UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Drakkenmaw vs Ruining

Humorous_Suggestions & Suggestions/8th-Dec-2005

Ruining, author of the Not Have Zombies suggestion, keeps reverting the movement by ALIENwolve of this obviously-ludicrous "Modest Proposal" suggestion to Humorous_Suggestions. I believe it is necessary to move or remove this suggestion to preserve the central purpose of the Suggestions page - presenting useful ideas, so that Kevan can potentially make use of them in the game. Allowing "Not Have ____" suggestions to move all the way through the suggestion-process as a "protest action" simply opens the way for more protest-actions to be taken, and unless we wish for the serious suggestions to be buried under everything from "Not Have Survivors" to "Not Have Katthew" as everyone uses the Suggestions page to air personal grievances without including positive contributions to fix the problems they believe exist... well, we need to make sure that suggestions of that form can't go through the queue without being weeded out.

Frankly, I think this is as serious an infraction as the PK group using the old UrbanDead forum to threaten the zerging of every safehouse in the game unless Kevan personally answered their grievances. It is abuse of the purpose of the wiki setup, pure and simple. --Drakkenmaw 21:43, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I'm refraining from any further manual action. Either it is to be deleted or not. After his futile plea for attention ends its two weeks it will be deleted; seeing as how it will not be used. --ALIENwolve 21:47, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Note - I have also become aware that most of the recent Keep votes are from a long line of red named people. While I cannot check background it seems that "someone" has decided to make repeated votes. --ALIENwolve 22:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Nothing so sinister -- these are all (well, almost all) known forum users. The suggestion got linked on the forums, so you're seeing a lot of participation by aggrieved zombie players who saw the link there and support the original point. Most of them aren't very active wiki users, so their user pages, like mine, are still red, but they're real people. -- James Holloway 01:40, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I've been asked to step in.

To be honest, I think there's some usefulness in having a place for protest, that said I don't think the place for such protests is on the Suggestions queue. If Ruining does not wish for his suggestion to be marked as humourous (which may be fair), what would suit him if leaving it in the queue is unacceptable? -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 03:12, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

A compromise was suggested (not by me) for a Grievances page. --ALIENwolve 03:57, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I appreciate the compromise solution and like it. I can not speak for the zombie hordes who, you may notice, are mostly backing the idea, nor can I speak for the leaders of the other zombie hordes, but I have spoken with Barcoded and we would like to see the vote continue for its two weeks (we're halfway there anyway), and then allow the grievances page. Would such-and-such player sux roflcot be allowed? No. Would we be able to point out injustices as perceived by a significant portion of the playerbase? Yes. If humans were outnumbered 3:1, I'd see it as the natural flow of a game about zombies, but I understand and respect the concept of a more 1:1 balance, so a swing in the other direction would certainly be cause for examination, just as we zombies feel the current situation warrants. I have nothing against applying moderational concepts to a grievances page to keep out "OMG STFU?!" type comments while valid, or at least justfiably arguable, criticisms would remain. I'll be back to proofread and/or further discuss later; I'm about to hit the airport for a flight home. But that a fair number of zombies would rather see them removed than remain in their crippled state should bring light that something's afoot that we believe needs a'fixin. -- Ruining 1108 Dec. 14, 2005 (EST)

As you are the one who suggested it, I'm going to assume that your vote is the most important one - other suggestion authors have removed their entries entirely without consulting those who voted for their idea, so I believe it's understood that you have the authority to determine what happens to it. That said, I have no problem with allowing the suggestion to run its full two weeks now that it's understood that it will be going to a separate page afterwards - I figure that if we require that any grievances must run through a voting process before going on the separate grievances page it will inherently cut down on the people who will post things in Suggestions specifically to insult one person or group. It will, basically, be just like Suggestions - only it won't be for suggestions, but instead for rare "statements" such as the one which is currently the source of this compromise. This will also give me time to set up the page properly and discuss rules and allowances with others to make sure that the compromise doesn't create more issues than it solves. Thank you, though - I believe we can call this "successfully-concluded." --Drakkenmaw 16:29, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)