UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/ShadowScope vs Midianian

ShadowScope vs. Midianian

We're arguing over if this suggestion is a dupe or not. I state it is, because 5 people voted Dupe, believing there is no "viable difference", while Midianian states otherwise, stating that there is a "viable difference" and therefore overruling the votes of 5 people.

This likely needs the intervention of an arbitrator.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate, but in the interests of openess, I will point out that I was one of the people who voted dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is part of the reason why I won't accept you as arbitrator. I also pre-emptively reject the others who voted Dupe, as I doubt they could be entirely unbiased on this. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can arbitrate this case if you'd like, as I haven't voted on the suggestion in question. --ZsL 18:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept Zombie slay3r. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either of you so I'm impartial. I will make an excellent Arbitatortot. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 19:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No thank you. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Go fuck yourself. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you know each other now ;) --xoxo 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Since ShadowScope hasn't even responded here yet and hasn't exactly been very active recently, this arbitration case is unlikely to go along very fast. As the reason of Dupe removal is not to get the suggestion out of voting as soon as possible, but to prevent cluttering Peer Reviewed with duplicates, I'm putting the suggestion back to voting. If the voting closes before the arbitration case ends (quite unlikely) and the arbitration says it's a Dupe, it can be moved to Duped suggestions (from whichever category it ends up in). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Midianian, you only gave me 4-5 hours to reply. I know I don't have much of a life, but please.

I'll accept Zombie slay3r.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 22:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how fast you replied here, the case is still likely to take at least a couple of days. There's very little point in keeping the suggestion closed for that time, regardless of where it ends. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as both parties have accepted me as arbitrator, we'll get this case going. You guys can present your cases, then I might ask a few questions, and then you can submit your rebuttals. After that, I'll put down my ruling. --ZsL 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ShadowScope's Opening Statement

Current guidelines indicate that if a suggestion has 3 Dupe Votes, linked to the duped suggestion, then the suggestion is a Dupe and to be removed. That's really all there is. We know that suggestion has 5 dupe votes, all believing that this feature is already implemented within the game (hence providing said "link"). There was lots of discussion over this rule, with people desiring to modify this clause of having "3 Dupe Votes", maybe even policies proposed (I am not sure any gotten to a vote), but in the end, policy remained as it is, with the sole exception that we have to wait some time before removing it (6 hours).

The reason many people argued in favor of keeping the status quo is the idea that if some people state that it is a Dupe (even if the majority disagreed), then it is very likely that said suggestion is in fact a Dupe, because those people had been in the community the longest and know all the ins-and-outs. These people claim that those voting Keep may be ignoring the fact that the suggestion is a dupe or that they invent suprious differences so that their suggestion may not be removed. This is purely the argument I heard mostly about keeping the status quo, and I know that many people may disagree with those arguments, but as it stands, that is how it is. For the status quo to be changed, and for this premise to be gotten rid of, it has to be done through a new Suggestions Policy.

Now, Midianian claimed that since there is a "viable difference", the suggestion should not be duped. But how do we know if there is a "viable difference"? If one person claims that there is a "viable difference", say the author, or Midianian, or anyone else, then it basically gets rid of the power of the Dupe vote. And it could only be one person or a couple of people, even if everyone else voted dupe, they would just claim a "viable difference". This is an extreme example, but I want to state that it would be a dumb idea to let the "viable difference" exemption lead to a floodgate that would render the Dupe vote pointless.

I would prefer instead not to let my own subjective interpretion of what is and isn't a "viable difference" decide if a suggestion be removed or not. This would let me decide the fate of a suggestion...instead of the voters themselves. Instead, I care only of what the Voters stated, and I follow the standard policies to determine as what to do. 5 people believe there isn't a "viable difference", and so that is why it should stay removed.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Midianian's Opening Statement

When ShadowScope is done, you can present your statement, Midianian.