UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/ShadowScope vs Midianian

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

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 I removed the suggestion as a Dupe, and why it should stay removed.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, as part of the "viable difference" argument, if someones claim there is a "viable difference", there would be no way to contest such a claim. If someone claims a "viable difference", they may provide reasons why there is a "viable difference", and others may agree or disagree, but as long as that person continues to claim a "viable difference", he can still continue to try and send his suggestion into voting (especially if he has the support of other people who can assist with his claim as a popularity contest). This is another reason why allowing claims fo "viable differences" is fraught with danger and would render Dupes meaningless.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Midianian's Opening Statement

Some of the dupe voters consider it to be a dupe of in-game mechanics because you can already find the same items on the streets. However, I consider such a claim rather absurd. It would be approximately the same as claiming that any tactical resource point is a dupe of junkyard as you can find pretty much every type of item in a junkyard. The range of available items and their individual search rates are what make locations different from each other. The chances of finding any of the individual items in the cars would be somewhere around 5 to 10 times as large as finding the same item on the streets (calculations here).

Then there was the argument that the search percentages doesn't matter if they're not the best in the game. However, comparing outside search percentages to ones inside buildings is a bit of a stretch. Buildings can be unpowered or ruined, which both reduce search percentages. They can be overbarricaded making them inaccessible to characters without Free Running. They can be all of those at the same time, making them inaccessible to everyone (piñatas). With cars, the search percentages would always remain the same and they would always be accessible. The suggestion certainly isn't a dupe of any building.

Even if buildings were taken into account when looking at the search percentages, the best place to search for phones other than malls are clubs. However, these are dark buildings, which means that they are often ruined or dark (or both), and thus often incur severe penalties on searching. There's also the chance that they're barricaded over VSB, locking newbies out. Clubs are also much harder to find for non-metagamers than the cars would be. There are 235 clubs in Malton, which makes it a bit less than two and a half per suburb on average. There are 3176 streets and 258 carparks in Malton. Take the 40% mentioned in the suggestion and you get 1373 locations which would have cars, making it about 14 per suburb on average. It would be quite likely that one of the blocks next to any location in the game would have a car in it.

In short, the extreme availability and accessibility of the cars means that they would be the best places for newbies to get their phones, and that's something I definitely consider a viable difference.

I'll be addressing the rules-aspect in my rebuttal. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mid-Arbitration Statement

Ok, I don't really have any questions, so let's get on with the rebuttals. --ZsL 06:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ShadowScope's Rebuttal

Since he has not choosen to rebut my rules argument within the original argument, I can't find anything to rebut for that specific instance.

The argument that there is no "viable difference" is that outside areas already have items. Therefore, you can search outside as a newbie and get the items you need, including that of cell phones. Some people argue that the only difference is that search odds would be changed to be increased in areas where there are broken cars (as opposed to "other" outside areas), but I usully hear in response that it is not really a "viable difference". Kevan modifies and changes search odds at will, so we do not even know the 'true' search odds precentages. If Kevan wants to help newbies stranded outside, he can go and just increase search odds overall instead of limiting it to just areas with cars (after all, why should a newbie waste AP walking from Point A to Point B when he can just stay in the same area and use that same AP to search?). This is why some people state that the difference isn't really "viable".

The fact is, though, that it should not be left to a single individual to decide IF there is a "viable difference". There is in fact an argument over the existnce of a "viable difference", with some people stating there is and other people stating that it isn't. The way to settle it is to resort to policy to solve this disagreement.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 14:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Midianian's Rebuttal

First I must correct you; a suggestion may be removed as a dupe before 6 hours are up. The six hour limit is for Spam, not Dupe.

Yes, there have been several discussions on revising the dupe system. None of them were put to voting. I'd say one of the main reasons why most of the proposed changes were withdrawn was exactly because it isn't simply a "three votes, link, and you're out" system, and thus any large change was mostly unnecessary. Because there is a human evaluating the validity of the dupe before removing the suggestion. Not because the dupe voters have been around the longest or know best what's a dupe and what's not. Anyone can vote Dupe.

Yes, the suggestion system would become more cumbersome if one person could prevent a suggestion from being duped. But I advise you to look at the other extreme; any suggestion which has three votes and a link could be removed as a dupe. That's a much more abusable system. Neither of those is a good option. However, there's something you're ignoring here. There is a way to contest someone's claim of a viable difference. That's what Karek and J3D were doing on the suggestion's talk page. That's part of what you're doing here.

The Cycling Instructions clearly demand that "there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate" before a suggestion should be removed as a dupe (also listed here). Your reasoning to the suggestion being a dupe seems mostly to be that five others think it's a dupe. You haven't even voted yourself. You didn't even try to discuss it or contest my claim of a viable difference before directly removing the suggestion.

I can understand your preference for a system where you do not have to rely on a couple of person's opinions of whether something is a viable difference or not, but you can't just take the current rules and ignore the requirement for it. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A Twist in the Arbitration

After reading your statements, and the talk page of the suggestion, I still think that I need some more information before I can make a ruling. I'm going to see if I can get Angusburger, the creator of the suggestion, to answer a few questions for me. The Q&A will take place on this page, and I don't want either of the parties to interject themselves during the questioning. --ZsL 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Q:When a car would be searched, will there be a change in text that appears such as, "You search the car, but find nothing," or will it just say "You search and find nothing?" --ZsL 15:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A:It would read; "You search the car, but find nothing."

Q:When in a block that contains cars, what kind of flavor text will there be that states there are cars in the area? --ZsL 15:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A:The flavour text would read; "There is a derilict/burnt out car here"

Q:Could you give a more detailed breakdown of the search percentages of the items listed in your suggestion? --ZsL 15:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A:After reading the keep/change votes on the suggestion page, I propose that the search rates be 5% higher than the search rates for a normal street or carpark. (I have never found anything useful in a street anyway, so I suppose these rates must be very low!)

Can I please make a point? I AM the creator after all. I ment it as a flavour change really, but it sort of developed into a slight game mechanic change. Another honest thing (even though no one cares!) is that this was my first ever suggestion, I thought a litle flavour could never do any harm. --Angusburger 21:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ruling

Alright, after looking over all of this stuff again, and some previous suggestions, I rule that this suggestion is not a dupe of existing in-game features. The suggestion appears to be more of a flavor change, which I presumed from the response to Whitehouse's question in his vote (keep #5) on the suggestion, and from Angusburger's responses above. Searching cars instead of the street is a viable difference between the current game mechanics, and the suggested change. However, I find that Burnt-out Cars is close enough to the suggestions Cars and Search Vehicles, to declare that the first one is a dupe of the latter two.

Summary

• Burnt-out Cars is not a dupe of existing in-game features.
• Burnt-out Cars is a dupe of Cars and Search Vehicles

--ZsL 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Acceptance of Verdict

The two parties can write what they think about the outcome here.

Oh. Um. Does that mean that this suggestion would automatically be classifed as a "Dupe" of the later two suggestions, or should those who wish for the Suggestion to be Duped should change their votes to cite those two suggestions instead of citing "in-game"? I'm a little confused on that point.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So, it's not a dupe of in-game, and it's not a dupe just because five people voted Dupe. It's a dupe because it's similar to those two suggestions. I'm fine with that. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 09:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with the suggestion being automatically classified as a dupe, as someone has already taken the time to edit the suggestion as so. I also think that the dupe voters would not have a problem with the verdict, as they seem to be intent as wanting it to be gone no matter what. I'm also glad to see that both of you guys are ok with the ruling. --ZsL 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we did accept an arbitator. All descions are final, regardless if the parties agree to it. (I do agree to the ruling, by the way).--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, sorry about all this. I suppose I didn't look over previous suggestions. I will in future to avoid more of this. --Angusburger 16:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, don't worry about it. I guess you could look at it as a learning experience. --ZsL 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)