Board Thread:Administrator's Forum/@comment-143604-20130419212451/@comment-4484220-20130420022655

All right. We discussed this eleven months ago and thought we settled this, but it turns out it caused confusion. So here and now, let's settle this, once and for all.

Option 1) . Drayco put this better than I could. Expert's opinions are not a mandatory part of writing a battle; however, they have been instrumental to having a page whose warrior has been in a battle properly set up ever since the day I arrived on this wiki. It gives browsers of warrior pages a brief justification on how the winner was selected, something I find very necessary for such a potentially controversial topic as warrior vs. warrior, and it may help to reduce the amount of browsers up in arms at their favorite fictional warrior being labeled as inferior to another.

Option 2) . By no means should authors be obligated to write an expert's opinion for their battle if they don't want to, but neither should the completeness of a warrior page have to suffer just because the author didn't care to provide an explanation. That is why if the author didn't write an expert's opinion, anyone should be allowed to write one so that completeness can flow throughout every page on this wiki. Getting the author's permission to write an epxert's opinion would just take up time, and I can hardly see a circumstance under which the author would say no. And if they did, then why? The author didn't want to follow the standard convention by writing an expert's opinion and explain why that warrior won, and he also flat out doesn't want one to exist? Of course, if the author has written one, then it is not allowed to be edited without his or her permission no matter how bad, and also the author is more than entitled to revise expert's opinions on their own battles to their heart's content. But if they simply don't care at all, others who do care deserve the right to act, and should not have to go through some silly slow verification for it.

Option 3) . I'm not seeing how this option is much different from option 2. The only difference I see between options 2 and 3 are that the latter doesn't say anything about if a user has permission from the author, which almost comes across to me as saying the user can't edit or write expert's opinions even if the author approves, which is silly. The impression I'm getting from people who do not share my views on expert's opinions is that they feel the expert's opinions are property of the author like the simulation of its respective battle. However, we've always had a rule that you are allowed to edit other people's simulations if you received permission from the author, which I myself have no shame in saying out in the open that I have done on one occasion. I do not think that's necessarily what was meant by option 3, but that's the way it seemed to come out. Personally, I would say that option 3 should altogether be eliminated, but that's just me. Apparently others have different ranging views on this, so perhaps it's best that option 3 stays.

"Experts Opinions being written is a relatively recent thing." I have been seeing expert's opinions on fairly organized pages and blog posts since the day I joined this wiki. Most people here do not consider my arrival to be a recent event of this wiki's history.

"Most fights from the first few months (not sure how many) of the wiki don't have them." And that is the first few months out of 2 and 3/4 of a year. They can't have possibly been around for less thatn two years.

"A written Expert's Opinion isn't part of the page criteria, nor is it part of the criteria for making a battle." Actually, during my brief period as an admin, I added the requirement of an expert's opinion to the Warrior Page Criteria, and nobody appeared to object. And it's been like that for eleven months now.

"Users who don't write an opinion aren't doing anything wrong." I think that everyone agrees on that.