suburbs. It was pathetic. Our goal was to drive the Imperium out of Gibsonton, we did it. We had nothing left to do except collect ammo and shoot at an Imperium every 2-3 days. So on the 27th I said on the 29th we're leaving. At first the Imperium and DA called it a fair fight and admitted to it being hard for them (because they got their shit rocked). But that's not what they said on the wiki. Garviel Loken edited the Invasion of Gibsonton page and said that the Survivors had won. Ioncannon, one of the defendants, said it was a "Imperium/Allied Alliances Victory". Due to the silliness of this statement it was changed by The Surgeon General until I went over all the facts I provided above and changed it to a more accurate description. Ioncannon once again changed it to "Imperium/Allied Victory". I changed it back, Kikashie get's involved, Vandr provides proof, and I change it back to reflect said proof. From their it was protected and brought to Arby's.

The Imperium and DA believe they won this conflict because their goals were nothing more than to "Defend" and "kill pkers". These goals are both vague and unlosable. The wiki is based off of truth (or at least it tries to) and not opinion. It is their opinion that they won because they goals were met. My goal could have been to eat a turkey sandwich once a week during the war, but that does not mean I win the battle...it means I had a turkey sandwich once a week...and probably enjoyed it. Their goals are similar to both real war and sports. If a Frenchman claims to have won WWII because the French fought and that's all that matters he would most likely not be taken seriously. Sure they fought but they also died, were defeated, and kicked out. Now when you look at sports you see little league teams and the couch always saying, "It's not about winning, it's about having fun." Sure that's a good goal if your team sucks but in the real world it doesn't. If having fun meant victory then T.O. wouldn't have cried because of Romo. Having fun is not a goal for winning, it's a goal for making you feel good about yourself when everyone else thinks you're horrible. The DA and Imperium also believe they won because our "goals" were not met. The goals I posted were nothing more than Sotuh Park jokes and demands that Garviel get's kicked out. If those goals are to be taken seriously then I have some snake oil I'd like to sell you, infact I got two for you. Our goal is stated on the top of the Imperium Must Die page "The Imperium Must Die is a PKer event to grief the everliving shit out of The Imperium." We did succeed in that goal, though it doesn't matter because that isn't a battle, the battle was who kills the most and controls the area.

To cut this down short the Coalition kicked the everliving shit out of the Imperium and the Dulston Alliance. We provided proof and the overall situation of Gibsonton reflects that. We feel that the DA and Imperium have decided to spew this stupidity for propaganda reasons. The wiki states any edit made in bad faith is vandalism. Spreading lies to decieve people into believing something untrue is bad faith and thus vandalism. What do we want from this case? We want Kikashie and Ioncannon banned from editing the outcome and results of the war on that page, the Gibsonton page, and any other page other than their group page since that does not need to be in NPOV format. We also want the Invasion of Gibsonton page to reflect the Clear PKer Victory. Finally we want Ioncannon to be brought up on Vandalism charges for his role in vandalizing the wiki for propaganda purposes. (Not Kikashie who has tried to keep it biased but not as biased as Ioncannon that borders on madness.)

Thank you and have a nice day.

--Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 04:33, 30 May 2008 (BST)


Vandr's Opening Statement

  • Stands from behind the Plaintiff's desk, pours himself a glass of water*

What does it mean to win? How do we define a "winner"? That is the issue before us, ladies and gentlemen of Arbitration. dictionary.com would have us believe that "to win" means (among other things) "to overcome an adversary," "to be successful in (a game, a battle, ect.)," and "to get by effort, as through labor, competition, or conquest." All of which are applicable to the current situation. All of which would give the advantage to the PKer Coalition.

  • Sips his water thoughtfully*

The Defendants would have you believe that they won the conflict--and they would have you believe this for a single reason only: that we (the Coalition) allegedly did not achieve our goals. They would say that, despite the kill counts, our goals were not achieved and therefore we lost. They point to a list, allegedly posted by Sonny, calling for things such as "Gavriel Loken's expulsion from the Imperium" and "The Imperium's evacuation from Gibsonton" and similar ridiculous demands, claiming that these were the Coalition's goals in the conflict.

This reasoning is fallacious on several fronts. Firstly, anyone who looks at that post will note that these demands (the expulsion of Gavriel Loken, ect) were Terms of Surrender, not Goals of the Conflict. If one is looking for the Goals of the Conflict, one need look no further than this post. Secondly, as a way of insulting and mocking the Imperium, many facetious Terms of Surrender were offered, some far more ludicrous than Sonny's, none of which were expected to be taken seriously. Thirdly, even if these ridiculous demands had been the Coalition's Goals of the Conflict, would failure to meet them really outweigh such an overwhelming disparity in casualties on the respective sides?

In the film Braveheart, the protagonist William Wallace enters negotiations with the English army, with the stated goal that he is "off to pick a fight." During the negotiations, he offers the English several Terms of Surrender, the last of which is that the English commander must bend over and kiss his own arse. Perhaps predictably, the English refuse the terms, and battle ensues. Wallace's Scottish army crushes the English. But the English commander never kissed his own arse. Does this then mean that Wallace lost, simply because one of his Terms of Surrender was not met? Of course not!

  • slams his glass of water down on the Plaintiff's desk for emphasis, sloshing a few drops on the surface*

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Coalition's Goals of the Conflict can be found right here or here. In the first location, the Goals are stated as being "all PKers head to Gibsonton and kill as many Imperium noobs as possible." No mention of Loken leaving the Imperium was made. In the second location, the goals are stated as being "grief the everliving shit out of The Imperium." Again, No mention of Loken leaving the Imperium. No Terms of Surrender should be understood as being the Coalition's true goals.

  • strides away from the desk and turns dramatically to face the crowd*

Ladies and gentlemen, I personally fought in this conflict, on the side of the Coalition. I killed seven Imperium members and was only killed by the Imperium once. (Once more by Lord Alpharius, once by a member of the Dulston Alliance, and twice more by uninvolved bounty hunters who happened to be in the area.) I spoke with my brother PKers in the conflict and this is what I saw and heard: the Imperium put up little to no resistance. They fled Gibsonton rather than stand and fight; when found, they died in droves. There were days when I searched almost every building in the suburb, without glimpsing a single Imperium member. It was not until the arrival of the Dulston Alliance that the Coalition even faced so much as a challenge, and even then we were killing them more than they were killing us.

The full extent of Imperium casualties are not known: we have the Red Rum records and Cancerous Ordo's records but not those of other involved PKer groups. Nevertheless, the partial records we have are more than twice as great as the recorded PKer deaths in this conflict.

  • turns to point his finger at the Defendant's Desk*

The Defendants will claim that they met their Goals for this Conflict. However, their stated Goals are vague and almost impossible to meet: that is, to outlast the PKer onslaught and to survive. In a game when neither death nor zombiehood is permanent, it is almost impossible not to survive. And outlasting the onslaught is only a matter of time. Thus I feel that these alleged Goals are not indicative of a survivor victory.

Therefore, I submit to you that this conflict ended in a Clear PKer Victory, for the following reasons:

  1. A clear and decisive disparity between number of the Imperium Killed and number of Killed by the Imperium;
  2. A clear and decisive disparity between number of the Imperium's Allies Killed and number of Killed by the Imperium's Allies;
  3. Completion of the Coalition's stated Goals of the Conflict (i.e. to kill Imperium members a lot)
  4. The Imperium's failure to hold territory due to blatant evacuation, their presence being virtually non-existent in Gibsonton for the bulk of the conflict, leaving the innocent survivors of Gibsonton at the mercy of the PKers and also forcing the PKers to search for the Imperium in surrounding suburbs;
  5. The Imperium and its allies' goals do not in and of themselves indicate survivor victory, as they are vague and almost impossible not to meet.
  • turns to face the Arbitrator*

In short, Your Honor, we trounced them. We slaughtered them. We were perennially bored because we kept running out of Imperium to shoot. There is no way that this conflict can be reasonably said to be a Survivor Victory, or even Disputed.

Thank you kindly for your attention.

  • turns, walks back, and sits next to Sonny at the Plaintiff's Desk* *Takes another sip of water*

--Vandr 06:52, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Ioncannon11 and Kikashie

Kikashie's Opening Statement

Ladies, gentlemen, and... whatever exactly you'd call Sonny... of the arbitration court, I come before you today to brush aside this claim of "Clear PKer Victory" by the prosecutors. First off, I would like to give a short background of the involvement of the Dulston Alliance (of which I am a representative) in this Invasion of Gibsonton. On the 10th of May, after a meeting that lasted the better part of an hour, Alliance leadership voted unanimously to declare war on the PKer coalition that was harassing our allies (the Imperium) in the south. At this time, we were under the Impression that the goals of this "event" were to remove diplomat Garviel Loken from the Imperium, as noted first...

  • here (where Sonny states "Garviel is the reason. If you concede to our 10 demands, most important the first 2, then we'll leave.")
  • and again here (where Sonny states "We've already won our goal of removing y'all from Gibsonton. All we want left is Garviel to leave the Imperium.)
  • then again here (where Sonny states "We will stay until they either kick Garviel out...")
  • and most important, here (where Sonny states "We're not greifing them into leaving. Griefing them into making Garviel Loken leave.")

However, the true goal of this "coalition" became harder and harder to discern... as Sonny contradicted himself the same day, stating that "The Coalition's goals were simple; to remove the Imperium from Gibsonton.". Now, your honor, how can one claim that this objective of "removing the Imperium from Gibsonton" is completed, when time and time... and time... and time... annnnnd time... annnnnd time again, each claim of "the Imperium left Gibsonton" is met with proof that they're still there? Now, aside from the infallible evidence, and testimonies that can and will be provided (if need be) by players who were in the area, and members of the Imperium itself, the prosecutors have provided NO evidence to back up their claim of "driving the Imperium out of Gibsonton". That is, aside from their one claim, this note (which has not been referenced nor confirmed by Mr. Loken, by the way). It happens to include this fact, stated by Mr. Loken: "Any who are not remaining as the volunteer force". Not only does that prove that the Imperium had not left Gibsonton (in its entirety), but it debunks their only piece of "proof" on the subject.

Now, even though the evidence above points out that removing Loken and driving the Imperium from Gibsonton were goals of the coalition (both of which were NOT completed), Mr. Vandr would have you believe that this: "Completion of the Coalition's stated Goals of the Conflict (i.e. to kill Imperium members a lot)" makes the battle a "PKer Victory". Mr. Vandr goes on to say that it is a "PKer Victory" because "The Imperium and its allies' goals do not in and of themselves indicate survivor victory, as they are vague and almost impossible not to meet.". Now, I personally find "to kill Imperium members a lot" a VERY vague goal. However, if the prosecution views its goal as such, then the Alliance's goals in the conflict were as follows:

  • Kill PKers a lot
  • Defend the Imperium (stop the Pkers from griefing the Imperium, and or Loken, out of the game)

In that respect, we have completed both of our goals. The Alliance has killed over 60 Pkers in the two weeks we were there (out of the month long conflict), and the Imperium (and Loken) are still playing Urban Dead. If Mr. Vandrs "goal" of "kill Imperium members a lot" was completed, then so was our goal our goal of "kill PKers a lot". In that respect, both sides have completed their objectives, and the conflict is a DRAW.

Defense rests.

Or does it?

Mr. Vandr goes on to state that "A clear and decisive disparity between number of the Imperium's Allies Killed and number of Killed by the Imperium's Allies." is a reason for the conflict being a "PKer Victory". Now, I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I haven't seen ANY proof of kills by the coalition. Surely if one can claim any amount of kills without providing proof to back it up, then the Alliance killed over 9 million PKers. Twice. Now, we all know that isn't the true, but the Alliance CAN confirm its kills through screenshots and IWitness reports on our forum. Your honor, I would be willing to allow you access to said reports for you to confirm their existence. The prosecutors should be able to provide the same service, if they really have killed 200+ people. But that claim in itself brings up another point... because civilians aren't Imperium. As Mr. Vandr stated already, the goal of the coalition was to, and I quote, "kill Imperium members a lot". Now, as far as I'm concerned, civilians aren't Imperium, and should not be added to the tally. However, since they already have been, there is no way to tell (aside from the prosecution going back and re tallying the kills, with proof) how many imperium kills they actually had.

SO, as it stands, your honor: they're full of shit, you must acquit.

Defense rests. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 09:40, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Ioncannon11's Opening Statement

Ioncannon forfeited his right to make an opening statement by ignoring the case for over a week despite having been on the wiki during that time. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 19:02, 8 June 2008 (BST)

First round of Arbitrator Comments and Questions

Do not post anything in this section until called to do so. The arbitration will determine the order of testimony.

This is where I will be making my initial comments based on the opening arguments and where I will ask questions to the members involved in the arbitration. During this time I will also hear some testimony from the members of groups involved who are not in the arbitration (those interested may apply on the talk page), and where I will ask some questions and hear statements from senior members of the groups involved on both sides. As the proceedings continue, more names may be added to the list.

The basic idea behind this is that the Invasion of Gibsonton involved many users and an edit conflict over who won the Invasion of Gibsonton will have to involve more than the four people that are listed in this arbitration.

Users who will be required to testify (so far) will be:

  1. Garviel Loken - Creator of the Invasion of Gibsonton page and chief contributor to its content.
  2. max890 - A member of the High Command in the Imperium of Man who is willing and able to speak for the Imperium's involvement in the battle.
  3. Goofy Mccoy - an independent representative from DORIS who is willing and able to speak for DORIS's involvement in this conflict.
  4. The Surgeon General - A representative from Red Rum who is willing and able to speak for Red Rum's involvement in this conflict.
  5. Sir WV - A representative from Philosophe Knights who is willing and able willing to speak for Philosophe Knights's involvement in this conflict.
  6. Ottari - A representative from Dulston Alliance who is willing and able to speak for Dulston Alliance's involvement in this conflict.

Other groups who are involved in the Invasion of Gibsonton, and wish to have a representative make a statement or have questions asked of them can apply under the appropriate section on the talk page.

Sonny Corleone

One of the main editors to Invasion of Gibsonton page and a major participant in the battle.

Questions for Sonny Corleone

Some of the confusion over this situation seems to reside with the goals of the coalition and the count. I'll be asking about that here. Please put an answer under each of the questions using a #:

  1. What was your role in the conflict?
  2. Kikashie pointed out that the coalition's goals changed several times through the course of the war, citing the following four posts as evidence of the constant change. Are these the coalition's goals or are they DORIS's goals?
  3. Kikashie noted that he hasn't seen any proof of any of the kills for the coalition. I noted in your opening statement that you said you had been keeping track of the kills for a while. Where are these tallies located and do the coalition have evidence of said kills?
  4. Who did you count in your tallies?
Sonny Corleone's Statement (if desired)
  1. I, Sonny Corleone (internet handle, not character name), was the creator of the whole shebang. I created the Imperium Must Die Coalition, the event in Gibsonton, the leader of the Coalition and the event, secular leader of DORIS, and Chief Instigator.
  2. I'd like to point out that Kikashie isn't bright, not bright at all. Those goals, for the most part, are not even real. I am an asshole, and a good one at that. I created those "goals" to piss off Garviel, which doesn't take much, and to throw in a South Park joke/internet meme. Kikashie has this weird, skewed idea on what victory means. For some reason he thinks completing goals mean victory. Let's use the last two as an example "???" and "Profit!" If I completed those two goals does that honestly mean I "won" the battle. Fuck no. So I don't see why these goals are even used as evidence. But for shits and giggles. Those were for DORIS (take it as seriously as anything else DORIS does, like worshipping Pluto) because at the time of the posting the Coalition didn't exist. In fact the Coalition was only used because it didn't sound as trenchy as Alliance, which is overused in this fucking game.
  3. Kikashie demands proof. I know he does. But even if Kikashie got the proof I know it won't change his mind. Right now Garviel quit the game over drama (created by us) but Kikashie will not admit it was because of us (which would prove his case null and void since he believes in completing goals). This right here shows that providing proof would be a waste of time. The screenshots, links, iwitnesses, etc. are located on the Red Rum forum, Resensitzed forum, Brainstock forum, Philosophe Knights forum, IRC logs, the wiki, and on everyone's My Pictures folder. I cannot stress how hard it was for me, Vandr, Banana, and Turkmenbashi to count what we had. It came to the point where we reached 200 (Banana's official count is 211 but I say 200 because I quit at 200 and I fucking rule like that) and just gave up because we don't have time for this shit. I go to school, I have a job, I have extracurricular activities, and I got plenty of other shit to do. I do not have time to sit around for hours and hours copypastaing all the shit and posting it here (which might I add lag so badly it may crash) just to have Kikashie come up with some other reason why its bullshit. Kikashie is untrustworthy, a liar, and a sore loser. I wouldn't trust him with my car while I ran into the liquor store.
  4. In my tallies I originally only counted Imperium members. This went on for about a week or so when the Gibsonton Nationals came into the picture. We ignored them at first but then decided let's kill them too. They did not make a real impact to the count because the GN, as everyone knows, is only made up of the buttbuddies Alpharius and Secruss. Then the Dulston Alliance came and we ignored them (for the most part, except when getting revenge kills) until the very end of the battle when we said just kill everyone. By the very end of the battle we killed everyone we saw. Everyone. Why? We could not find a single Imperium member in Gibsonton. And as you know the argument is over the Battle of Gibsonton page. Without Imperium in Gibsonton alive or in the suburb to kill we just went nuts and killed everyone. I can't be certain how much civilians we killed but we started at the very end of the battle to kill everyone, because we were bored. There is no way that killing randoms at the very end could make up for the bulk of our kills. And the reason why we left was because we had no Imperium left to kill. We realized that killing civilians was not the reason why we came. We killed everyone there, the rest ran away, we weren't in Gibsonton anymore hunting them, and we were bored of only finding civies and no Imperium. You want to call that defeat? We destroyed the army in the suburb, no one was left except innocent people. How is that defeat?

--Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 02:22, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Vandr

One of the editors to Invasion of Gibsonton page and a major participant in the battle.

Questions for Vandr

I don't have many questions for you, so I will just ask some basic ones. Please put an answer under each of the questions using a #:

  1. What was your role in the conflict?
    I was a footsoldier PKer in the Coalition. I came into the suburb when the Red Rum leaders ordered me in (er, more like suggested that it might be fun). I killed seven Imperium members and various Alliance members (names can be seen on my character's kill page, screenshots provided upon request). Also, being a WPKU broadcaster, I played a minor propaganda role, telling civilians to place themselves under Coalition protection and broacasting "Sic semper tyrannus!" after a kill.
  2. When the Dulston Alliance came into the picture, what was the general attitude of the coalition toward them?
    Let me illustrate this via the following example. We had previously heard that the DA was sheltering Imperium novices who had evacuated the area so they wouldn't be caught in the conflict. Later, when we found out that DA members themselves would be coming to fight us, I suggested that we mess with their heads and sneak into Dulston, taking out the Imperium novices while the DA's fighters weren't guarding the home front. My idea (while acknowledged to be clever) was shot down unanimously. Many PKers welcomed the arrival of the DA because they couldn't find enough standing Imperiums to kill and were getting bored. Others, veterans of DORIS/Red Rum's siege of Dulston last year, were annoyed at the DA for sticking their nose where it didn't belong, and wanted to smack them down for it. Still others figured that the DA would prove to be as little of a challenge to the combined Coalition forces as the Imperium had. Thus, I would classify the Coalition's general attitude toward the DA's arrival as mingled anticipation, annoyance, smugness, and a sense of Bring-It-On-ness.
Vandr's Statement
One thing I was constantly hearing from the Coalition members was a vocal frustration. Oftentimes one of us would spend 50 AP looking for Imperium members in Gibsonton but without finding a single (standing) one. With so many hunters in the area, there simply weren't enough Imps to go around, and only three or four Rummers would get an Imperium kill on any given day. Eventually Red Rum changed its standing orders from "Kill all Imperium members" to "Kill Imperium members and random civilians," just because for many of us there were no Imperiums to shoot. I heard this on the Red Rum forums, the Red Rum IRC, and heard Philosophe Knights and DORIS members talk about it on Brainstock.
When the DA arrived things improved a little, because there were more targets, and because someone was finally hunting us back. It still wasn't quite the challenge of two equal forces meeting in battle, but it was a step closer.

max890

A former member of the high council for The Imperium, one of the main groups involved in the Invasion of Gibsonton.

Questions for max890

As a member of the Imperium and as someone on their high council, you have relevant information that is needed to help explore this case. I will have a lot of questions for you, since Ion chose to not make a statement and it seems that Garviel might have quit UD. Depending on your answers, I might have some more questions for you. I will make a second subheading if this is the case. Please put an answer under each of the questions using a #:

  1. What was your personal role in the conflict?
    The same as my normal role, internal security of the Imperium itself.
  2. What is the overall goals of the Imperium?
    Well we never really had any realistic ones. we had the generic surviour group goals (eliminate all zeds etc). All we did was put it a different way, so mostly it was roleplay.
  3. What was their reason for being in Gibsonton?
    I cannot answer that question, even I do not know the answer. I think it was the cathedral that attrated us.
  4. What was the battle strategy for this conflict?
    As we could not of possibly hoped to hold out agaist such numbers, our tactics were "hit and run" stlye warfare. Move into the surrounding suburbs, free run in, hopefully get a pker, rinse and repeat. This was to be continued for the duration of the war.
  5. Do you have a list of coalition kills, and if so, do you have evidence of those kills somewhere?
    I have no personal list, but I think a list of Imperial kills exists somewhere. Don't hold me to that though.
  6. How did the Dulston Alliance get involved?
    Such a large incident could no go ignored by other groups. You'll have to ask them for the deatils, as I have little knowledge of the how or why.
  7. Was the Invasion of Gibsonton something that your group wanted, or did Gavin do that on his own?
    As I understand there was little knowledge of it outside High command. The choice was made by Garviel, but is supported at presant by most of the Imperial members.
  8. Do you feel that the Imperium won this conflict?
    Yes, the goals of the enemy were not met. Yes they trashed our land, yes they killed us, but they did not manage what all that was done for in the first place.
max890's Statement (if desired)

As it stands, I am no longer Imperium. However the answers do reflect on what I would of said if I still was. On another side note Garviel has left UD, but i can assure you it has nothing to do with the war or its aftermath. I will give no further details as it is not my place to do so. --Max890 21:46, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Ottari

The representative for the Dulston Alliance (henceforth abbreviated as DA), one of the main groups in the Invasion of Gibsonton.

Questions for Ottari

Since the DA is one of the main groups involved in this conflict it is important that someone come by to speak for them. I will have some questions on the DA's role in the conflict and your personal experiences in the battle. Please put an answer under each of the questions using a #:

  1. What was your role in the conflict?
    In my capacity as a diplomat of the Dulston Alliance (alongside Kikashie) I was involved in the initial discussions about the situation in Gibsonton. Upon receiving a request for aid from members of the Imperium, I was among the group that voted to send in a strike team. When we activly entered the conflict on the side of the Imperium by attacking Red Rum, DORIS, and other PKers in Gibsonton, I took on the dual role of soldier, strategist, and commander of Pescodside Defense Alliance forces (as my group members within the Dulston Alliance) in Gibsonton. I basically worked with other commanders such as Kikashie, Officer Murphy, Deathwire, N00bert, Garviel Loken, Lord Alpharius, Lemonhead7t7, and so forth to plan strikes and raise the alarm when we found PKers.
  2. What do you consider the DA's role to be in the conflict (I.E. were you going to help keep the surburb or help drive out the PKers?)?
    Our purpose, as I understood it when we voted to enter the conflict, was to drive PKers from the suburb.
  3. How did the DA get involved with the battle in the first place?
    We received a request for support from Garviel Loken around May 9th or 10th. Upon review of our diplomatic obligations, specifically a Support Accord with the Imperium of Man dating back to March 2008, we held a formal vote to fulfill our obligation and defend our allies. The first shot from the Dulston Alliance was fired on May 13th, 2008. If I recall correctly, the first casualty upon the DA's entry into the conflict was Canderous Ordo (an alt of Mr. Corleone) and he was killed at the hands of our very own Kikashie.
  4. What was the DA's impression on the status of the suburb and the battle when you arrived?
    By and large, the suburb was in pretty decent shape. All of the buildings were powered and barricaded, save for the relatively wide-open cathedral in the suburb's Southwest end. Of particular note, revive queues were nearly empty, and in my initial scouting run around the border of Gibsonton, I noted four pockets of 2-3 Imperium members each hiding out. I slept in Gibsonton for three evenings, with my group membership prominently displayed, and was not killed by any members of the Imperium Must Die Coalition. Speaking for the broader Dulston Alliance, I believe most of our members observed much the same thing... and only a few (Kikashie being one) were consistently found and assaulted by PKers. The Imperium of Man's Black Templars seemed in the best condition, with relatively few undead, and we were able to coordinate with them in particular in bringing several PKers to justice.
  5. What were the DA's tactics for the battle?
    We followed standard procedures for the battle... nightly meetings via AOL Instant Messenger (aka "The War Room") to coordinate strategy and share intelligence, having low-level members of the Alliance Expeditionary Force scout the suburb before sending in veterans to remove PKers. Most of our veterans would come in, clean up identified DORIS and Red Rum members... then head to the Dunningwood/Gibsonton border or Dowdney Mall to restore our AP. Metal Fox, a Dulston Alliance member group, camped out just inside the northern border of Gibsonton for the duration of the conflict. Obviously holding buildings wasn't the point, but our entry into the conflict kept the PKers waiting in revive queues and bought some time for the Imperium to recover from the constant griefing.
  6. Was there any coordination with the Imperium or other groups that were against the coalition?
    Indeed there was. We coordinated with Imperium forces (specifically Garviel Loken) as well as the leader of the Gibsonton Nationals, Lord Alpharius.
Ottari's Statement (if desired)

Towards the end of the conflict, I had recorded four kills and two assists in slaying of Imperium Must Die Coalition Members and hadn't been killed once in return. One of the chief concerns and legitimate points that make the Dulston Alliance consider this battle to have a contested result is the attacking of random civilians. The conflict's purpose, as originally stated, was to grief the living heck out of Imperium members and (presumably) their allies. I would think un-involved random civilians who were killed in the process are collateral damage and therefore would not be considered in the casualty report.

As a matter of fairness and impartiality, I would like to point out that the Dulston Alliance Expeditionary Force to Gibsonton included roughly 25-30 members... not the 150 that comprise our entire membership (as Garviel seems to have included in his edits). Obviously, not every member of the organization dropped what they doing to attend to the situation. That should be modified on the event page to reflect the accurate state of events on the ground during the conflict.

Thank you for overseeing this process Akule, and I look forward to your ruling the matter. --Ottari DA PDA NW Read the Dispatch!

Goofy Mccoy

The representative for DORIS who is not listed in this arbitration, one of the main groups in the Invasion of Gibsonton.

Questions for Goofy Mccoy

Since Sonny did a lot of speaking for himself, I'd like to get to get another DORIS member's to answer a few questions. If you answer under this section, please put an answer under each of the questions using a #:

  1. What was your role in the conflict?
    My role wasn't much more complicated than "hired gun". I was relatively new to the PK scene, and the Gibsonton event seemed like a good place to meet people and maybe knock off a few talking heads from the forum drama that preceded and persisted through this event. I ended up killing 10, mostly leaders and notable members of both the Imperium and the Dulston Alliance, and wasn't killed myself until after the conflict had ended, by a third party.
  2. When was it noticed that the DA had entered into the conflict? Did they issue a statement of intent, or was it simply just a flood of DA members into the suburb?
    I'm not positive what the time line was, but, as a diplomat to the DA through another character, I stumbled upon their early coordination thread, (at which point I cut my time on their forums, as I believe I already expressed to Kikashie). My understanding was that they did declare their intent to join the conflict. I don't believe DORIS ever recognized them as an official target, or at least not until near the end, when Imperium members were scarce.
  3. Did DORIS continue with their stated goals after the official end of the conflict?
    I can account for one kill of an Imperium member off-hand after the 29th cut off date, but at that point it had little to do with the "stated goals". As for the rest of DORIS, I can't account for their actions. Communication/coordination was minimal, at least in comparison to the Lockettside/Charlton Heston shenanigans of a few weeks before.
  4. What was your overall impression of the conflict?
    To sum it up, I think the Coalition's goal of kicking around the Imperium was achieved, and the Dulston Alliance killed some PKers while it was going on. It has been stated that the Imperium engaged in "hit and run" tactics from the neighboring suburbs, but it was my experience that they didn't fare much better for it. The DA's entrance into the event obviously resulted in casualties, but the Coalition didn't really engage them until it was apparent that the Imperium had been more or less crippled. Even at that point, everything I've seen points to a PKer victory. Not to discredit what the DA achieved, they did an excellent job, but I can't see it being enough to tip the scales towards a Survivor victory, or even a contested outcome, especially in light of recent events concerning the Imperium.
Goofy Mccoy's Statement (if desired)

Like I said, at the end of the conflict, I had recorded ten kills of Imperium and DA members and hadn't been killed once in return. I also noted that towards the end of the conflict, Imperium members began removing their group tags. I don't have any evidence as such, because I didn't make much of it at the time, but I distinctly recall running across a few profiles I had marked as a target, and passing them over because it appeared they had quit. I only bring it up because I think it goes to the point that the Imperium was NOT holding up against the Coalition's attack, at least from what I saw. --Goofy McCoy mfd HK-47 talk 05:45, 11 June 2008 (BST)

The Surgeon General

The representative for Red Rum who is not listed in this arbitration, one of the main groups in the Invasion of Gibsonton.

Questions for The Surgeon General

As one of the acting heads of Red Rum and being in one of the major participating groups, you were on-hand in the suburb and saw quite a bit of the conflict. If you answer under this section, please put an answer under each of the questions using a #:

  1. What was your role in the conflict?
    Myself? Little more than a herder of cats in the grand scheme of things. Rummers are notoriously individualistic, so I mostly just gave pushes and prods in the right direction. Of course, I wasn't too good to get right in the thick of things as well, garnering a few kills here and there when I felt like trying to find someone, instead of just spraying misdirecting messages, making pinatas, and generally wasting AP.
  2. How did Red Rum get involved in the battle?
    Like many previous events, a few Rummers became aware of certain happenings in Gibsonton, in this occasion thanks to a favored associate by the name of Sonny Corleone. We were currently discussing a new location to venture to, so the timing was impeccable. It seemed like a worthy enough cause to contribute towards, although I'd say Red Rum doesn't need a reason to do anything that we do.
  3. What was the goals of Red Rum in this conflict?
    In the words of a fellow member, simply "a straightforward PWNing... a refreshing change of pace." I couldn't agree more. The Imperium certainly gave us plenty of inspiration. A hugely inflated sense of self-importance on the Imperium's part, combined with their nigh unreadable wiki page, was more than adequate stimulation to get Rummers moving with sense of purpose. Any side effects of our activities, including the Imperium's dissolution, were merely favorable results in our view. Interestingly enough, Red Rum employed far fewer (yet not entirely nonexistent) extraneous resources that were at our disposal, such as the dispersion of propaganda and mass imitation in an attempt to defame. See here and here for comparison.
  4. What was Red Rum's tactics in the invasion?
    Pretty much standard targeted PKing, nothing overly fancy. The situation simply didn't necessitate a drastic change in the way(s) we do things, according to our own personal nuances, on a member by member basis. I would say the majority of our membership hunted within the borders of Gibsonton at first, resting outside of them to aid in avoiding detection. As targets became a rarity, we did put forth some suggestions collectively for discussion as to continue killing effectively, along with some possible and observed Imperium responses to the Coalition's efforts. Over time, we broadened our target base to include the public and, still later, members of the Dulston Alliance that elected to intervene on the Imperium's behalf. All in all, more or less standard work.
  5. Did your group track kills and keep evidence of them?
    Yes, and, to a lesser extent, yes once more. All members are asked to post the profile(s) of their kills in specifically designated threads, for counting at a later date. An hono(u)r system is in effect within Red Rum, and screenshots or IWitnesses are not required, although some members to take them for their own records or to display a particularly amusing scenario. For the security of our lesser known membership, this thread will not be publicly displayed. If and when it is decided upon to make said thread public, it will be too late to make an impact on this arbitration.
  6. What was your overall impression of the conflict?
    I can give no response other than a Coalition victory. The Imperium were decisively routed until the arrival of the DA, and even with the aid of more experienced groups, they continued to wither until their eventual collapse and splintering just recently. The results of this conflict are much more easily perceived than the results of any attempt to decipher truth from these testimonies.
The Surgeon General's Statement (if desired)

Everything that has needed to be said on my part has been done. I only wish for a speedy conclusion so that we may complete the editing of the page in question as allowed by this arbitration's verdict. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 06:18, 11 June 2008 (BST)

Arbitrator Comments

I think I have about everything that I need. After reading over everyone's comments, looking at the links provided, and looking into the various groups involved, I have come to a preliminary conclusion. The coalition took the suburb from the Imperium, thus meeting their "victory condition." The DA was instrumental in reclaiming the suburb by coming in and reestablishing control for the general survivor population.

Reading the threads provided as proof of the multiple goals of the coalition, I found that those were DORIS goals stated by Sonny. If you look at this post that Kikashie linked to, you'll see that two posts below (and linked by Kikashie) that Sonny expressly mentioned DORIS and not the coalition. this post is referencing DORIS's commitment and individual group's goal, followed this last post is a DORIS signup thread, as denoted by the signature request. Reading further in the thread, you can see the post where Sonny organizes the coalition and states the coalition's goals.

Now that the goals are clearly explained, you'll note that the Imperium directly states on their page that Gibsonton is considered Imperial territory according to their map. Imperial Territory is: "The Imperium defines its territory as that which it can project its power over effectively either directly by deployment of Guard, Ecclesiarchy, and Mechanicus forces, by serious devastation by invading hordes leading to a need to declare the suburb under our protection, or through other survivor groups who have petitioned the Imperium for Allied status. Those which have a solid enough Imperial presence in the form of the Guard, Mechanicus, and Ecclesiarchy are considered Imperial territory."

This means the Imperium stated that they considered the suburb under their protection, much like a survivor group would/could consider a mall under their protection. It is my opinion that any kills the coalition made in that suburb should be considered points against the survivor groups in the suburb, just like we would count for a zombie horde attempting to take a mall. Then, after having declared that they would defend the suburb against all who would seek it harm, they abandoned direct defense of the suburb and went to adjacent suburbs in order to mount raids. That looks pretty clear to me that the Imperium abandoned their direct defense and the general protection that their presence gives the general populace and moved to use a few hit and run tactics on the PKers.

Once routed from the suburb, they asked the DA for assistance in clearing out the PKers. By his own words, Ottari stated that they were asked to retake the suburb from the coalition. This shows that when the DA came into the conflict, the suburb was under the control of the coalition and not the Imperium. It should be noted on the event page that through the efforts of the DA, the suburb was reclaimed back into survivor control. The Imperium, on the other hand, collapsed from within due to a disagreement between members of high command on how the invasion should be handled, and based on the testimony of max890, they admit that the suburb that they were meant to protect was trashed and that while were killed, they weren't beaten because they had left the suburb for hit and run tactics. Now just imagine that a survivor group in the mall made that sort of claim. They left the mall, let it be taken, and had a large amount of their own members killed, but because they were alive in an adjacent suburb to the mall, the zombies lost.

In short, the coalition met their goals and should be considered the victors. The article should be changed in order to reflect the accurate goals, the victory of the PKers, to express the role of the DA as the liberator of the suburb (with explanations of the coalition's motivations for dissolving and moving on), and to explain a little of the aftermath with the Imperium. Since Ioncannon11 had no interest in participating in this arbitration, then he will be barred from editing that page, with any edits (aside from grammatical or spelling fixes) to be considered vandalism. If people would like to appeal this ruling (since appeals have apparently been popping up), I will take comments on the arbitration's talk page and weigh the merits of those statements and evidence provided versus what has been presented here. If no one has a problem with it, then I will consider the matter closed.

Those named in this arbitration can express their opinions below. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:23, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Sonny and Vandr's Closing Statements

Vandr:

Well, I am pleased with this ruling (perhaps obviously), since my goal in this arbitration was for the PKer victory to be acknowledged on the wiki page. I think that the reasons for our victory were obvious to one who knew the facts, and feel that Akule clearly described the relevant facts for all to see. A comment to make in my closing. I want to say that our utter contempt for the Imperium's failure to fight in this conflict should not necessarily translate to contempt for the DA. While the kill number disparity still exists, nevertheless the DA at least came in with the intention of putting up a fight.

We need more worthy opponents in this game. It is sad that the Imperium was so very unworthy. --Vandr 21:53, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Sonny:

I knew from the beginning that Vandr and I would win simply because our side of the argument was backed by logic. Not once did I have doubts of us losing this case because Ioncannon is an unreliable dumbass and because Kikashie is a liar and a snake. Kikashie claimed victory in Gibsonton in the beginning to save face and once again he lies to save face, as seen in his closing statement. Just a couple of days ago on the IRC Kikashie was so insistent that he would win. Let it be known to all survivors not to deal with the DA because of their untrustworthy actions. They lie and will do whatever it takes to make themselves look good. Historical revisionism is not allowed on a wiki built on truthiness. I'd also like to add that I kick ass. Now, if a sysop would unprotect the page so that we can make the proper edjits to the page that would be great. Hail Pluto!

P.S. Kikashie, you owe me a template. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 03:59, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Also, since all this applies to the one current page what is stopping Kikashie (and the DA to that extent) from just starting this drama up again on another page? Does it mean that this decision affects all pages (not including user pages)? --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 05:21, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Ioncannon11 and Kikashie's Closing Statements

Kikashie:

Lies and conspiracy! Retrial on the grounds that Akule is a member of DORIS!

Heh heh... just kidding. On reflection, I think I had a pretty good case when we started this... but In the light of recent events (Imperium splitting, Loken leaving) it has become clear that the Pkers really did "win" the conflict. It wasn't until a few weeks after the fighting that the end results became apparent, and in that respect, my hat off to the Coalition. You did what you set out to do... and although I find the goals in question utterly appalling... you did it. A few notes however, as I believe some of the conclusions drawn by Akule are.. misinformed.

  • The Imperium DID leave a group of men behind to defend Gibsonton, whilst the rest of the Imperium followed hit and run tactics outside. They never left the suburb entirely. And since I have no idea how large the Imperium was at the time, who's to say those who stayed behind didn't make up a quarter or perhaps a third, or even half the group? Since no Imperium members testified (aside from Max, who happened not only to leave the Imperium but betray several members as well), how can we be clear on this?
  • The Imperium NEVER asked the DA to enter the conflict. I brought up the idea of helping out (and the fact that we had a treaty with them) at our weekly leadership meeting, and it received unanimous support. Although I had talked with Loken about it prior to bringing the idea before Alliance brass, he never asked for our help. He complained about the PKers, but never asked for us to get involved.
  • You said: "Once routed from the suburb, they asked the DA for assistance in clearing out the PKers. By his own words, Ottari stated that they were asked to retake the suburb from the coalition. This shows that when the DA came into the conflict, the suburb was under the control of the coalition and not the Imperium." Utterly false. Ottari never said anywhere in his statement that we were asked to "retake the suburb". They never asked us for help at all. In no way does that mean the suburb was "under the control" of the coalition.

I have a few other qualms as well. Why was Ottari the only one on the survivor side testifying? Max doesn't really count, as he betrayed the very people he was testifying on behalf of. No other Imperium members presented their views, nor did any other DA members. Having Ottari speak for the whole of the DA, I understand, but having only one person speak on the behalf of the Imperium? When he isn't even a part of it?

Finally, the issue of kill counts. The only thing I'd like to see changed with this ruling is the way the kill count for the Coalition is presented. The fact is, the count (of 200+) included Imperium AND civilian kills. As the Coalition's goal, and only goal, was to kill Imperium members, I'd like to see the civilian kills listed separately. Listing them together makes it look like they had a count far superior to the survivors, whilst from what I can tell, they don't differ by that large of a margin.

All I want now is a few answers. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 02:56, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Like his testimony or not, max was the only person from the Imperium willing to speak at this arbitration on this matter. Fortunately, Garviel left notes on how the battle was waged, which corroborates with what max said. The Imperium did indeed leave the suburb save for a few members in order to perform hit and run tactics, as you can read on the discussion page you can read how Gavriel did not contest the complaint that the Imperium had left one-two members in the suburb. If survivors abandon a mall and then occasionally toss in a few people to the mall after the zombies have occupied it, does it count as keeping it?
Garviel states early on in the invasion page that he sent out diplomats to the allies in the region, of which the DA has member groups in that area. In that same message, he asks everyone who is not in the Imperium to flee the suburb. Next, looking at what Ottari said:
Ottari said:
We received a request for support from Garviel Loken around May 9th or 10th. Upon review of our diplomatic obligations, specifically a Support Accord with the Imperium of Man dating back to March 2008, we held a formal vote to fulfill our obligation and defend our allies. The first shot from the Dulston Alliance was fired on May 13th, 2008. If I recall correctly, the first casualty upon the DA's entry into the conflict was Canderous Ordo (an alt of Mr. Corleone) and he was killed at the hands of our very own Kikashie.
Ottari said:
Our purpose, as I understood it when we voted to enter the conflict, was to drive PKers from the suburb.
If the suburb was to be emptied of non-imperium members, and then the imperium left the area save for 1-2 members, and the DA was asked to drive the PKers from the suburb, then that would stand to reason that the PKers had the suburb at that time. As for the kills, Garviel asked for general survivors and other survivor groups to flee the suburb, lest they be added to the death toll. This means that the author of the page and a key member of the imperium officially recognized independent survivors as valid targets for the PKers, thus their death totals should count on behalf of the PKers tallies.
As for Ottari being the only person who testified on the survivor side, I also had max who supplemented the information that Garviel had on the Invasion of Gibsonton page. Anyone else who came into the suburb was meant to help drive the PKers from the suburb, which is a retaking action, and thus wouldn't really add much more to the decision of who won.
Thus, Garviel stated who was to be counted for both sides, that he asked all of their allies for support (same link), and their basic tactics for the battle. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:18, 19 June 2008 (BST)
I've tried to reply to each.. er, reply you gave. I hate not being able to quote things.
First of all, I'm well aware that the Imperium left the suburb in part. The fact is, neither you nor I know how many people they left behind, nor how many people were in their group at the time. I'd put their numbers somewhere around twenty, and considering there were 5 or Imperium members I frequently saw sleeping in Gibsonton, that means somewhere around (again, I'm just estimating here) a third of their group was still inside of the suburb.
Second, as I said before, we were not contacted by Loken to assist with the PKers. He had only made this post alerting us of the situation, and speculating that the PKers might spill over into other burbs' after the conflict was over. Regardless of how Ottari had interpreted the post, it was I who had brought the idea of helping out at our weekly meeting. Also, this whole viewpoint of who was in control of the suburb is skewed. There were more civilians in the suburb than Coalition and anti-Coalition members combined, and multiplied several times. If anything, the suburb was under the control of the survivors (not the Imperium, necessarily, just pro-survivors in general) when the DA arrived. Also, there were very few, if any, PKers within the borders of Gibsonton upon our arrival. Most of the Coalition members we killed on the first day were in and around Dowdney Mall, or hiding on the borders.
Third, Loken said nothing about death tolls in that statement you referenced. And even if he had, civilians aren't Imperium. If the goal, or objective, of the Coalition was to kill Imperium members, why should civilians be added to the total? Of course PKers are going to kill people, that's what they do. But the purpose of this war was to kill Imperium members (and their allies). That should be the kill count, not mushed together with civilian murders.
Finally, I'd just like to point out that I've already accepted the fact that the Coalition "won". After the Imperium disbanded, and Loken left, (about a week after my opening statement) my case was blown clear out of the water. I just think a few things you've concluded are not entirely correct. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 05:12, 19 June 2008 (BST)
Oh, I know. I also realized I should clarify some of my statements. As for the casualty count and Garviel's statement:
Garviel Loken said:
All civilians and non-Imperials are advised to evacuate Gibsonton immediately, a large confederation of PKers including DORIS, Red Rum, the Spartans, and the Columbine Kids among many others are coming to kill all Imperials they find and are expected to strike tomorrow. We will stay to face them, they may vent their rage on innocent bystanders for no better reason then that you are in the area. Please evacuate immediately, we wish to keep casualties of innocents down.
He made the page that tracks the battle, defining it as survivors versus PKers, and he asked all civilians and non-Imperials to evacuate in order to keep the casualties of innocents down. Since he has the page tracking casualties of both the survivors and PKers and is advising to have civilians flee in order to keep the casualties of innocents down, it opens them for tally in the end count of the battle, no matter if it was a goal of the coalition or not. Garviel, as the principle author of the article and a leading member of the Imperium, opened the door for the civilians to be counted. Wouldn't you agree? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:22, 19 June 2008 (BST)
Not really. The civilians weren't combatants, nor were they Imperium members. If you look at real wars, take WWII for an example, they don't bundle civilian casualties with American or German casualties. They're listed separate. When a battle has no specific target, or a general "whoever" target, take the Rolt Heights War for example, then who the total was made up of wouldn't matter. But the PKers came to Gibsonton to kill Imperium members specifically. The tally should reflect that. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 02:28, 20 June 2008 (BST)
Oh, I don't think you want to argue around those lines. ;) You see, if the coalition never listed the DA as their targets (when you joined in they actually started winding down because they had already had a battle against the DA in Dulston), then if we take into account your statement above:
Kikashie said:
Second, as I said before, we were not contacted by Loken to assist with the PKers. He had only made this post alerting us of the situation, and speculating that the PKers might spill over into other burbs' after the conflict was over. Regardless of how Ottari had interpreted the post, it was I who had brought the idea of helping out at our weekly meeting.
It would mean that neither side technically asked you to join in. Thus if we were to follow your current logic, then we shouldn't count any kill totals other than Imperium ones (which they have no proof for) and PKer kills of Imperium members, because they are the only ones "involved". --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 13:58, 20 June 2008 (BST)
I believe the shooting of several GDA members was our invitation to "join in". And whether or not we were asked is beside the point (we were shot by Coalition members on arrival, so I'm pretty sure we were "involved" anyway). Any kills the Coalition achieved who were not civilians should make up the tally (i.e. the groups listed as "Survivors"), and likewise any kills the Survivors made would make up the tally (the groups listed as "PKers"). To go back to what you said before, Loken defined the battle as Survivors vs. PKers, being the groups listed below. I'm not saying to remove civilians killed altogether, I'm saying they should be in a separate tally. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 19:49, 20 June 2008 (BST)
Then put that in a sub-tally at the end that breaks down all of the totals. The overall tally should include all of the kills that occurred over the course of the invasion. I.E. all of the kills made by the coalition and the survivors in Gibsonton (since it was an invasion of the suburb). However, if you are accepting the ruling, then I would say we put this to bed and hash out the rest on the page itself. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:04, 25 June 2008 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements