UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration Timelimit

This is very much open to discussion, especially the amount of time the rulings may be effective. Is it too long? Too short? Should it be an exact amount of days? Do specific restrictions need longer or shorter periods? Is the retroactive application OK? Does it wake any elder gods banished by an arbitration ruling? And yes, it really is that short. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:56, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I like the idea of a limit but I think it should be an exact number of weeks because 3 months in itself can be ambiguous depending on the reader. 3 months could mean from 15th of January to the 15th of April (3 calender months) or it could mean from the 15th January to the 9th of April (12 weeks or 3 lunar months). I was sure I'd put this in my policy but I must have taken it out after that last revision. -- Cheese 23:06, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I think the example makes it pretty clear. It requires some serious intentional misinterpretation to get to 9th of April. Looks like the timelimit in your policy originally applied only to restraining orders, and was removed along with the others in the "What an arbitrator can do" section. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 23:27, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Three months is three months, don't be ridiculous.--Karek^maps?! 04:07, 16 October 2008 (BST)

I think 3 months is too long for most arbitration cases. 4-6 weeks sounds reasonable enough for me. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:56, 15 October 2008 (BST)

^This.--Karek^maps?!

Yeah. As that. Although to get rid of the whole "when is 4/6 weeks up exactly" question can the arbiter state as part of the ruling when the period ends? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:31, 16 October 2008 (BST)

I have no problem with a shorter duration, but this would be the absolute maximum limit. I could edit it so that three months would be the absolute maximum, but a maximum of 6 weeks would be recommended for ordinary cases. Or I could put 6 weeks as absolute maximum and 4 weeks as a recommended maximum. What do you think? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:44, 17 October 2008 (BST)

Shouldn't this be a guideline, rather than a regulation? I mean, can't anyone think of a ruling circumstance whereby it would make sense for something to be permanent, or longer than 3 months, or attached to an unknown time limit? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:28, 17 October 2008 (BST)

I can't think of any restriction placed on a person that would need to be either permanent or longer than three months (or even the 4-6 weeks as requested above). If you (or anyone else for that matter) can think of one, I'd be happy to discuss it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:44, 17 October 2008 (BST)