UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Voting Eligibility (2)

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki talk:Administration‎ | Policy Discussion
Revision as of 18:22, 19 December 2008 by Nubis (talk | contribs) (Protected "UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Voting Eligibility (2)" [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Discussion

Right now, any user can vote for a bureaucrat, with no limits for edits or time in the community. What about if we limit the voting ability to users whose first edit where made atleast before the beginning of the election ? This would help sort sockpuppets and other assorted cronies. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy discussion would be needed to change it -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:36 25 November 2008 (BST)
I'm fine with the principal, but we would need a crack team of janitors to sort them out, and then a determine who can strike votes (presumably sysops?) But, yeah, Boxy is right. You would need to take this to a policy discussion. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I would support this.... I would prefer if the voting rights were pretty much the same as the requirements to stand; ie: 12 edits in the 30 days previous to elections start--Honestmistake 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
haggy that'd take about 3 seconds to push through, do it. but keep it simple. or you'll lose votes and get nothing done.--xoxo 13:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

HOLY FUCK! Didn't we already go through this shit? Didn't you get a misconduct case for striking votes? Wasn't Grim up your ass about this before your little "vacation"? Stop fucking trying to pretend this is a fucking "open wiki" when all you assholes are bending over backwards to keep your little cliques fucking alive.

Nice to see J3D is towing the party line like a good little nigger and trying to fit in with one of the few people that actually supported him. Also nice to know that you didn't seem to have an opinion on any of this (no votes on the previous incarnations) until Fagnut came out with something. It's a good thing your cronies are all established on the wiki already, J3D, otherwise you would have to rely totally on your tongue up Hagnut's ass. --Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 00:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

yep that's pretty much it. it's a pretty lax restriction, don't really see how it excludes the community. Anyone who has made one edit before the election starts can vote. So what you're trying to say is that every user who has made an edit to the wiki is in hagnat (and by extension mine, and your) clique? how odd.--xoxo 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
take out the tinfoil hat, dcc. Unlike the previous policy, this one asks for a single edit to any other page before the election starts. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, let the people vote. Even if you bar users from voting due to them not editing enough or whatever, it doesn't change the whole "popularity contest" thing. Nor does it really matter.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, if such rules were to be enforced in other votings, such as policy vote, this could help twart many voting rigs that could occur. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think this will have much of an effect if it does pass. A policy of some sort to prevent meatpuppets is needed, but this isn't it. A requirement of 1 edit can be easily met by anyone who cares enough about a policy to make an account for the express purpose of voting on that policy, so that will have little or no effect on the problems this seeks to address (especially if edits to user pages are counted.) On the other hand, if the requirements are made too stringent, this will be unfair to new members, as was mentioned many times in the discussion that DCC linked to up above. --Pestolence(talk) 03:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits must be made before the policy was CREATED, not put for vote. Therefore, if anyone has interest in the outcome of a policy, he must work with those who had registered and edited the wiki before the discussion of that policy begun --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 10:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
OK then... How big of a problem is meat/sockpuppeting in elections, anyway?--Pestolence(talk) 17:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless it is a huge problem and results in elections' results being unfairly rigged, I'm going to have to agree with Suicidalangel above me. --Pestolence(talk) 20:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I don't think anyone's considered is the extra buerocracy that the appeal process would create. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redlock (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

History Purges

How would you ensure that people weren't denied a vote because they had edited the wiki before, but not after a history purge (which makes it look like they have no contributions in some cases) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:53 27 November 2008 (BST)

if the user has content in its user page its already a simple edit and no further proof is needed. If he doesnt, its his job to search for a page where he made an edit (prolly his sig in a talk page) and ask for re-validation of his vote. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There will need to be a process for appeals spelled out then. First on the talk page of the striker, and then perhaps the vote's talk page, then a "random" sysops, I guess -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:10 27 November 2008 (BST)
There, rule added. I restricted the ability to confirm the votes to sysops because otherwise a user could point to some page, another meat puppet could drop by and say its true, validate the vote and then simply nullify the whole policy. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 02:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There could be a bit of drama still, especially if a respected, recently-returned user gets his vote stricken because his history was purged. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Such users HAVE user pages, therefore they WILL have atleast one edit marked under their name, independently of history purges. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 10:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
BULLSHIT! Just look at a [suburb history]sometime. There are edits where the user's name is red because they don't feel the fucking need to put up some bullshit "This is my gay ass character. I'm a 12th level Paladin" crap. Where the fuck is the need for this policy?--Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 15:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe fagnut should get off this policy kick he's been on since he got back and actually do some fucking work. Would that be too much to ask? Or did you just want to get the sysop title back so your lame ass policies seem more SRS BIZNESS! --Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the opening of the discussion I would prefer the need to be 12 edits in the previous 30 days. Even if left as just a single edit i do think that restricting it to the previous 30 days is a good idea as it shows active involvement in the wiki as opposed to someone who registered an account 12 months earlier and only checks in occassionally to look at the maps/danger reports. Thats not to say that such folk are not part of the community but i am suggesting that they will not know or care enough about the policy/candidate to vote unless outside influences guide them--Honestmistake 09:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a higher requirement ether, but it's a fine line between a good anti-meatpuppet rule and and an anti-newbie rule. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Honestmistake on the time limit, but the number of edits doesn't really matter. Requiring more edits is mostly just going to make it more difficult to verify whether they're eligible or not. --Midianian Big Brother Diary Room: [510,27] 10:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that thinkering with numbers of edits and time in the community can be worked out later, in other policies. This policy only aims to fight disposable meatpuppets, and to further help twart the other kinds it would need harsher limits, which would likely kill this policy --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 10:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
A time limit is nonsense. my first edit last week was to vote for boxy. I knew everybody running, knew the rules, helped write them over the years actually and I've been as actively involved in this wiki as anybody can be. And I shouldn't be allowed to vote? We got dozens of active users that lurk for months at a time or go on wiki-vacations. And how about the regular lurkers? nothing bring people into this community as the ability to vote on something. these sort of limitations damage a whole lot more then they fix. they create a closed off wiki hostile to new comers. We are a information source, those that use that information source without necessary editing a whole lot are our core user base. Removing those from such important topics is against everything the wiki should stand for.-- Vista  T  02:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

History Purges. How many have we had? 2 or 3? If its that relevant (Which i don't feel it is.) would it be easier to add a clause about how this policy is irrelevant up to 2 weeks after a purge? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

History purges are actually relevant. The only AGAINST votes for my sysop bid were due to lack of edits but it was a history purge that made it seem like I didn't have enough. I'm really against any restrictions on voting rights. I don't see the need for this pointless red tape because some people fear "meat puppets". --– Nubis NWO 03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
the purge made it look like you didn't have many edits, you'd have to be pretty nooby (aka not have a user page) for it to remove all your edits.--xoxo 03:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
But why require edits at all? Have there ever been real meat puppets trouble?-- Vista  T  03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. --ZsL 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The goons did didn't they? On that policy kevan stepped in and denied if i recall correctly...--xoxo 04:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The goon policy was mainly about vote STRIKING. It wasn't about requirements. It specifically said Meatpuppetry (votes that are thought to have been done as a group bloc) should not constitute a valid reason for striking due to the difficulties of determining when this is actually occurring. The policy had 52 votes FOR and they weren't all goons. --– Nubis NWO 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
True, but the concerted effort of goons were making the difference between the passing and rejection of the vote. Now of course there were other votes for because it really did have some good points regarding vote striking. I agreed with most of it anyway. It was just the explicit endorsement of meat puppetry that caused problems. So currently the worst example that we have isn't actually all that bad, the policy did address some things that needed some addressing but overreached a bit and Kevan used his veto to stop it. In all our history the system worked well enough to prevent damage to the wiki even in the most extreme case we could hope to find.-- Vista  T  02:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems a bit irrelevant. Everyone knows the active wiki users, and I doubt that would change after a purge. Linkthewindow  Talk  19:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
If the requirement is one edit, the likelihood of a history purge causing trouble is about 0. --xoxo 03:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The history purge issue has already been fixed (along with any other unforeseen problems) by the simple addition of an appeals process -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:05 29 November 2008 (BST)

Meatpubbitry

... has happened before and Kevans veto made it clear that he was against "all levels of meatpuppetry being totally acceptable on policy votes". The requirement of a single edit before the vote opens is the absolute minimum requirement we could ever set, and it's not going to rule anyone out, unless they have been totally uninvolved with the wiki and signed up specifically to vote. Wiki specific policy and administration rights (sysop/bureaucrat) votes have absolutely no effect upon the wider, non-wiki using, Urban Dead community (those who only play the game and don't wiki) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:05 29 November 2008 (BST)

But it didn't cause any trouble then either. Meat puppetry shouldn't cause any troubles as long as sysops are not democratically chosen but promoted by bureaucrats and policies where meat puppetry happens get truck down. Voting used to be the biggest single activator we had. People used to sign up to vote because they were actually invested in this wiki but needed a prodding or reason to participate. This policy just introduces another hurdle for users for no real benefit-- Vista  T  04:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I figure that Kevan being forced to bring out the veto stick is an indication that wiki policy is failing. I work on the principle that the wiki should run without Kevan's input as much as possible -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:16 30 November 2008 (BST)
I think we got a difference in outlook there. I see no problem with Kevan stepping in once every year or so using his power of ownership, as that is wiki policy as well. And I think it is less disruptive doing it that way then placing hurdles for good faith users all the time for something that happens extremely infrequently and currently has no risks for the wiki at all.-- Vista  T  02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather Kevan were an active part of the wiki. More than that I'd rather we trusted the community as we wish them to trust us. Meatpuppetry isn't a big enough issue that it needs a restriction on who can vote.--Karekmaps?! 04:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
What Boxy said. As long as this doesn't affect votes that may have a minor effect on the game (think suggestion votes,) then I can't really see a problem with instituting a very low requirement for voting. What Vista said was interesting though, and I can relate. I mostly signed up to vote on suggestions, as well as update danger reports. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
If you actually bothered to look at the page you linked you might have noticed that only 9 out of the 53 FOR votes are people that don't have user pages (but since the purge I can't tell if they had any edits). I would bet that a few of those (except the ones that Cheese got misconducted for striking) had edits to the Dead's page at least or the Danger Map or a suburb news section. Your requirement of one edit is pointless. It wouldn't have affected that vote. If your policy wouldn't have changed the situation that it is a pathetic reaction to why do you think it will stop future situations? --– Nubis NWO 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it won't perfectly fix the problem... and quite frankly, the internet being what it is, I doubt any policy will. However this policy will make it clear that meat puppetry is not encouraged, and will stop quite a few. Apart from the red linked ones you counted above, there are ones like this and this who created their user pages on the day they voted (or just before) which would be picked up. And as to your "actually bothered to look at the page you linked" bullshit. I was there... at the time, watching it all happen. Where were the bloody hell were you? And contrary to popular belief, I'm not supporting a policy like this to "get The Dead" or the goons, or whatever. They simply made a clear example of what can be done by a sufficiently large group if they have the will to recruit members who have obviously no idea of how the wiki works to vote on reactionary policies without any regard for the long term good of the wiki -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:16 30 November 2008 (BST)
But you overlook the fact that the policy did try to address something that not just they thought wrong, namely to harsh vote striking which was a positive effort but overreached in their implicit endorsement of meatpuppetry. So what we have here as the worst case were is a policy that tried to do some good, but overreached and where the failsafe of Kevans ownership veto kicked in. Now this is a personal judgment of course, Bit if this is the worst, it's really not that big a deal to me.-- Vista  T  02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This Policy

Fails at addressing the intended problem, which seems to be meatpuppeting votes. Instead it focuses on putting a step of user involvement in making two distinct user classes, we've been over why that's bad in the past and I doubt it bears repeating.

The real question that should have been asked before this was even put forward is 'Is Meatpuppetry a significant enough issue to warrant both a policy and a limitation on user participation in votes', even as the guy who caused the first starting of this debate I assure you that I don't believe it is, that's why I did it in the manner I did back then. The next step from there is to find out if this is even the right approach for preventing gross abuse of meatpuppetry, such as when Kevan stepped in, as opposed to your standard run of the mill wiki voting blocks that arise from forum calls to votes; I put to you that it isn't, the right approach would be one of the two presented in the past, which would either be trust in the moderators to allow all stricken votes to be reviewed and revisited on an unlimited basis while a vote is going on so all possible or Simply to ignore policies detrimental to the wiki regardless of the state of the vote. The majority of the community, and the sysops for that matter, have chosen the second one to be preferable and Kevan himself has shown at least a willingness to step in in the most extreme cases.

What this leaves us with is a simple truth; Meatpuppetry is an already addressed issue, at least where it counts. Suggestions is irrelevant to wiki life and Kevan is a filter between that and what gets into the game. Promotions is important but is meant to be set up in a method where number of votes is irrelevant, that's where competent 'crats come in and put weight to the arguments presented not the number of people presenting them. That leaves Policies, except the people that enforce the policies also have the strange privilege of working based on their best judgement; That means they can refuse to follow set policies when it would be detrimental to the welfare of the wiki.--Karekmaps?! 04:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Tl;DR? This policy is detrimental to the integrity of the wiki and is based on irrational fear of people we don't yet know conspiring against us.--Karekmaps?! 04:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are couting on kevan's intervention every time something gets meatpuppeted ? This is bullshit! I have great respect for the guy, but i dont count on him to solve things when shit hit the fan. Actually, i only bring matters to his attention when i know there is no other way to solve a situation, and i can count in one hand the times i had to mail him about administration problems... and that's in ~3 years of wiki. We should create policys that allow us to solve this wiki problems ourselves, not expect the intervention of someone who barely tracks all discussions going around. This policy does not create another class of users, since the class its addressing already exist: the class of users who use the wiki as a reference tool, rather contribute to it. And you are encouraging Ignore All Rules (or Fuck The Rules, as i call it)... i'm so proud of you :D --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Even without Kevan's intervention it's a small enough issue that it is already dealt with without a policy. This doesn't solve any problem, it just creates an unnecessary restriction on new users that will force them to spam the wiki with unneeded contributions to be able to do anything, and that's already hard enough on them considering most of them don't know anything about wiki's when they start.--Karekmaps?! 04:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
So, taking into account that most of them don't know anything about the wiki's when they start, should they trully have the right the vote ? They are probably going to vote wrong anyway -- jk ;)
you know the wiki is about the game, not about its administration. New users should be encouraged to contribute first to other pages, not to vote on the administrative processes that most of them are not going to ever need to know. A single edit to a page shouldnt be a problem for a user to be considered part of the community and to earn the right to vote.
Your POV is like allowing people who live outside the US but kept track of the US elections to have the right to vote for the next president... people should be part of the community before they receive the right to vote, and a urban dead player is not, automatically, part of the urban dead wiki community, even if he uses it for reference --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 05:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)all hail obama!
Actually no, the way I read it, it's more of being required to have run for office, before being allowed to vote. The fact that people haven't edited yet doesn't mean they now nothing about the wiki, are uninvolved or never going to need those administrative processes. In fact voting shows that they care about the wiki, know about the wiki and obviously by voting are participating with those administrative processes and thus in need of them. The single worst example of meat puppetry as shown by boxy, was for a policy that directly involved those users voting as "meat puppets" and had a constructive purpose, even if they over reached. The fact that they proposed that flawed rule was because they indeed cared in a certain way, and were part of the wiki in a certain, and definitely were in need of the administrative processes. And that was the worst example. so yes this is a policy that unfairly limits people ability to contribute to a process they do have a stake in, for a almost non existent problem which we already can contain using the tools we already have. It simply has no real upside against the very real downside of closing important parts of this wiki off unneeded for it's primary users and audience.-- Vista  T  05:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
How come you have to run for office, when their first contribution can be made anywhere in the wiki ? The user first edit can be an edit to his page, voting for a suggestion, posting a danger report, writing description on building pages, writing on their group page, or even commenting on administration processes, among several actions that can be made that are not a vote... restricting the user ability to vote on something unless he showed prior the slightest interest in the wiki is that much of a deal? --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 05:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant to take your metaphor and show that just counting editing as showing interest in the wiki is too limiting. That editing doesn't equal citizenship but that we should define that more broad. Most people who show in interest in the wiki, don't edit, yet they are involved and do have an interest in this wiki. And that voting in fact is the single biggest activator we used to have. limiting that, just because we're scared of what in practice is nothing more of a specter of a bogyman is extremely counterproductive in my mind.-- Vista  T  05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

From policy voting

  1. For - it's one edit people, he's hardly constricting voting to highly active users.--xoxo 03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    So basically, your argument for it is that it can't do anything so we should add it as a policy. That is essentially what all the keep voter's arguments seem to be right now, it's worthless so we should make it the rule of the land.--Karekmaps?! 03:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    No. I'm saying the effects are minimal and only restrict those users who care so little about the wiki as to not have made a single edit. The against crowd are screaming out about censorship etc however all this will do is ensure the most lazy meatpuppets can't vote, everyone else still can.--xoxo 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    You basically just repeated what I said while trying to put it in a positive light. There's no such thing as lazy meat puppetry, they're a moved base driven to do something for external reasons, all one edit would do is have them spam a talk page or something for voting rights, in saying this policy has minimal effect you're trying to claim that as a positive effect, it isn't. Where is the good that comes from this policy? Saying it basically adds a step to the registration process isn't a useful answer and claiming that will stop anyone isn't an honest one.--Karekmaps?! 07:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    I think you'd be surprised how having to make an edit before discussion starts is likely to put off someone who is otherwise totally uninterested in the wiki. It's quite easy to go onto a forum and say "go vote for this know"... quite another thing to go and say "go and edit the wiki so you can vote in a week or two's time". Internet attention spans arn't very long -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:48 4 December 2008 (BST)
    Rather I'd be surprised at how un-dedicated you all seem to think these users are. The Goons were dedicated, this wouldn't have stopped them for an instant, they also happen to be the main argument behind this entire policy. --Karekmaps?! 07:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Nope, they were just the most obvious example of meatpuppetry. I'm sure the DHPD, RFF, RR... hell, every major group, has done it. This just makes them put some actual planning into it, which will put most of them off in most cases (which are spontaneous rather than planned votes) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:03 4 December 2008 (BST)
    FUCK YOU! This anti-meat puppet bullshit needs to stop. How fucking dare you say that people that belong in the same group aren't allowed to have the same fucking opinions on things! That's what we were bitching about. We hated the fact that you self righteous assholes decreed that since we all were in the same group we were all incapable of individual thought and therefore not allowed to have opinions. When the Goons came back to UD and the wiki Katthew and I told them to get involved in different aspects of the wiki (to spread the pubbie tears)we didn't tell them VOTE LIKE THIS FOR THIS. We didn't pull a Wan Yao on Brainstock (he posted to vote against the goons' policy that was supposedly "for meat puppets" - oh irony!) The ONLY thing we "enforced" as a group was unrestrained trolling. Because pointless inefficient policies like this prove that all you FOR people need an enema. I love the fact that the people that need to be "popular" to keep their positions because they don't fucking contribute anything are the sysops that are so worried about meat puppets. --Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 01:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    FUCK YEAH!--xoxo 02:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    If memory serves me well, Akule once made a list of ALL votes that have been rigged by the RRF, MOB, Resentized, and all other forums whose majority of users barely used the wiki but for reference. And there were plenty of cases where meat puppets made their way. The goons are not to worry anymore, but they were the most obvious and most recent case --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 14:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Has it ever occurred to you Mensa applicants that the reason those groups aren't HARDCORE users of the wiki is that they have OUTSIDE forums that aren't subject to your asinine rules and cliques? With bullshit like this can you blame them? --Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    And this wouldn't stop any of that. It takes a ridiculous level of bullshitting to even claim that it could as every group you both mentioned has a registered base of contributing/partially contributing users and has for over two years. Again we're back to the worthlessness of this ineffectual policy thing.--Karekmaps?! 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    Btw, thank you for proving my point about there not being such a thing as lazy meat puppets by listing groups you both consider to meat puppet votes.--Karekmaps?! 15:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    Nah-ahh -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:31 7 December 2008 (BST)
    I take that to mean you don't have an adequate response and either don't care or don't want to acknowledge that this policy will have no significant effect on the issue it was created to combat?--Karekmaps?! 06:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    No, that means that I recognise that we have differing views on this, and while I don't claim that my opinion is superior to yours, I don't concede that you have "proven" anything. You've stated your opinion, I've stated mine, we disagree -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:23 7 December 2008 (BST)
    It's not really something you can disagree with, it is fact that the people you admit you consider meat puppets wouldn't be effected by this policy. The only issue that this leaves is future meat puppetry, except there's no legitimate base to the belief that future meat puppetry by new groups will be done in any manor different than past and current meat puppetry by established groups. That means you're either being intransigent or just don't have a point behind the arguments behind this policy, it's emotional so you can all feel like something is being done even though nothing in fact is. That's the whole point of this discussion, your claims haven't been truthful and don't acknowledge what is known about this issue.--Karekmaps?! 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


  1. What can be disagreed with is my view that this isn't a major issue at all, that has nothing to do with the above though. The above is more about the fact that even if it were an issue this response is extremely lacking in effectiveness, fine be for the idea that we should address meat puppetry, but at least address it if you're going to make it an issue. The answer should fix the problem otherwise it's simply the wrong answer.--Karekmaps?! 12:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, you're right... you're always right, Grim -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:43 7 December 2008 (BST)
    Explain how I'm wrong or at least attempt to make a point instead of calling names.--Karekmaps?! 12:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    I thought I made it clear above that I don't think you're wrong... only that I don't agree -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:51 7 December 2008 (BST)
    If you don't think I'm wrong the policy is ineffectual then someone should be working on the follow up to address the problem properly. If you think this addresses the problem then you think I'm wrong, like above the whole discussion that you stopped with that line wasn't about whether the policy was needed but rather whether the policy would have an effect assuming that it is needed. The issue isn't that I need to be right but rather that there's not two opinions about it, either I'm wrong or work on another step in the chain needs to be started.--Karekmaps?! 12:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, poor Karek. boxy got his crat stat back so his mind has once again checked out. His position is secure until the required Crat election, but don't worry! No meat puppets will vote him out because of his SUPER POLICY SKILLS. It's amusing that the shitty crats/sysops get in power and stay there because they don't do anything (wrong or otherwise) and there isn't a good system to remove them. But by gum, there will be a policy to stop those nasty less than one edit meat puppets! Oh, just a thought, this: The next election should be in February of 2009, with Cheese's spot up for grabs. is complete Bullshit since boxy is replacing AHLG who was elected before CHEESE. So the election is either for that specific slot or it is for that person. Or it doesn't matter since boxy is setting himself up to be crat for life. --Globetrotters Icon.png#99
DCC  13:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. DCC, did you even bother to read the crat election rules? It is always the crat who has held the position longest that goes up for election. The two crats are not numbered offices so Boxy is not replacing "Crat number 1" he was voted Crat and thus Cheese has been a Crat longer and will be next up for election.
    Karek, I don't even see this policy as being aimed at Meat-Puppetry as a 1 edit requirement for voting is too low to do that... hell even a 10 edit limit would not do much to deter them. For it to genuinely restrict meat-puppet accounts it would need a limit closer to 100 edits and that is unnacceptable for many many reasons. However, why would (or should) it matter to any of the none contributing community how the system actually works? Most visitors to the Wiki are here to look at the maps, check descriptions/search rates for stuff and check danger reports. Even the majority of editors are probably only editing their own page, their group and relevent suburb page and suggestions... why the hell would they care about the pointless bickering over fine details that are most policy debates and why would they care who gets to sit on top of the pile (Crat)? Yes I can see why they might care about deletions and possibly A/VB but a fair few of the "FOR" voters noted that that probably should not be included. At the end of the day a 1 edit minimum is going to stop very few meat puppets but it will also not stop any genuine member of the community having their say on an issue which means that realistically you have not shown any good reason why this would not work...--Honestmistake 09:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    At the end of the day a 1 edit minimum is going to stop very few meat puppets but it will also not stop any genuine member of the community Ah, the morons don't even see the point when they type it out themselves. THIS IS A USELESS POLICY! That's the WHOLE POINT Karek has been making. He is always against USELESS RULES. (and that's a smart way to be). Let's make a policy that indents have to be made with colons, let's make a policy that using the abbreviation UD must always refer to Urban Dead. Let's make a policy that says you have to have 1 edit to vote. All very pointless policies indeed, but morons like you, Honestmistake, really can't see that. A policy that doesn't stop something or affect someone is a waste of time. --Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 10:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    Strange Honestmistake, as that's not what the policy says. If it doesn't work to address the problem it proclaims it's targeted at you shouldn't be voting for it, that's how we get ridiculously large amounts of Good Enough rules that will never be fixed and make participating in the wiki a living hell of rules lawyers and overly strong anti-user cabals. Don't vote for on crap you know doesn't work.--Karekmaps?! 12:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    I said I don't think it is aimed at meat puppetry but what I should say is that I don't think this will do much to discourage it. I do however think that if it makes it impossible to create a new (throwaway) account for the sole purpose of voting on a single issue it is a good thing. We might not get many such accounts but we do get a few and in that respect this does address meat puppets (and sock puppets too) and that is a good thing even if its a minor concern. However its real saving grace as I see it is that it will move towards a system that promotes voters to be actively involved in the day to day running of the system rather than just be "consumers" What you both are failing to do is explain why it is a bad thing that folk who play the game or even just know people who play the game should automatically be allowed to vote on issues that govern how the wiki is run... If those people cared they would have shown up in droves to vote it down, they don't care though and thus the policy will harm no-one and will promote an attitude of active involvement in any users that feel strongly enough to care. It is a (very) small step in that direction, but it is a move that can only be made in very small steps to prevent it going to far or causing unforeseen problems. --Honestmistake 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    You've ignored what Vista's point was; Everyone that contributes on the wiki either starts in a vote or through Suburb News. You're suggesting essentially making everyone go through Suburb News which has the worst retention rate on the wiki. Suburb News also happens to have one other effect; it forces users into a partisan mindset. It makes the voting blocks this policy was made in reaction too. Votes, or more specifically Policy Votes, don't have that effect because they aren't about x or y group, they're universal.--Karekmaps?! 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    People can vote for a suggestion, people can update dangerreports, people can edit their group pages, people can edit their user pages, they can edit building pages, they can use the talk pages! There is plenty of way for a user to get its first edit wihtout having to vote on an administration voting process. My first edits were all in the suggestion page, for example, and i only got carried into administration pages after a user brought my group into arbitration --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 03:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    And yet they don't and they're usually the better for it. Talk pages require people to talk with, user pages require something to say about yourself, suggestions are complicated and not easy to find if you're new, and building pages are covered under Suburb News. You said it yourself, you're group was your reason for editing, what about the other 90% of the game that doesn't have a group, or doesn't have a group that is involved with the wiki? Fuck the lurkers, amirite?--Karekmaps?! 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    Suggestions are complicated but Admin votes are not??? Have you gone completely insane? This does nothing to stop anyone involved (or wishing to be involved) in all but the most nebulous of ways from having their say. Indeed it might actually encourage those who lurk and feel strongly enough to come out and say in the pre-vote discussion what they might otherwise have reduced to a yes/no vote. A well put reason for your opinion at that stage often does a hell of a lot more than a simple vote! --Honestmistake 10:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware there was a tab on every page that said Suggestions, oh dear how could I ever miss that one. . .--Karekmaps?! 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From Policy Voting (again}

  1. FOR - Absolutely FOR! only made my first edit today, and it was not just so that I could vote on this, although this IS my first VOTE. If someone has interest enough to vote they certainly should have had interest enough to have made at least one wiki contribution in the past. ONE not FIVE! --Bgravatt 00:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    If this policy were currently in effect your vote wouldn't be counted. The first contribution has to be two weeks before the policy even goes to a vote.--Karekmaps?! 02:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    Errr... no! The first edit must be made simply before the policy got created, not two weeks before. You are against this policy and you dont even understand it ? And, btw, i assume this voter is just someone doing it out of spite, like the other one who voted against. They simply dont give a rats arse about this and are just doing it for the lulz... one more reason why this policy must be approved --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    I said two weeks before it goes to a vote. There's a reason for that, most policies push that limit as far as they can. You want to give best case scenario? Fine, 3 days. Doesn't really weaken my point in any way. Not to mention your comment here shows enough of the mindset that I believe does nothing but injustice to this policy; The new guys aren't the problem, stop treating them like boogy-men scum that aren't good enough to have opinions.--Karekmaps?! 03:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    Actually given how often a policies wording changes as a result of discussion it often only vaguely resembles the original by the time it gets to voting.... In effect every change (except spelling/grammar etc...) to a policy could be seen as making a new policy meaning that a user whose first edit was in the discussion before the change should be allowed to vote. --Honestmistake 10:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    That's just ridiculous but gets to my point even more. Arbitrary bans on who can vote on what doesn't take into account the situation not only of the policy but of the voter. If a policy doesn't resemble itself until it goes to a vote why is the limit the date the policy is originally created? It's because it was a randomly chosen date done with no consideration for the effect it would have, no discussion or forethought went into how best to make this policy effective, how best to do what this policy wants to do. It's just a bunch of parts put together to make certain people feel like they are doing something.--Karekmaps?! 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    I see it more as a saving grace for the policy, such a loophole is unlikely to be exploited by all but the determined puppet meaning that those first time editors have a genuine window of opportunity to be heard. You have said yourself that the opinion of "No Name" wikizens should be regarded as less weighty than regular and respected (well respected by some) users... what this would do is be the weakest possible sanction against puppets while still allowing and even encouraging new users to contribute in a meaningful way. It is not elitist to exclude the idiot riff-raff and psuedo-users while allowing worthwhile contributions from all, it is common sense. Just as an aside (and forgive me if you have answered in the mess) Would you accept this policy if it only applied to Crat election? --Honestmistake 18:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    Situational awareness is not your forte. New users don't know the history of older users, i.e. they're opinion of someone's judgment in becoming a Sysop is useless as they don't have personal experience with said user. However having a say in rules that will be enforced on you, that doesn't require years of participation on the wiki it requires simply willingness to be a part of the wiki. This policy doesn't show willingness to be a part of the wiki it makes it harder. This is saying "We don't want you having a say until we can say you can have a say". 'Crat elections might be a more viable vehicle for putting in restrictions but only because they are of a personal nature such as Sysop bids; Except that 'crat elections are meant to be as different from sysop bids as possible and do require some research on the matter before adding a vote. 'Crat elections don't need it because uninformed voting isn't an issue in 'crat elections, choosing between two users means you need to spend time finding out the differences between them.--Karekmaps?! 01:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Karek said "'Crat elections don't need it because uninformed voting isn't an issue in 'crat elections, choosing between two users means you need to spend time finding out the differences between them."
    I may be just a stupid noob but isn't "meat puppetry" the act enlisting people to vote in one way without doing their research? And it's not saying "We don't want you having a say until we can say you can have a say." Its "You can have your say when you have shown that you are your own individual with your own point of view and have done so without it impacting the entire wiki and game." Same as saying you have to be 18+ and have not committed any felony crimes and have willingly register to vote in the real world. Can you imagine if people registered there kids to vote and told them which politicians to vote for? I don't know about you but I don't always vote for the same things as my father. That is being an individual and an adult. And it doesn't bother me that my vote wouldn't have been counted in this case if the policy had already been enacted. A good idea is a good idea. My personal situation doesn't change that.--Bgravatt 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for making my argument Bgravatt. I am not even going to try improving on it because you nail it exactly. However to expand it slightly; a 1 edit minimum stops no genuine users and even if it only stops a small percentage of meatpuppets it costs the wiki nothing to do so and hence is a good thing. It also means that otherwise none contributing visitors have more reason to become involved and hence widens participation not narrows it! --Honestmistake 00:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    Except this doesn't stop meat puppetry, that much has already been concluded too above. What you're commenting on is more of an issue of Sockpuppetry, which is already preventable. And ignoring the very incorrect comment about voting outside of the wiki, voting on the wiki in blocks isn't stopped by this policy, that's what the whole discussion before was about. You're both ignoring that. IT STOPS NOTHING, ESPECIALLY NOT WHAT YOU'RE CLAIMING IT STOPS AND HENCE IS NOT A GOOD THING. The point about your situation is that it is attempting to stop users that don't exist from doing something that never happens at the cost of users who wish to be a part of an issue and discuss, learn, debate, and reason. This will stop good users and have no effect on the non-existant boogie-man that's being used to justify it, it's needless bureaucracy.--Karekmaps?! 02:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    But this will not stop "Good Users" doing any of these things, the only thing it will stop is single issue meat/sock puppeters and it may possibly mean that very occassionaly a real user may only comment on an issue rather than have a full vote. That really is not the end of the world and i very much doubt that it will result in anyone storming off at the injustice of it all! Lots of forums and wiki's require a lot more to be considered a full member than this and they still seem pretty popular. Will this policy be of Earthshattering importance and effectiveness? No! Will it cause any harm whatsoever? No! What it will do is throw an extra hurdle at puppets and give active lurkers to contribute if they feel they want to be involved. In other words this policy would do a small amount of good and zero bad.--Honestmistake 09:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    Please, stop claiming it stops meat puppets and sock puppets, one is disproven admittedly on this page and the other is stopped by Checkuser; it's our(sysop) duty to deal with sock puppets and a rule like this doesn't actually make the process any easier, we'd still have to check. This stops good users voting, that was the point I was making by pointing out that Bgravatt, who happens to be proof posit of Vista's point btw, wouldn't have been allowed to vote. That's a bad, even if it's not the end of the wiki, it's not balanced out by a good, your claimed good isn't based in fact, past experience, simplicity of implementation, or functionality, it's a falsehood in an attempt to address an irrational fear that it doesn't actually address any better than an active sysop doing their job would.--Karekmaps?! 02:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    I think we are just going to have to disagree then because I don't see this as having the effect that you think it will. It would have stopped Bgravatt voting, and his useful input shows that it would indeed have been a shame to prevent him doing so as he is clearly thinking for himself. However it would not have stopped him commenting and his point would have been made just as clearly. As for my "good" being a fiction it demonstrably is not... If a sock puppet is created for a single vote and is unable to make that vote then you do not have to check if it was a sock puppet; likewise for a meat puppet. That it would only filter out the least determined of such does not change the fact that it would filter out some. Your right though, it is not a big problem on the wiki and the fact that it happens so rarely is evidence that the current system works. My only argument here is that this would improve the system in a very small but IMHO worthwhile way while making a clear statement to the user base that we as a community expect at the very least a bare minimum of active involvement before we allow voting privileges on admin issues. --Honestmistake 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    So you are saying that Bgravattatata is worthy of having an opinion but FUCK HIM if he wants to vote because he doesn't meet the requirements ? That should make him feel better. And I am soooo glad he passed your FOOL PROOF thinking for himself test. Although, you clearly would not because you are just a sheep voting FOR without really understanding all the sides involved.
    If the current system works why change it? I really think you have no clue about how these "meat puppets" and "sock puppets" work. But it's ok. We were all new and stupid once. Most of us just figured it out.
Admin.png Ein Volk! Ein Wiki! Ein Führer!
I don't meet the citizen requirements set up by a power-trippin' douche with some serious control issues.

--Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 19:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. I would reply properly but you are too stupid and ignorant to be bothered with. --Honestmistake 09:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Honestmistake said:
If a sock puppet is created for a single vote and is unable to make that vote then you do not have to check if it was a sock puppet; likewise for a meat puppet.


Sockpuppetry is vandlism, if a vote is struck for being under the edit limit we would be required to check if it was a sockpuppet to deal out the appropriate escalations. Aside from that this would lead to needless drama in the future, just like striking votes always does anywhere else on the wiki it will piss off legitimate users who will get their votes struck while not stopping illigitmate users who won't be effected any more significantly than they already are. At least you're finally willing to drop the justifications that it prevents something and are admitting the real reason you want the policy, that's a step forward and certainly preferable than a trumped up justification to trick people to vote for the policy.--Karekmaps?! 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. I don't know that i ever said it would stop anything so i don't think i am dropping anything. I did say i feel it makes it slightly harder and that that was a good thing but thats hardly the same thing. If the rule prevents a puppet from voting (because they can clearly see it will be struck) then you do not have to check the votes validity. Your point on vote striking would be a very good one if we didn't have a clear rule in place... this is that rule so it really could not be an issue. As for my justification being "trumped up" to trick people??? I voted based on what i felt would be the result of this policy. I entered into this discussion (which is probably only being read by about 6 of us anyway) to make clear why i was voting and why i disagreed with those that voted against. As with most things the actual results of this policy would only be known for certain after it came into effect. It is possible that this would drive scores of previously silent editors of the wiki in indignation, it is also possible that it would lead to Hagnat rise to the empty dictatorship left by Grim, More liely thogh it would just act as a simple and relativley harmless step towards encouraging participation and making it a pre-requisite for real involvement in the wiki's processes.--Honestmistake 09:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Voting_Eligibility_(2)&oldid=1340842"