UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Arbitration and Misconduct: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Quote|2=It is expected from the community that if an illegitimate case is presented in arbitration that the community acts to remove the case. The act of removal should only occur after reasonable discussion has occurred and a reasonable chance has been given for opponents of removal to voice their concerns (typically 48 hours). If there is sufficent doubt among the community then the case shall be allowed to run it's full course. If both parties agree to the commencement of arbitration then regardless of the communities decision the case can not be removed. |3=The arbitration page should include}} | {{Quote|2=It is expected from the community that if an illegitimate case is presented in arbitration that the community acts to remove the case. The act of removal should only occur after reasonable discussion has occurred and a reasonable chance has been given for opponents of removal to voice their concerns (typically 48 hours). If there is sufficent doubt among the community then the case shall be allowed to run it's full course. If both parties agree to the commencement of arbitration then regardless of the communities decision the case can not be removed. |3=The arbitration page should include}} | ||
Thats how I'ld word it myself, but I think that this too would be abused by meat puppets. So I'ld perfer this to be more of an unwriten rule so that meat puppets or rule layers won't be able to abuse it. Of course however, I realize that this would bring us back to my first point of arbitrators not knowing that they can throw out cases that have no merit. Any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">02:10/19/01/2009</span>]]''' | Thats how I'ld word it myself, but I think that this too would be abused by meat puppets. So I'ld perfer this to be more of an unwriten rule so that meat puppets or rule layers won't be able to abuse it. Of course however, I realize that this would bring us back to my first point of arbitrators not knowing that they can throw out cases that have no merit. Any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">02:10/19/01/2009</span>]]''' | ||
:While i appreciate you don't want to make it strict due to rules lawyering etc i think this vague 'will of the community' idea can be abused. If you mean 100% agreeance from everyone (excluding '''immediately''' involved parties, ie the people in the case then that's something firm and fine imho. But if 70% of people and all sysops saying chuck it counts as 'community opinion' to void the case then i think that's a bad idea. Arbies is there because it is the one process on the wiki that sysops don't control. Yeah i know i steered this towards a zomgsysops rant, but with vague 'community' "votes" they tend to dominate as people assume they're mods or have some power outside of a/m, a/vb, a/d, a/sd and a few other less used a/ pages.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | :While i appreciate you don't want to make it strict due to rules lawyering etc i think this vague 'will of the community' idea can be abused. If you mean 100% agreeance from everyone (excluding '''immediately''' involved parties, ie the people in the case) then that's something firm and fine imho. But if 70% of people and all sysops saying chuck it counts as 'community opinion' to void the case then i think that's a bad idea. Arbies is there because it is the one process on the wiki that sysops don't control. Yeah i know i steered this towards a zomgsysops rant, but with vague 'community' "votes" they tend to dominate as people assume they're mods or have some power outside of a/m, a/vb, a/d, a/sd and a few other less used a/ pages.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:01, 19 January 2009
Arbitration and how to fix it
Rather then clogging up the main page I thought I'ld bring discussion here. I think as a policy this kind of thing is doomed to fail, I can see people abusing the rules for just about any wording that we can think of. If this was to become a policy all that is needed is an amendment to the current text to let people know what they can do. The amendment that I would suggest is as follows
| The arbitration page should include |
| It is expected from the community that if an illegitimate case is presented in arbitration that the community acts to remove the case. The act of removal should only occur after reasonable discussion has occurred and a reasonable chance has been given for opponents of removal to voice their concerns (typically 48 hours). If there is sufficent doubt among the community then the case shall be allowed to run it's full course. If both parties agree to the commencement of arbitration then regardless of the communities decision the case can not be removed. |
Thats how I'ld word it myself, but I think that this too would be abused by meat puppets. So I'ld perfer this to be more of an unwriten rule so that meat puppets or rule layers won't be able to abuse it. Of course however, I realize that this would bring us back to my first point of arbitrators not knowing that they can throw out cases that have no merit. Any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated. - Jedaz - 02:10/19/01/2009
- While i appreciate you don't want to make it strict due to rules lawyering etc i think this vague 'will of the community' idea can be abused. If you mean 100% agreeance from everyone (excluding immediately involved parties, ie the people in the case) then that's something firm and fine imho. But if 70% of people and all sysops saying chuck it counts as 'community opinion' to void the case then i think that's a bad idea. Arbies is there because it is the one process on the wiki that sysops don't control. Yeah i know i steered this towards a zomgsysops rant, but with vague 'community' "votes" they tend to dominate as people assume they're mods or have some power outside of a/m, a/vb, a/d, a/sd and a few other less used a/ pages.--xoxo 12:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
