UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vote Striking

Discussion

The current policy text isn't acceptable. Sysops are trusted users from this community, and in this trust resides the matter of doing what is right for the best interest of the community, even when going against their personal interest. Besides, there is no need to write a damn policy about something that is barely done in here, which is the removal of invalid votes from meat-puppets, since we only had a few issues about this in the past, and i hope this not to happen again in the future. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:49, 4 May 2008 (BST)

If it isn't a big issue then why balk at the policy? What will it hurt having a policy in place just in case it comes up again? It looks bad that you are so against it. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 14:03, 4 May 2008 (BST)

I don't think anyone I've ever met on the Internet has disgusted me quite as much as you. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:14, 4 May 2008 (BST)

You honestly believe that "trusted user" bullshit, don't you? Figure it out, Faghat, this policy was proposed because "the community" no longer trusts you because you constantly abuse that trust. --Kid sinister 06:43, 4 May 2008 (BST)

If by the comunity you mean you goons, then you'd be correct... but when you speak about the urban dead community as a whole, i think they disagree with you guys. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:04, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Did you realize in that page you linked that among your votes was a Vouch from Cyberbob? And yet here, several months later, he's saying that he's fed up with you too... I should also point out that he isn't a goon. If you're going to tout around your "everyone likes me" banner, then I guess I should also point out that you have the most Misconduct rulings of ANY sysop. What makes you think that you deserve to be trusted when you repeatedly show that you are the quantifiably least trustworthy sysop ever? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 01:22, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, i do realize that... and i find it funny too. He might not be officially a goon, but he acts like one, talks like one, and thjnk like one... you guys might give him an honorary goon title or something...

i do know about the number of misconduct cases i have against myself, but with two years on duty as a sysop, one can't avoid to be brought there... and i was only found guilty of five of all these charges against myself...

finally, as you can see in my evaluation bid (link already given above), i pointed out how many times i was brought to misconduct to the public and warned them that i would be bending the rules for their own benefict... yet i kept my status as a sysop. If THAT doesnt tell me that the community trust my judgement, i dont know what will... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:56, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Come on, think, if Cyberbob was a goon, then you wouldn't have even gotten your original Vouch.
I remember where you got the idea for your shameless self-Promotion! You proposed it as a failed attempt to skip out on a banning as result of a Misconduct case! Boxy had it right: "Sorry Hagnat, but that's not a punishment. You'd get in easily, but not because you were right in this case." YOU TRIED BENDING THE RULES TO BENEFIT ONLY YOURSELF AND IMPOSE YOUR OWN WILL ON OTHER SYSOPS. "Bending the rules for their own benefict" indeed. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 03:40, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Hagnat, you read it wrong, you were found guilty seven times from 12, and if it werent for the pretty blatant cliquery and "protect your own" shit happening within the sysop ranks, it would have been 8 or 9. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:46, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Hey, conviction of rape 7 out of 12 times ain't bad. At least it wasn't twelve! --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 19:54, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I only got to the first line, "Sysops will not be allowed to strike other people's policy, suggestion or promotion votes or comments for any reason, unless they have not participated in the discussion or voting relating to the issue at any stage...". Nope, sysops (who are some of the most active users on the wiki) need to be free to discuss and vote on policies that affect them. They should try to be impartial when making a ruling on the acceptability of votes, but not banned from participation -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:03 4 May 2008 (BST)

"Impartial sysops"? What a novel idea! When are you going to start?
Seriously though, I agree that impartial rulings are needed. If you can think of anyone that would be more impartial than an uninvolved sysop, we're all ears. Also, re-read what you quoted. Sysops would NOT be banned from voting or discussing. They would only be banned from striking votes in a matter they are involved in. With 20 of you, there should be no problem in finding an impartial sysop who isn't involved to strike the offending votes. --Kid sinister 06:43, 4 May 2008 (BST)

There is no reason whatsoever to strike anyones vote on any proposal unless the votes are clear and provable alts of another individual voting on the same matter (Proven with checkuser data or a confession from the individual in question). Like it or not, meatpuppets are people too, and they have just as much right to have their vote heard as you do yours hagnat. A meatpuppet is just another person coming to the wiki to vote on a proposal. Its very hard to seperate from them the lurkers, of which there are a great many, and the people who simply come along to vote on matters, such as suggestions and policies and such. Just because a person doesnt participate doesnt mean they cant have an interest in how it happens. Its not that easy to just jump right into a community, especially one that has been at its own throat like this one has for several years. The best way to deal with this problem is to rate votes based on the strengths of their arguments, but thats moving well outside the region of the apparently chosen form of decision making here. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:56, 4 May 2008 (BST)

This is ridiculous, Sysops should have free reign to strike votes and if someone disagrees they can take them to Misconduct!, as recent events demonstrate this system works fine, the sysops struck votes incorrectly and will be punished. This policy just means jerk offs voting for all the wrong reasons can continue to do so.--xoxo 07:17, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Did you read any of the discussion? They struck selective votes as "meat puppets/group think" *. When we took it to Misconduct one of them that struck votes tried to pass a ruling on the case.** If there is going to be a punishment it has been "demoted" to a wrist slap of Vandalism - which is ridiculous to apply to a sysop unless the 250 good edits = -1 level doesn't apply to them.*** This is your definition of "working fine?"
This policy just means jerk offs voting for all the wrong reasons can continue to do so. You know, without this policy Sysops can strike your vote and anyone that is in any of your group(s) vote(s) on the basis of Meat Puppetry or "group think" as Hagnut put it and all you can do (without this policy) is whine about it. As someone that is active on this wiki (especially in suggestions that need votes) you would think you would want the sysops to be held accountable for their actions because one day you might be on the wrong side.
But I'm not surprised by your comment since you seem to be very willing to turn all control over to sysops and roll over and let them do what they want.
If they aren't going to abuse their power then what would this policy hurt? It's just for abuse of vote striking, but you notice many of them are freaking out about having to actually be able to justify their actions. And if the case shows nothing else it shows that the sysops can't be unbiased or worthy of the "trusted" title. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 13:55, 4 May 2008 (BST)

This policy doesn't outlaw striking votes... it only outlaws sysops from commenting or voting on policies/suggestions if they ever think they may be needed to strike a vote on it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 16:54 4 May 2008 (BST)

Your buddy, Hag, is saying that removing votes rarely happens. On the 3rd Bureaucrat vote only 7 of the 20 sysops voted. 7 This was a policy that would have affected them the most. So in the 13 that didn't vote either because of apathy or inactivity one of them could have been responsible for checking alt account voting (since meat puppets shouldn't be struck at all). Why can't you understand that? It just says if you are involved in the discussion or vote you can't remove votes. It's like ruling on your own misconduct case. You can't be impartial in something you are involved in. Common Sense. Not all sysops participate in all the votes. Proven. Find someone that isn't involved in it and have them check votes for the same IPs. You will never have a topic that all of the sysops pick a side on. If they don't come out for the 3rd Bureaucrat they won't come out for anything else. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 03:26, 5 May 2008 (BST)

So in the 13 that didn't vote either because of apathy or inactivity one of them could have been responsible for checking alt account voting... uuhhh... the others sysops couldnt do it either because of apathy or inactivity... and i disagree with you on one not being able to be impartial ruling on a voting where he had displayed interest in one of the sides. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:24, 5 May 2008 (BST)

If you two had been able to be impartial do you think we would be here now? When is this impartiality going to kick in? Because this isn't the first time this has happened. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 14:34, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Tell me, have you ever heard of the term "conflict of interest"? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:19, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Nope. Just conflict of iterest. Yet, there is a key difference when one is ruling on a thing he is know to strongly antagonize/support and ruling on a policy voting where ANYONE (not only the sysop) could've stricked out the invalid votes. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:00, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Allow me to pick up your slack if you don't mind. That "key difference" you mentioned is that the first situation results in a Misconduct report and the second results in a Vandal report. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 06:44, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, that would be the key different between the case i linked to and the misconduct case grarr brought against karek (and later, against me), yet i was referring to the ability of sysops to strike votes on votings. If he is known for strongly supporting a side of the voting, he should not be the one doing the strike-outs, while if he only had a minor interest on it, participating on the discussion on what was under voting while remaining neutral to it, it's rather fine for him to remove the invalid votes --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:12, 6 May 2008 (BST)

The main point of these pages of discussion is the argument over what is considered a valid vote. It isn't just whether or not sysops or anyone can remove them, it is what the justification for removing them is. The concept of meatpuppetry isn't a valid justification. That's the issue that started all of this. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 14:32, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Sysops will not be allowed to strike other people's policy, suggestion or promotion votes or comments for any reason - It seems the policy is trying to forbid sysops from stricking out votes in this little first liner here... hum... and as you can see, most of my comments are directed exactly at this line, not on if the justification to strike them is valid or not. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:45, 6 May 2008 (BST)

'If they don't like it they can just complain' is a ridiculous arguments which just means more work for sysops when complaints come rolling in. It also disadvantages those who don't want to complain for some reason, perhaps to avoid annoying sysops, or don't know they can, which covers most new players who might be hit by strikes. --Grarr 21:53, 4 May 2008 (BST)

I don't think it's a good idea to prevent 15(ish) people from voting on some policies, and hindering them on others/suggestions. The other two bullets are fine, just not really necessary. Perhaps it could be made into a guideline about striking vote, meh. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:34, 4 May 2008 (BST)

I don't think you need 15 people to strike what is usually no votes. --Grarr 21:01, 4 May 2008 (BST)

It says: In the case of any policy involving sysops or bureaucrats, all sysops instantly have a vested interest. Therefore, only bureaucrats should be allowed to strike votes in these cases. That leaves 2 ('crats) people, who may or may not want to, have a bias etc. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:09, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Only 7 of your sysops voted in this topic that they should have a "vested interest" in. Your voter turn out on something that directly affected them was rather poor. Also, why should votes other than votes with the same IP be struck?

Striking on the basis of IP is something that is provable and probably wouldn't be argued.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 03:30, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Very well. How about I make a change: that sysops can't strike for meatpuppetry? That way, there's only very exceptional circumstances in which a bureaucrat must intervene. --Grarr 21:40, 4 May 2008 (BST)

As i already pointed out, it is impossible to seperate the meatpuppets from the lurkers and other passers by. Any judgement would have to be case by case and entirely subjective, which would vary depending on many factors, such as the individuals posting history, size of their argument, the personal opinions of the sysop doing the striking and what side of bed the sysop got out of bed that morning. Unless a system is objective, it will be unfair, and can easily be misused to persecute one group or another, or skew the results just that little bit required for victory. Sysops should not have that power, since there is a clear and demonstrable history of sysops abusing many powers when they thought they could get away with it, hagnat being a prime example. What you are trying to do here is patch over an intrinsic flaw to the democratic system, and you cant patch it without turning it into a tyranny. The best move is a change in style of governance, rather than trying to fix the demonstrably broken one you have now. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:12, 5 May 2008 (BST)

So basically you're supporting the change? --Grarr 18:44, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Grarr: Sure, if you apply it to suggestion meatpuppetry striking too. Removing inane votes/striking non author REs/unsigned are pretty obvious cases that don't require an opinion orinterpretation. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:10, 5 May 2008 (BST)

I would like to see inane votes removed from suggestions and other votes. If you are moved enough to vote then you should be able to justify your vote even if it is saying "the same as (so n so)." AHLG, you can't prove meatpuppetry. As much as I would love to strike votes for what I consider suggestion whore "meatpuppetry" where one suggester always supports/defends another suggesters posts you can't be hypocritical like that. People should be allowed to vote how they want.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 14:59, 6 May 2008 (BST)

I think forbidding sysops from striking votes for "meatpuppery" is a great idea. As has been said, it's hard to tell a lurker from a meatpuppet as it is, so the impulse should not be to strike now and fix later, as most lurkers/casual wiki-ers wouldn't check back on the issue. If a vote comes down to whether certain votes are from meatpuppets or not, I think it should be up to the bureaucrats to decide.--TagUrIt 21:39, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Crats are almost exactly the same as sysops, except they can make more/less sysops and crats and have won a popularity contest in the not too distant past (Which has absolutely nothing requiring proof of a candidates fitness). They should no more be "moderators" than sysops. You cant tell if a vote was a "meatpuppet", and even if you could, hypothetically do it in a magic fun land, they have every right to voice their own opinion on the matter if they so desire. The only reason this push is happening now instead of six months ago when i pointed out the problem is now those making the push are on the other side of it happening, and they dont like it. Suddenly all the flaws with the system they were so comfortable with have come back to bite them in the arse. Waaaah! Hypocrites...

You cannot fairly remove meatpuppetry, you cannot just decide that a persons vote doesnt count for as much simply because he was directed to the poll by a friend/acquaintance instead of finding it on his own (Especially since its all but impossible to find out if that was the case) and you most certainly cant fairly eliminate the problem without another three decades of research and implanting electrodes into the brains of everyone who votes to read their minds and see why they voted as they did, which raises some seriously hairy ethical issues about personal privacy.

This is a fundamental problem with the democratic system: People who vote in blocks with their friends. You cant magic up a system to fix that problem without making it a tyranny. In fact, we shouldnt even try here, given the rather sordid history we have here regarding adbuse by both sysops and bureacrats, especially on this matter where there will be, by the problems very nature, an entirely subjective set of rules regarding striking that make it almost impossible to punish those in power, especially if they themselves block vote (See, Clique) and incredibly possible for them to twist and butrcher the system to serve their own ends (Hence the tyranny).

The point I have here is that democracy is fundamentally flawed and a very poor choice for this wiki. I dont know what a better system would be, possibly a benevolent dictatorship, but the bitch there is getting a benevolent dictator instead of a malevolent one. There are a whole other set of possibilities, where a decision is not weighted by how many people support a proposal, but the strength of the arguments for those proposals. That too has its own problems. Face it, for social animals, humans really do suck at being social. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:26, 6 May 2008 (BST)

It could be that we have a form of democracy on this wiki that's very much designed for an Individualistic community, whereas the ideas behind a wiki of any sort tend to be based much more on collectivism, with co-operation and consensus being more important than the individual.--Seventythree^Talk 08:39, 6 May 2008 (BST)

I was thinking recently that Grimch should be made Dictator For Life of the Urban Dead wiki... It'd work like this: everything would work exactly as it does now... Except that Grimch can intervene on any admin issue and his decision is Law. Also, someone can petition Grimch for a decision, etc.; however, he can ignore or intervene at his discretion, and in any way he sees fit. If he ignores, well, it's business as usual... This is the only way that wiki will work. GRIMCH FOR GAWD!! The thing is... I'm actually more serious than I am facetious... I was going to draft a policy and put to voting... ;P or :| ?? --WanYao 12:26, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Hey guys, just thought I'd point out that my case is setting a precedent that makes this pointless and repetitive. The first two points are just complaining the second two are already how it's done.--Karek^maps?! 13:57, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Nice try! I like how you are trying to play down the importance of what you did by saying it is just "complaining". Hope that works out for you.

And if the 2nd two points were the way it was done there wouldn't be a complaint against Hagnet, too. It shouldn't come down to the 4th point because the 2nd point should always be followed.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 15:52, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Yup, as opposed to this being a knee-jerk reactionary policy, the fact that the first two points are blanket statements in a policy and as such can't be enforced without allowing for exploitation. A policy shouldn't say that something should never be done.--Karek^maps?! 18:02, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, that's why this policy has an 'except' too. --Grarr 21:52, 6 May 2008 (BST)

I have one simple word to describe what I think of this policy: No. All this is going to do is allow certain groups to get all their members to sign up to the wiki to make a single edit on a particular suggestion/policy/promotion bid and shoot it down (or get it passed) because they feel like screwing around for a laugh. We don't need this policy. More than likely never will. -- Cheese 23:11, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Thanks for saying that the largest group's opinion doesn't matter. --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 03:34, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Thats not a problem with the policy, thats a problem with democracy in general. Pick a different form of decision making or get over it. Its always been possible. Hell, back in the day the zombies damn near got a suggestion into peer reviewed to remove zombies from the game that way. The reason there is an "official" objection now as opposed to an objection back in 2005, or 06 or 07 is because until now there hasnt been a group large enough to massively outvote your own little mob. Now Something Awful is here, and you are all wetting yourselves in fear of them actually figuring out that if they really wanted to screw over this wiki, all they would need to do is vote as a huge block on some really nasty policy proposals one or more of them write up. There is a reason Democracy is sometimes referred to as "Tyranny of the majority". Now that you aint the majority anymore, you are pretty darned scared, hence this hubbub. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:38, 7 May 2008 (BST)

As what you will all acknowledge as a "vocal leader" of the Something Awful contingent on this wiki I wish to point out that we haven't tried anything like that yet. Grim is right though. It is easily something we could do if the need arises, however. Don't think that we haven't considered it. While our intention isn't to "screw over the wiki" if we don't get equal treatment we may have to take action and get some policy changes made. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 11:26, 7 May 2008 (BST)

So true... *rolls back and forth curled up in a corner, sucking his thumb* --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:19, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Well Kevan is never gonna be Jorm, but he might look good in gestapo gear. Who else would rule the wiki with an iron lung?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:31, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Wiki post of the year, right there. Well said. --Deadtanian 12:13, 7 May 2008 (BST)

What Grim said. "Tyranny of the majority" is still better than "tyranny of the minority." --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:37, 7 May 2008 (BST)

That's actually a good point. Perhaps group voting should be banned altogether? ie, if the RPF or DPHD or anyone wants to vote, they're only allowed one vote? Or form a senate-like thing, to make up for the purely democratic voting system we have already. Obviously, we can't distinguish between different groups, as that'd be unfair and lead to mass accusations of sysops being corrupt or biased. Regardless, as it is now, vote striking should be a big deal, and done only in the case of obvious sockpuppetry--each human player should be allowed to comment, and I don't know why in the world you believe otherwise. Colbear 20:28, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Wikipedia:WP:CONSENSUS Yes! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:30, 8 May 2008 (BST)

So, with 20 sysops, it shouldn't be hard to have one person sit out and be impartial--in fact, chances are, it'll happen every single time just because someone didn't feel like voting and such. Removing sockpuppet votes (but not "meatpuppet") votes should be, as Grimch pointed out, trivially easy. Since "sockpuppet" is a generally uncontested reason for vote striking(assuming sockpuppetry is proven, which isn't difficult), is it really that hard to poke one of the uninvolved sysops and say, "these people are sockpuppeting, please strike X, Y, and Z's votes?" Colbear 20:45, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Strike Explanations

I got me an idear for something to add to this potential policy: Anyone that strikes ANY vote must provide a detailed explanation of their reasoning for striking such a vote. These strike explanations must appear as a comment following the stricken vote. A single explanation may serve for several stricken votes only if the reason for striking is the same. The striker may do this either by grouping the stricken votes together, then placing the explanation after them all; or by providing the explanation for the first instance on the page, then referencing the previous strike for each occurrence afterwards; or by some combination of these two methods. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:58, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Overdone. How about "must provide a clear explanation for striking". No need to for a gigantic paragraph explaining a strike. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:35, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Don't I already cover that with forcing them to put a rough reason when signing and a detailed justification in the talk page, or do you want me to tweak that a bit? --Grarr 21:52, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Crap, how did I miss that? Actually, your way would be a lot cleaner in practice. Never mind, nothing to see here... Image:Whitetrashchristmas.jpg --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 22:42, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Bullshit (and why)

This entire policy is just aimed to limit the powers of sysops. ANY USER CAN STRIKE A VOTE. Basically, with this policy, it bans sysops from striking votes but allows normal users to continue striking as usual. Since a sysop is a normal user with a few extra buttons, this is counter productive to the task sysops are asked to perform. Looking at it from another angle, a sysop could strike a vote and say they are doing so as a normal user and this policy is powerless to stop it as any user is permitted to strike a vote with the right justification. Therefore, this policy=worthless as it won't be able to change anything. -- Cheese 21:16, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Right now, you have a vested interest in the topic on hand, and have even voted against it. At the same time, you have been striking votes that agree with the policy. This policy is preventing that specific scenario, and I'd like to thank you for doing it so that we have an example. Thank you. --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 21:25, 8 May 2008 (BST)

You didn't read a word of what I put did you? Any user can strike a vote. This policy has its heart in the right place but it worded wrongly. If you want it to make a difference, then it needs to include all users. Not just sysops. But having it just aimed at sysops, it makes the policy worthless since it won't stop a random regular user from striking the votes. Do you get what I'm saying? -- Cheese 21:27, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Welcome to the Wikipedia system of the promotion of non biased information. Setting people's goals and opinions of others is the first step into an age of the Tyrant. Urban Dead should've stuck with a forums layout if they wanted that. The Wiki form comes with it's prices and benefits.--ScoobyDooDoobie 21:33, 8 May 2008 (BST)

If I struck a vote I'd be banned for vandalism, I guarantee it. Your logic is flawed, you crazy dictator. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 00:50, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Heh, too right. I'll continue striking unsigned votes on suggestions pages regardless... because I'm not doing it as a sysop, just an ordinary user exercising the right every other user has. Being taken to A/VB is the chance you take whenever you remove something on this wiki -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:24 9 May 2008 (BST)

i am so gettin' you banned --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:26, 9 May 2008 (BST)

The Ironing is Delicious!

Wan Yao's call for bloc voting against a policy that says bloc voting should be allowed. Did you think we wouldn't find this? The beauty is if this fails because of your bloc voters we can strike their votes for meat puppetry because we have proof. :downsbravo: -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 00:36, 9 May 2008 (BST)

WanYao, before you go and try removing that forever and ever, please note that it has already been archived and mirrored. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 00:44, 9 May 2008 (BST)

It's my new desktop wallpaper. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 00:49, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Well, that sure doesn't seem like the actions of a desperate oligarchy trying in vain to shut the people out of the decision-making process! --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 00:44, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Usually he's so quick to respond with some clever retort but all is quiet in the town of Wan Yao.--ScoobyDooDoobie 01:34, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I have nothing to hide... My position on this matter is clear and consistent. So why would I delete or hide my post to Barhah? A post I made to public forum... one of the largest UD player forums, to boot... It fits perfectly within my position... See, any "logical inconsistencies" or "irony" are the result of your own flawed comprehensions... --WanYao 02:40, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Irony- the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning. You attempted to get votes from a group bloc to to vote down the use of votes that are thought to have been done as a group bloc.' Don't worry though, Alanis Morissette didn't completely understand irony either so I'll this one go. Also Barhah is considered outside of the Urban Dead wiki and despite what you think, Somethingawful's Urban Dead group is even larger so all your points are moot. The support you received from Barhah is quite adorable considering the pathetic turn out that your reputation has gathered.--ScoobyDooDoobie 04:03, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Your position on the matter is that you don't want sysops who have chosen to take a side in a debate to have their possible bias recognised? You'd prefer it if a sysop could say "Well, looks like my perspective was outvoted... OR WAS IT? Meatpuppets all round, motion carried!" Not only that, but be able to judge whether their own actions were misconduct? Wow. That's pretty much a by-the-book case of abuse of power. You're a real slimeball, you know that? --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 03:55, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I would be one of the "Wan Yao" supporters from Barhah.com, but let me point out a few things that you seem to miss. First off, I read the post once and brushed it off. It was not until repeated posts on the thread that I actually looked at the policy. Secondly, just because it was Wan means I supported the side he took. I took the time to read the policy in full, then read the arguments presented by both sides. His attempt at "meat puppetry" amounted nothing more to me personally then bringing the issue to my attention. Personally I like to think there are decent people yet in this world, people capable of thinking for themselves rather then doing exactly as they are told. Apparently some of you lack the same good faith. --Gus Thomas 05:13, 9 May 2008 (BST)

And apparently you lack good judgment. Opinions are fun!--ScoobyDooDoobie 05:23, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 06:58, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Okay so you saw him post on a forum about this issue, came here, read what was going on and then voted. This is not, in your opinion, "meatpuppetry"? Because that's exactly how these things go down with us goons. I mean, sure, the retard brigade that's currently "in charge" of this place would love to have you believe that we're some kind of creepy, villainous hive mind that is out to cause the downfall of society and the death of millions... but how come you can do what we do and get all huffy about not being a "meatpuppet"? Because that is exactly what you are, according to current policy. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 11:17, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Oh wait current policy only applies to goons because being "fair" and "even-handed" in matters is for faggots am i right --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 11:17, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Teh Overlord has spoken, stop bitching and move on to your next pointless policy battle. Better luck next time.--xoxo 13:22, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry, I can't quite understand you with that penis filling your mouth. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:25, 9 May 2008 (BST)

That's right, bob - if someone disagrees with your opinion, then that means they're a cocksucker. I guess when God was handing out logic, he said "Come forth!", and you came fifth. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:37, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I was referring to the fact that he was oozing satisfaction and brown-nosery rather than his actual position. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:06, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Well, why are you having a go at him for oozing satisfaction when the destruction of the wiki has just been averted by the timely intervention of the owner? It's almost as if you want this wiki to implode, bob. That's not right, is it? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:16, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I never figured you for a McCarthyist, Funt. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:20, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Either make a logical point or don't, but please don't use ridiculously transparent baiting tactics, your horrible little troll. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:23, 9 May 2008 (BST)

You want to talk logic? Where is the logic in taking a desire to destroy the wiki from a comment on smugness? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:27, 9 May 2008 (BST)

So you didn't vote for this policy? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:31, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Oh, so that's what you were referring to. In that case, I fully expect similar messages on every single person's talk page who voted for it. Off you go. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:32, 9 May 2008 (BST)

That's a hell of a roundabout way of avoiding a question, bob, but well done. Very inventive. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:42, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Was that cocksucker comment directed at me? Coz i wasn't sucking up...i was justing loling at assholes trying (and failing) to fuck up the wiki...--xoxo 01:16, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I don't believe you. Your response to Kevan when he vetoed it overrides any ambiguity there may be in your comments under this heading. Besides, smugness is the marker of a terribly weak personality. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:21, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Wow, funt was right - you do just insult people when they don't agree with you...and i'd love to hear exactly what sucking up to kevan could possibly achieve, even in the eyes of one with a terribly weak personality.--xoxo 01:24, 10 May 2008 (BST)

I don't know, why don't you tell me? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:37, 10 May 2008 (BST)

How surprising...you can't think of one, didn't think you would.--xoxo 01:44, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Why am I the one having to come up with a reason when you're the one who did it again? Seeing a reason for doing it would require believing you capable of logical thought. So far I'm not impressed. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:38, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Oh there's reasons why i did, the highest of which was that i found kevan shutting this thing down hilarious. I'm saying that there is no reason for sucking up to him and the fact that neither of us can come up for a reason why i would suck up to him i think that proves i in fact wasn't.--xoxo 06:16, 10 May 2008 (BST)

The policy is bullshit. And the motivations behind it are even more bullshitty. No one is buying the martyrdom act... Not even the people (myself included) who have little faith in the current sysops... There are a handful who rawk... A few who are well intentioned, but a bit blundering and/or heavy handed. And a whack who suck ass. However, I have infinitely more trust and faith in all but the worst of them than in a gang of internet thugs whose mission is to break online games... --WanYao 09:28, 9 May 2008 (BST)

WanYao's right, of course. All this talk of democracy is interesting, but I guess there's a reason why the voting age of real government politics doesn't tend to include temperamental teenagers whose favourite words are "retard" and "faggot". --Funt Solo ^QT 14:49, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Shut up you retarded faggot. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:16, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Hurrrrr! --Funt Solo ^QT 16:18, 9 May 2008 (BST)

There was nothing funny about what I said. It was surprisingly the 100% correct response. That isn't funny, it's tragic. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:25, 9 May 2008 (BST)

The only point being proven here is that you're not interested in maintaining this wiki as a resource for players of Urban Dead. You're not interested in the promotion of democracy. You're not interested in discussion or compromise. There's only one thing you want - and that's to cause bad feeling for other people. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:29, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Stop acting like a retarded faggot and you will see that we are quite reasonable. The first step is removing your head from your ass. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:41, 9 May 2008 (BST)

You're fairly blatant for a troll. I guess for you, subtlety's just something that happens to other people, right? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:44, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I'm trying to be reasonable here. My choice of words reflects the seriousness of your problem. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:48, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Veto

I'm bringing out a carte blanche veto on this one. It'd be good to have a clearer policy on what counts as abusive vote striking, but we really don't need the floodgate-opening, start-your-engines clause that endorses meatpuppetry (and sufficiently diligent sockpuppetry) for policy votes. --Kevan 10:40, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Jesus Christ Kevan, of all the damaging policies we've had over the last few months you choose this one to put your foot down on? Meh. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:52, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Well i was going to vote against - but this makes it sorta pointless. All i can say is THAT WAS TOTALLY AWESOME KEVAN! --xoxo 11:52, 9 May 2008 (BST)

No offence, dude, but do you actually pay one fucking iota of attention to what goes on around here? I know you are The Great And Powerful Kevan and you're awfully busy off making improvements (hint hint) to the game and upping syringe find rates, but could you at least pretend to give a damn about this place? What you've got here is a bunch of sysops who are wielding their power like simpering nepotists with a petty grudge against the "proles" who don't have the time to make ten billion edits to this place. These are people who'll strike votes that go against them, then excuse themselves from any accusations of misconduct. If I have to make another reference to the Star Chamber to explain what's going on, I'll be quite ticked. This isn't some stupid "meatpuppetry" excuse we're bringing up - we're genuinely pissed the fuck off that the aristocracy of the wiki feels that they can shut us out of a game we've been involved in since nearly the beginning. Except seniority only counts when you're not from SA, because we're not in this game to act like tea-sipping layabouts spending all our AP turning Urban Dead into LiveJournal. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:42, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, abusive vote striking is bad, and we should improve the rules against it if they aren't working. Yes, we should deal with any sysops who are exploiting it. I vetoed this policy only for the tenuous clause about all levels of meatpuppetry being totally acceptable on policy votes, which would obviously be exploitable by any single game group that wanted to get their own way on the wiki. --Kevan 15:31, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Are you saying that the opinions (and votes) of lurkers don't matter?
You're talking about an "exploit" that could only occur when there is a policy up for vote, when the sysops exploit their power every day. We'd like to "deal with any sysops who are exploiting it", but we can't because the whole fucking wiki is stacked AGAINST the little guy. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:09, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Would you like to point out to us how exactly the sysops should be dealt with when their buddies are covering their backs for them? Cases have been made against every one of those who are abusing their power in both Misconduct and A/VB - they were able to get away scot-free each and every time. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:13, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Cyberbob just hit on the reason i went inactive. I tried to fix this place up. I tried to make them accountable, and instead i got shit heaped on me, met with nothing but frustration, and sent kevan a long winded email explaining the scale of the abuse to him and how we could not fix it up on our own. His response was rather breif and showed his complete failure to understand the wiki. He suggested getting all sysops to renominate themselves. Oops. the crats are part of the clique, woop, they can purge those they dont like. Have fun. Clique stays in power, enemies removed, clique has even more power. Long story short, Kevan is an imbecile. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:39, 10 May 2008 (BST)

I must have missed the meeting where the creators and avid supporters of this policy tried to become a part of the sysop/'crat team, and were cruelly subjugated by the ruling clique. When did that happen? (I thought the reason you went inactive is because you tried to enforce a system of "the rule is always right, whatever the circumstances", everyone disagreed with you, and you became frustrated because you weren't entirely in control of the situation. My mistake.) --Funt Solo ^QT 08:34, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Jesus Christ. Even when we try to play by the wiki rules and vote on policies that will make this place less of a shithole, it gets struck down. Enjoying your little power trip, guys? --Cythrelo 14:00, 9 May 2008 (BST)

lol, guys kevan is barely affiliated with the sysops. I've never particularly got on with the sysops as a whole (although there are exceptions) but i think they tend to the reasonable side, giving generous doubt and having a innocent until proven mentality (for everyone, not just each other) and if anything the fact that Karek got a warning for his edits shows that they are willing to dish it out to each other. if you don't like the sysops nominate some different ones and propose reasonable policies - not this ridiculous policies that more or less encourage sock/meat puppeting and would result in the dead controlling the wiki and sysops having no power within a few months...--xoxo 14:06, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Utterly pathetic. If the purpose of the wiki is to maintain the status quo then just scrap the pretence of a voting system and be done with it. OMG KEVAN!! WOWOWOWOW!! Witnessing sycophantic fawning always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, be sure and clear your dignity to one side before you leave, lest someone trip and injure themselves. --Deadtanian 14:23, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Cock goes where? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:23, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Well, it's sticking out of your forehead at the moment, bob. --Funt Solo ^QT

lrn2internet --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:22, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Let's see if the sysops that whined to Kevan are brave enough to reveal themselves... --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:09, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Why, so that you can dance on their heads, while they hang them in shame? What are you trying to do here, exactly, apart from wreck the wiki? To what end? I'm fairly sure you've come to the wrong shop for anarchy. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:13, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Well, since they saw firsthand that the wiki users by majority disapprove of them, they would be the most likely suspects. It should be either them or possibly WanYao. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:23, 9 May 2008 (BST)

You've avoided my questions, I note. What are you trying to do, here? What good are you trying to do? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:27, 9 May 2008 (BST)

How about trying to ensure equality among users, regardless of group? Trying to make sure that votes aren't struck simply because the voter belongs to a certain group? Ensuring that people who have just been introduced to the wiki have a right to participate? It seems on this farm, some animals are inherently more equal than others. What is the purpose of a voting system if not to establish the will of the many, rather than the 'chosen'. As much as you might dislike it, we have as much right as any other bugger on this wiki to have our voices heard. You're searching for anarchy and finding nothing but frustration champ. --Deadtanian 16:28, 9 May 2008 (BST)

This wiki is a resource for the game Urban Dead. Anything that goes against that primary goal of this wiki is, to my mind, a bad thing. Democracy is not the only, or best, form of decision-making. Consensus is actually more logical. That's where some ideas (rather than animals) are inherently more equal than others. Think of a vote on setting taxes. If put to the public as a purely democratic decision, they may vote 0% tax, so that they don't have to pay it. Without the tax, the services of the community collapse: such as sewarage, street-lighting et al. The better decision, the better idea, would be to have some tax. So, you see, democracy does not always work, and the democratic society of, for example, the UK, is only democratic once every few years. Between elections, it is not democratic, for we are governed. This battle you're fighting is a false one, and those that preside over it like nothing better than to cause trouble. Witness how they insult everyone they disagree with, and how they threaten to push through policies that demote everyone they disagree with. What happened to compromise? What happened to reasoned debate? What happened to a community trying to provide a useful resource for an online game? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:39, 9 May 2008 (BST)

LOOOL!!! I went sucking up to Kevan??? Ahahaha! I don't know Kevan or talk to him, and Kevan doesn't know me from a hole in the ground. The only UD big shot who's personally emailed or communicated with me is Uncle Zeddie... You Goons are pathetic. Really you are. Change the dosage on your meds.... Because the paranoia and persecution complexes and delusions of grandeur are getting sooooo fucking wearisome. --WanYao 18:59, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Projecting yourself onto others must be tiring I bet. We're also not just some hivemind, we all just happen to go to the same forum. By the way, your massive group of 3 meatheads from Barhah say hi. Does it make you sad that we have to force the creator's hand several times to 'balance' the game in favor of his fruityass friends? Urban Dead is broken into an exodus of 50/50 pop boredom. Welcome to nowhere.--ScoobyDooDoobie 19:13, 9 May 2008 (BST)

You're just making stuff up, there, my scooby-snacking friend. Kevan has, in all the years I've been here, involved himself directly in policy making exactly once: on this policy. And he's not trying to protect his "fruityass friends", because he's also never allied himself directly with any of the users of this wiki. One of the falacies being purported by the so-called "goons" is this us & them scenario, where there's a very black and white set of goodies and baddies. That's ridiculous, frankly. Most of the sysop team here never agree with each other, let alone blindly back each other up, as anyone can see if they look at a bit of the history of this wiki. It's like the idea that pure, undiluted democracy is not only a purely positive force, but also something that exists anywhere on the planet. Show me the country that is actually operating a pure democracy, and I'll show you how to turn poo into gold. My point is this: it's not a black and white issue. Those complaining of having their votes struck are not freedom-fighters seeking justice for the common man, and the three sysops who have actually struck votes recently (and been perfectly willing to discuss the issue, and been policed and in some cases punished by their peers) are not evil overlords trying to subjugate the masses. Break out of this blinkered, monochromatic vision and into the wonderful world of technicolour that is reality! --Funt Solo ^QT 20:35, 9 May 2008 (BST)

You are such a good troll! Everything you said is complete shit, and yet you have this attitude that you are right. Wonderful! I like how you pretend to know wiki history yet are totally wrong. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 15:33, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Are you still high from the extremely high find rates for Needles when zombie populations were high? Sorry but apparently the guy is a proponent of the squeaky wheel syndrome which under the current system is filtered by the sysops. The guy can't even program a proper rand generator in C+ so I doubt he puts much thought into this. It'll all change though in a few months from now so don't worry.--ScoobyDooDoobie 23:40, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I'm not sure what's happening here - are you slagging off the programming skills of the creator of the game that this wiki is supposed to provide information for? If so, it begs the question: what have you programmed for us, lately? If you're going to swan around claiming that the emperor's in his birthday suit, you better make sure you can dress yourself, first. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:54, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Ad Hominem Abusive. Do you even try?--ScoobyDooDoobie 00:03, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Accusations of ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the weak debater. Please, speak in sentences, and make your points clear, so that we may converse. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:09, 10 May 2008 (BST)

If the game is so shitty on so many levels, why stay? Why waste your time on such garbage, and on such a pack of losers? Oooh yeah... because you love seeing pubbie tears!? That. About. Says. It. All. **yawns** --WanYao 01:19, 10 May 2008 (BST)

It's completely impossible that they might be genuinely interested in improving it, of course. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:23, 10 May 2008 (BST)

If you read that fucking suggestions page you know that UD needs all the help they can get! -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 15:37, 10 May 2008 (BST)

**yawns** This argument is ended, sir! -Sair

In this bunch of text I confirmed two good things I thought about Kevan: one is that he knows when to take action. The other, that he knows when not to. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:33, 11 May 2008 (BST)

He's an idiot that only does something when people whine to him. He has no clue about the day to day activities on this wiki. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 13:46, 11 May 2008 (BST)

Jesus that is the same fucking thing. If you know when to take action, then you know when not to take action. You are unfortunately wrong. Kevan created a game that is very popular with a certain type of player. Players that role play humans who can never be permanently killed. For them, the only "horror" in this game is the wait to be revived. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:18, 11 May 2008 (BST)

And that has what relevance to anything? --xoxo 10:31, 11 May 2008 (BST)

My above post should have been right below Matthewfarenheit's post. I'm explaining why Kevan supports the pro-survivor/mrh cow side. Which is why he vetoed this. Which is the relevance. Understand the smaller phrases? No? Mrrrrhhhh? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 06:41, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah i getcha, just don't agree. What makes you think Kevan is pro-survivor? I mean sure most of the game updates make things more fun for survivors but in a zombie apocalypse who has more fun? The mindless masses or the guys looting shops and headshotting zombies? In fact Kevan's most used character (that he uses publically) is Bub, a zombie.--xoxo 08:19, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Thats a lie, the reason Bub is most well known is because he is the first profile ever, and h e ransacked a mall during Mall Tour 07, sepcifically Stickling after that month long amazing seige against the Lime Brigade which is probably the best seige the game has ever seen.--Thekooks 23:24, 17 May 2008 (BST)

It's not a lie, its just stretching the truth. Of all the Kevan operated character i'm aware of Bub has the most xp, you may know of others but from my perspective Bub seems the obvious choice.--xoxo 02:10, 18 May 2008 (BST)