UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/JebJ vs Kirsty Cotton
So
Using non wiki sources is interesting. I'd have looked closer at the 2cool VB cases for on wiki evidence.--Rosslessness 21:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Potential evidence as 'threat' not being acted upon, although not completely relevant. This would have really been an interesting case to arbitrate, really bummed I couldn't. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Likewise. It gets down to the nuts and bolts of UDwiki. Does the right of one person to roleplay take precedent over another. Obviously my bias is clear on this one. --Rosslessness 15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I can weigh in on this discussion, even though I'm involved. There is no roleplay attempt in the removal of "offensive" material. So, I view it more, does one user have the right to censor another user's roleplaying. On a side note, the nallan case should have been vandalism. Personal opinion: if you say "I'm/we/him are going to x irl" you should only do it to someone who knows you are joking and is okay with it. However, drop the "irl", not vandalism. --K 22:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I shouldn't say much or else I'd sway the case. But I wanted to say I think it's a very interesting case. I kind of wish it were moving a bit faster, but I'll just assume Jeb is building an awesome closing statement and needs a bit more time to nail down the details 
~
23:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Still no UDwiki based precedent. I'm trying to help here. Not everything is about Ethics in Video Games.--Rosslessness 00:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Intermission
I'll be traveling with limited access to internet for a couple of weeks. If this case has continued when I return, I'll post my ruling then. If there's been no other activity when I return, I'll likely archive this as a withdrawn Arbitration case. Merry Christmas everyone. ~ 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Request
I would ask that all portions of Jeb's reply that are in direct response to my reply be removed and not considered in the decision. The instructions were clear: "You may comment on any part of the statements above, including statements made in reply to my questions above." I assume this is to avoid giving an unfair advantage to any one party by allowing them "final word" in the matter. If whoever speaks last gets to reply to everything stated by the other party, arbitration would be needlessly drawn out as speaking first would basically be penalized. If the above request cannot be meet for any reason, I ask the that this arbitration case be fully dismissed with no action taken and Jeb having the opportunity to restart the process and adhere to the rules set forth during that arbitration. --K 00:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
