Talk: Kasumi Nakano

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Kasumi Nakano." For general discussion or to share stories about the topic of this article, please visit our discussion boards. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after each of your entries. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Do not edit other people's entries. For general conversation on this topic, please visit our discussion boards.

Kasumi: Human or Synth[]

Since Kasumi does not drop a synth component, and neither the Institute nor the Railroad has any records of her, I would consider that sufficient evidence that she is human and should be marked as such. --FatmanMagister (talk) 20:40, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Still speculation, regardless of how obvious it might seem that she is still human. But while we are speculating, my main theory is that she has a mental condition similar to Walking Corpse Syndrome. ^寧靜 02:43, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, if the synth component is not the proper way to determine who is a synth and who isn't, then most of people in the Commonwealth are also considered 'not confirmed human' but we still put their race as human here.

So unless we are going to speculate about whether 90%+ of the games npc's are human or not, I see no point in marking Kasumi as anything other than just human. She is as confirmed to be human as any other 'human' npc, the only difference is her dialogue.

But I completely agree with you about the Walking Corpse Syndrome, she's probably got something similar to that. --FatmanMagister (talk) 03:06, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

And you are right to suggest that. But that has very little relevancy for Kasumi, specifically, which is why I did not bring that up. Not to mention that I no longer edit on this particular Fallout wiki anyways. ^寧靜 03:35, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a bit spoiler-y for people who visit the page and haven't completed Far Harbour yet to have RACE: HUMAN hit them in the face as soon as they page loads, though? Just a side note. --ClockworkMinuteman (talk) 20:46, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, if someone goes to this wiki, which is basically an encyclopedia of Fallout information, and they go to a specific character article, in which they then get offended at spoilers, that is their own fault. Do not gulp down coffee, and then complain that it was too hot. That goes no matter the article - I am not speaking specifically of what race it is decided to portray Kasumi as. ^寧靜 20:52, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Same can be said for all other articles. Why would people come here to edit articles if they don't want spoilers, then? Sounds contradictory. ☢ Energy X ☣ 21:07, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective and quick reply. -ClockworkMinuteman (talk) 15:52, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

Massively spoiler-y is Danse being marked as a synth. Kasumi's race (whichever it is) is, too, but not in a story relevant way, more like Miranda's. Apart from that, I like the solution now ("Human"), since IMO it doesn't matter whether it is relevant to Kasumi but how it is implemented in the game. For all intents and purposes Sturges synthicity is completely unimportant in game, still we list it. --84.143.11.154 23:34, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

What if instead of being a synth, she was captured by the Zeta aliens at one point and experimented on? Then afterwards her memory was wiped, this might actually explain what she describes seeing in her dreams. Your thoughts? --Artemiris (talk) 02:07, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Race: Revisited[]

I've deliberated this for the most part of the day and I don't feel we should be firmly classifying Kasumi in either case. My reasoning in order of importance is as follows:

1. Bethesda left her human/synth race classification ambiguous.
2. Both arguments are speculative.
3. The synth component litmus test isn't 100% foolproof. Glory and X6-88 also do not carry a synth component, proving the test to not be definitive (we know they are both synths as we are explicitly told this).
4. GECKRace is not a good means of determination. All Gen3 synths live in the Human Race category.

With those points in mind, why is confirming as human any less speculative than confirming as human? Sakaratte - Talk to the cat 22:47, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The storyline never confirms whether Kasumi is actually human or synth, and none of the developers have made a statement as to whether she's one or the other. Even the Railroad and the Institute aren't able to provide the Sole Survivor with a definitive answer, leaving the door open for either possibility. The notes shouldn't state that she's definitively human or synth when we simply don't know which is the case. I suggest a neutral statement in the notes category that we simply don't know. Lobsel Vith (talk) 11:05, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that synths can also be distinguished by having a higher energy resistance. This is for example how you can bust synth settlers without having to kill all your settlers and loading a savegame. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 14:11, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

According to all other sources she is in fact a human. Of course, the possibility that she is a synth is still there, though it's highly unlikely. For example, Preston Garvey MIGHT be a synth, but we can all agree on that he isn't. Because the majority of sources states that he is a human, same thing for Kasumi. This wiki should be as none speculative as possible and to do so, the majority of proof should determine what is correct or not. In this case, the majority of proof states that Kasumi is human.

What 'sources'? None of the quests reveal her to be human, neither the Railroad nor the Institute state that she is human. None of the developers have stated she is human. If all you're doing is pointing to a game mechanic, that's not an example of 'proof'. There's no reason anyone should be stating that 'it's a fact' that Kasumi is human or synth when the storyline deliberately avoids taking any such stance on the matter. As I've stated before, no one should be stating that Kasumi is human or synth 'as a fact' when none of us know what the fact actually is. Lobsel Vith (talk) 17:21, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Even though the possiblity that she might be a synth is possible, it's highly unlikely. Because as stated, the majority of proof says that she is indeed a human. The only one in-game that states that Kasumi is a synth, is Kasumi herself. Just take a look at Chris Haversam from Fallout: New Vegas, just because he thinks he is a ghoul doesn't mean that he is. He just thinks that he is. And same with Kasumi, just because she thinks she's a synth, doesn't mean that she is. And secondly, how would Kasumi even know if she is a synth? Synths can't determine if they really are a synth, especially not 3rd generation versions. In my opinion the page should stay as it is. Mainly because how lacking the proof for she being a synth is and how much more proof that states the opposite. (talk) 14:23, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Whether it's "unlikely" or not, as we don't know definitively whether she's human or synth, we can't use assumption and claim that they're facts. Assuming that she's human or synth doesn't make it so. If all you can do is point to how 'unlikely' you think it is, that doesn't make it a fact. Lobsel Vith (talk) 17:21, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Well it actually does. Just take a look at any character like Cait. She COULD also be a synth. But as I've tried to explain, this wiki should be as unspeculative as possible, and adding that she is a human is the best option until or even if we find anymore proof regarding Kasumi being a synth. Then a change regarding her being human could be made. But as of right now the majority of proof suggests that Kasumi is human. I've explained this over 3 times now. And I'll say it again, the majority of proof suggests that she is in fact human.

Except Cait's status is never put forth into question, so it's not the same as Kasumi, where the question is put forth in the storyline. Stating that she's human is completely speculative because you're speculating that she's human - you don't know. In short, there shouldn't be any statement that reads that she's human or synth because the story of Far Harbor never tells us whether she is or not. Lobsel Vith (talk) 18:40, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

And no, my statements aren't based on "how likely it is". But think about, we can't question everything regarding Fallout characters. Because there's always a possibility that some characters are synths, but there's fact. For example, there's a possibility that the 9/11 attacks were a hoax by the US government. But there's a whole lot more proof saying it was real rather than a hoax. Same goes for Kasumi. According to you Lobsel, saying she's human is "speculative content". But what would you say about the 9/11 attacks, is saying it's real also speculative? There's always a possibility, but if we would class everything as speculation there would exist no fact. Fact in its own is speculation. But fact needs to be compared with one another. What does the majority of the fact suggest. In this case with Kasumi the majority of facts states that she's human, same with the 9/11 attacks the majority of proof states that it was indeed real. (talk) 17:46, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Except the storyline of Far Harbor puts forth the question of Kasumi's status, and never tells us whether she's human or synth. To say it's a "fact" that she's human, when it's simply an assumption, is the problem. We can't simply state that she's human or synth simply because we think it's the most likely scenario. Lobsel Vith (talk) 18:40, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that one of you just checks whether she has the extra resistance to energy weapons that synths have or not. It's a feature that goes beyond the creation kit (a.k.a.: it's something with an impact in the game) and it's a double check for the lack of synth component that already indicates that she more than likely isn't a synth. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 19:04, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

That's not any more proof than synth components are, which was already explained above as not being a suitable means of identifying whether a person is a synth or not due to game mechanics and how certain synths don't drop them. Furthermore, all I keep reading is how people 'think' she's human, and using speculation isn't suitable when stating a 'fact'. Frankly, I recommend a removal of any entry as opposed to a neutral edit because this is getting completely out of hand. We have no idea whether Kasumi is human or synth, and going off on assumptions isn't suitable when stating a 'fact'. Lobsel Vith (talk) 19:40, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, it is a seperate check, and unlike the synth component, it has an actual impact on gameplay. It's for example the only way in the game that you can find out that Sturges is a synth. You can't kill him to find the component as he's essential, yet Bethesda went through the effort to make him a synth. Feel free to try it using the awareness perk. In the case of Kasumi every possible check there is to see if she's a synth has been done, and every test says she isn't, which makes her human beyond reasonable doubt. If our next game features a girl that believes she's a brahmin, I wouldn't consider her race to be brahmin if every test says she's human, no matter how many times she says she's a brahmin and no matter how many times she says "mooh". - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 20:10, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make her human beyond any reasonable doubt. The game mechanics were already explained above to be unreliable. Does the storyline explain whether Kasumi is a synth or human? No. Do any of the developers state that she's a human or a synth? No. There are no facts that show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she's indisputably human. If your only retort is to bring up ridiculous examples that have absolutely no basis in a storyline that literally goes out of it's way not to confirm whether she's human or synth (even when we speak with the Institute or the Railroad, with neither representative of either group taking a definitive stance on the matter) then that doesn't help your case. It's you trying to move away from the discussion at hand by focusing on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue at hand - which is that we don't know whether Kasumi is human or synth. You're welcome to think she's really a human or a synth, but your speculation has nothing to do with the actual fact that we simply don't know. Lobsel Vith (talk) 21:27, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

The only statement we have in favour is the belief of a mixed up teen/young adult. We have witnesses watching her grow, and we have no physical evidence that she's anything but human. I think it falls to the asserter to prove their assertions, or have them proven - she hasn't proven that she's a synth, but there is evidence which points towards not being a synth. Unless there is something else that we haven't considered I think we're well beyond the balance of probablities here, and into on the preponderance of the evidence we'd have to conclude she is very unlikely to be a synth.

That means to me the result is that Human should remain the race, and the page should mention she doesn't believe this (which I'm sure it does). I don't think the wiki has ever operated on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis, but I think a preponderance of the evidence is appropriate here. Agent c (talk) 21:33, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the GECK data (which isn't what this current discussion is about, or even what the discussion from last year was about), I'm talking about the statement in Notes that reads that it's a 'fact' that she's human when it comes to the subject of whether she's actually human or synth; that's the issue at hand. Regardless of whether a person believes that Kasumi is right or wrong about being a synth, that doesn't serve as definitive proof. If the storyline doesn't affirm or deny whether Kasumi is human or synth, and the Railroad and the Institute representatives use language that keeps it ambiguous, then I don't see any reason to have a statement that says it's one or the other. At this point, I think the statement in Notes should simply be removed because no one can agree on the wording, and even a neutral statement seems to offend some people who are adamant that Kasumi is really one thing over another. Lobsel Vith (talk) 21:41, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

>>I'm not talking about the GECK data

Neither am I, I'm looking at the situation in the whole.

>>I'm talking about the statement in Notes that reads that it's a 'fact' that she's human when it comes to the subject of whether she's actually human or synth

In regards to that specific statement, I think that should be reworded. I would suggest:

Agent c (talk) 21:45, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Jacki and Peace have indicated they're fine with this in chat. If you have no objections Lobsel, I'm happy to call this the consensus outcome. Agent c (talk) 21:49, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence either way. Rewording it to mean exactly the same thing doesn't change the core issue here. Regardless of personal opinion on Kasumi's age or beliefs, there's no actual evidence to support either theory that she's human or synth. That's still the core issue. Bringing up that she's a teenager, that she doesn't drop a synth component (which is also the case with some other synths, as was mentioned above), or with some issue of game mechanics that's unreliable (which was also stated above) doesn't mitigate the fact that we, as a community, cannot say that she's human or synth. That Kasumi's storyline explores this also means that bringing up meaningless real world comparisons also doesn't change the fact that we simply don't know; therefore, we shouldn't be wording anything that tries to push readers to favor one or the other. I recommend omitting it entirely because a neutral edit is obviously impossible at this point. Lobsel Vith (talk) 23:32, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry we couldn't accomodate you. I think the null hypothesis is that any character is "Human" unless there is evidence to the alternative. There is no evidence she is not human, and plenty of evidence suggesting that there is. Unless you can suggest an alternative consensus position, then I think we're just going to have to go with the majority here. By the standard you are proposing, we wouldn't be able to say that any non synth is human.Agent c (talk) 23:37, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Kasumi's entire storyline focuses around the fact that she could be a synth, and the story never addresses whether she's actually human or synth; her plot makes her different than the other characters for whom this simply isn't an issue of their story arc. That there have been comments admitting that we don't know pretty much proves the point that we can't simply state that 'it's a fact' that she's human when we don't know. Furthermore, as I've stated repeatedly, I'm not suggesting pushing a theory; I'm saying we can't simply state theories and masqurade them as facts, which is exactly what the statement 'it's a fact that she's human' is. Having a theory is fine; pushing it as an indisputable fact is a problem for a wiki that's supposed to be a source of unbiased information. Lobsel Vith (talk) 23:47, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know what else we can offer here. You've complained about the notes section, we've offered to remove the claim that its a fact that she is not a synth. You've not proposed any alternative and just seem to be restarting the same talking points even though the proposed new wording does not say its a fact. If you don't have anything new to offer, please say so. Agent c (talk) 23:52, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Because rewording it to mean exactly the same thing is the entire problem. Plenty of people above admitted that they don't know that she's actually human. That you seem to think that it's okay for the Notes to read that she's human because a few people "think" that she is human is my problem. This isn't a poll; it's a wiki. It's meant to provide facts. The fact is that we don't know. The fact is that there are plenty of people above who admit they don't know, even though they're also said they think she's human. However, having a theory simply isn't sufficient. If I bring ten people to say she's a synth, that doesn't mean that the article should reflect that she's a synth. It's supposed to be a place for facts. If we don't know whether Kasumi is human or synth in a storyline where this is a mystery and is never revealed, one way or the other, we can't push either. Lobsel Vith (talk) 23:56, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Except it doesn't

• It states there is no evidence for her claim- this is true, and you've admitted as such.
• It states that the lack of a component suggests she's not a synth - True and verifable
• It states that the Institute have no record of her, meaning that she must have been wiped previously if she's a synth - also true and verifiable.
• It states that the only organisation that could have done the wipe claim they never did it - also true.

You're invited to draw your own conclusion based on the evidence, or lack thereof.

If you have evidence that suggests she might be a synth, feel free tell us and/or add it. However, as this is a seemingly neutral and objective recount of the facts regarding her situation, I've made the necessary changes.

Is evidence to me you didn't read the proposed wording, but are just repeating the same points.

Agent c (talk) 00:05, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

There are other synths who also don't drop synth components, so using that as "proof" already invalidates what you've written. Where, exactly, is the proof that shows that Kasumi is human? Where is it? So far, I'm reading several people freely admit that they don't actually know for certain that Kasumi isn't a synth. Can you actually provide any proof to support either theory? Again, we shouldn't be using the wiki to push theories. Lobsel Vith (talk) 00:12, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Until or unless you read the revised wording, we're not going to get anywhere. It does not claim that she is human. You are merely repeating yourself without understanding or acknowledging what the other side is saying. Go read the proposed wording, and what the page says now, and you'll see it doesn't support what you claim is a "fan theory".

There appears to be a lack of a good faith attempt on your part to get to a consensus position; you are arguing against a position the revised wording does not make. Agent c (talk) 00:16, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

I'm arguing against making edits to push a theory. Furthermore, let's examine what was actually said in this discussion: Sakaratte said we don't know and stated that using game mechanics doesn't prove anything, Peace suggested checking energy resistance, JackiBoy admitted it's possible she's a synth but that he thinks Kasumi is human. No one has participated in this discussion providing any proof that Kasumi is human, or that she's a synth. Her article shouldn't be pushing either theory; it should be neutral. Like a wiki. Lobsel Vith (talk) 00:20, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

We're done here. An objective list of the facts is fine, and thats what it now has. As the facts are all in one direction - that she is not a synth as both game mechanics and the two organisations who would be able to identify that she is have no knowledge of her, the wording "unlikely" can stand. If you have other evidence that a player or reader can consider, feel free to add it. However, at this point, its not clear what you are arguing for. You haven't proposed an alternative, and not mentioning at all seemingly would mean removing the evidence suggesting she's not a synth. This discussion is over as it just seems to go around and around without one particular side making any concessions.. Agent c (talk) 00:27, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Apologies that I have been exceptionally silent on the matter until now. I've been through and referenced the background now from the dialogue files and Kasumi's final holotape to get a better picture of where the information is. Beyond player choice's and her own doubt's (implant by DiMA, who know is a master manipulator) all information points towards her being human, which makes her status as a synth speculative (see dialogue files, not all were suitable to include as references). Which does make her position as a synth as speculative as any other "confirmed human".

I have two further options we could consider, the first which I am against as it will lead to this argument again would be to eliminate the note and leave it to reader choice. The second is a modification of Agent c's offered resolution, which acknowledges the lack of physical evidence and the argument for her being a synth being that of speculative statements:

Also as no-one has a record of her being a synth (even though they cannot be certain, which strikes me as odd with the Institute as they are hot on catching escapees), there is less evidence than most escaped synths in-game.

I know I had my doubts before, but that was due to lack of real referencing, now its in place I still cannot say with 100% certainty that she is human, but consider her synth credentials as being as speculative as any other individual. I think we are at a point where we pick one option or another, unless there is a third offering brought to the table as a solution. At this stage it feels like a semantic argument, with no offering of resolution from the other side of the table. Sakaratte - Talk to the cat 10:28, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

As with anything we can't be 100% certain, for example, it's not 100% certain that Preston Garvey is human or any other character. There's always a possibility, as with anything, but in this case with Kasumi a clear majority of the proof suggests that she's human. It seems as if Lobsel hasn't clearly read my responses. I haven't speculated I am just comparing what the proof suggests, nothing can be 100% certain, but this is a wiki, not a place for speculative content. And again, no my statements aren't speculative because almost all proof regarding Kasumi, says that she's human. To be honest nothing in this world can be 100% certain, there is always a possibility, but if we wouldn't compare the proof with one another there would never exist any fact. And please Lobsel, next time read my response thoroughly, this is the 4th time I am explaining this to you. (talk) 10:39, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

I did. Previously, I was referencing your comment, specifically: "Even though the possiblity that she might be a synth is possible, it's highly unlikely." Which is why you stating in the wiki before that it was "a fact" that Kasumi is human is a problem. Regardless of the probability of being human or synth, given that Kasumi's storyline focuses on putting this question forth, we shouldn't be trying to take any sides unless one of the developers puts a statement forth clearing the issue up. As it is, we don't know. Lobsel Vith (talk) 11:36, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

---

Rather than this keep going around in circles (as Agent c has stated it is, I think its time to draw a line under the arguements.

1. No note (we remove it)
2. There is no evidence to support Kasumi's belief she is a synth. If Arcadia is destroyed Kasumi will not drop a synth component, whereas other synths will, implying that she is human.
3. There is no physical evidence to support Kasumi's belief she is a synth, her doubts and the convictions of others are speculative and based on hearsay and suggestion.
4. <<offering from Losbel Vith>>

Lets get a final call on this. Sakaratte - Talk to the cat 11:43, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with removing the Note, Sakaratte, since the wording keeps being debated. Lobsel Vith (talk) 11:51, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

3. As I've stated in almost every message on this talk page, the majority of proof suggests that she is human, I've discussed this in both chat and on this talk page, I've tried every known way to determine whether or not Kasumi is a synth and according to all other sources other than Kasumi herself she is indeed a human. In my opinion Kasumi seems confused about who she really is, in-fact, she can be convinced to return home. Kasumi is lost, and she doesn't think clearly in my opinion. This is all the fact we have gotten fromm Bethesda, and nothing more will be found, because there's nothing more to find about this. This wiki and its pages needs to be adapted to the evidence we CURRENTLY have. We can't write on every page that for example Preston might be a synth, or Cait might be a synth. All other pages have been made the following way in terms of fact, what the majority of the proof suggests will be added. As with Kasumi, this is indeed the case. (talk) 11:58, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

I think, considering whether Kasumi's human or synth isn't confirmed anywhere 100%, the speculation on whether she's human or synth falls under opinion rather than fact, and should not be treated as fact. Ulaume (talk) 23:38, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, Ulaume. There's no proof Kasumi is human. As Kasumi (unlike Preston and Cait, who are used in Jacki's examples) is in a storyline where her status is specifically placed into question and her true nature is never resolved within the narrative, none of the notes should take a side in this matter. This is a place for facts, and using speculation to push a particular side undermines the entire point of a wiki. There shouldn't be a note implying she's human due to game mechanics. There shouldn't be a note reading that it's unlikely that she's a synth at all. That's speculation; it has it's place in a discussion on a messageboard, not a wiki that's meant to serve as a source for facts. As the current edit stands, the entries are heavily biased, and a wiki needs to be neutral. As Sakaratte has previously said this decision is going down to a vote that will conclude this week, I say that the entries in the Notes should be edited to be neutral. Lobsel Vith (talk) 13:09, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

well its been confirmed by the institue and railroad that have no info on her or have history of doing a memory wipe--Mr.Whiskers (talk) 13:40, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Stating that the Railroad and the Institute have no information on her isn't the issue; adding personal opinion to these facts is the issue. Lobsel Vith (talk) 13:55, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

The fact is theres no opinions its confirmed by many sorces IN the game you want so say that theres opinions mixed in with facts so it can be cchanged so you´er not wrong its facts theres no opinions in any articals--Mr.Whiskers (talk) 14:23, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not confirmed in-game that she's human. Neither the Railroad nor the Institute say that Kasumi is indisputably human, and the dialogue with both representatives (for the Railroad and the Institute) leaves the door open for either possibility because it is intentionally ambiguous. Lobsel Vith (talk) 14:29, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Theres more evidece that points to here being human by useing in game facts its easy to disprove thats shes a synth most fingers points to assumeing shes a human--A cat was here:Mr.Whiskers (talk) 14:34, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence that states the truth either way, which is the point. Inferring something isn't the same as evidence, either. Unless you're going to point to any actual dialogue where it's said Kasumi is human or any developer comment that says whether she's human or synth, I'm done discussing this with you. Lobsel Vith (talk) 14:41, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

heres one of the things she says DLC03KasumiNakano.txt - DLC03MQPostQuest_NakanoReunionScene03A - A1a: ¨I... Yes it's true... I mean... I can't prove it, but when I made it to Acadia, I just knew..¨meaing shes based of of her own fellings not fact.--A cat was here:Mr.Whiskers (talk) 14:47, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is why we have brought it to a vote. There are two sides with very strong opinions which are not giving much in the way of leeway to come to an agreement. I am drawing the line on debate again for the same reason as before: were going around in circles. Feel free to cast a vote one of the options we have or offer a new one and we can reset the voting. What is proposed is there as a means of addressing the intentional ambiguity. Sakaratte - Talk to the cat 15:27, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

I vote that we remove opinions and stick strictly to confirmed facts from the game. If the game does not directly state whether Kasumi is a human or synth, then the article should reflect that and state that it is unknown or the game does not state whether she is a human or synth. We should not take a side regarding Kasumi's nature as a human or synth if the game never tells us whether she's really human or synth. Leave the theorizing and fan speculation to the fans and forums, not the article.Faerunner (talk) 00:13, May 20, 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, given that this is such a debate, I vote for either a compromise where there's a section for speculation about whether she's human or synth, where people can provide whatever 'proof' they want in the form of opinions or whatever, or if this is for some reason not viable, I vote to stick strictly to facts and no speculation, whether it's presented as fact or not. Since there's no unambiguous statement anywhere about whether Kasumi is synth or human, it is not a fact and is mere speculation. Ulaume (talk) 03:49, May 20, 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion[]

No I have had a chance to read through and checked some points with and Admin and a Bureaucrat, I am now closing the discussion without change to the article.

With two of the above votes being cast by potentially the same user on IP check and also share an exceptionally similar writing style to a third, these votes have been discarded upon discussion with an impartial admin. As such, with voting is evenly tied and has been held open longer than the usual 7 days we impose, which means we still have failed to come to a majority agreement.

As with anything, if someone has an issue, they are free to ask for a second opinion. Sakaratte - Talk to the cat 18:25, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

If that was the case, Sakaratte, I take it they couldn't possibly be logged on at the same time then. However, if that were proven (and that would be relatively easy to prove if you simply bothered to spend a few seconds to reach out to them), it would mean that your attempts to rig the vote in favor of your friend would be invalidated; the same friend of yours who wanted to use his moderator powers to nullify any discussion on this matter. With this vote, where you've shown a willingness to prolong it when it seemed like someone would vote in favor of your friend's proposal. So I can see why you didn't bother to simply see about having them online at the same time - in following what the Bureaucrat wrote on the matter, that would be impossible. Lobsel Vith (talk) 21:13, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, all you would need is two computers or two web browsers on one computer and that would let you log in and talk at the same time. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 21:53, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

Except a tiny edit could also be made to the Talk Page at the same time the chat discussion is taking place (an edit within seconds of each other) so that the IP addresses could be logged and verified. Of course, since Sakaratte clearly had no intention of having the vote go against his friend, I can see why he hasn't bothered to do anything but dismiss votes that went against his friend, the same one who wanted to abuse his moderator powers to shut down any discussion on the matter. Lobsel Vith (talk) 23:21, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

Except that performing an edit is even easier than showing up in chat, so that would prove literally nothing... Also, you're sounding overly dramatic and it's not really getting you anywhere. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 00:02, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

i vote to keep it human.--A cat was here:Mr.Whiskers (talk) 18:36, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

Since there has been no consensus on changing the article, I'm fine with the article staying in it's previous state, per editing policy. Any further discussion should be tabled for a while. I highly suggest that if it comes up again, a formal vote be called in the forum so all of our voting policies can be enforced. This comes with the caveat that any accounts abusing their right to vote by using proxies or alternate accounts will be dealt with according to site user conduct policies. Let's let this one ride folks, we've had enough srama over it already. The Gunny   22:52, May 22, 2017 (UTC)