Category talk:Suggestions/Archive2

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Handgreen.png Archive Page
This page is an archive page of Category talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the page do so at Category talk:Suggestions.

Suggestion Discussion

Put talk about the process of posting and voting for suggestions here.

Policy Proposal on Guidelines for Duping

Currently the only restriction on what kind of suggestions can be used as the basis of a dupe vote is on the Cycling Instructions page, which says "Confirm that there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate." "absolutely no viable differences" sounds pretty strict, but in practice it's not.

Most of the time duping works without problems. However, there are the occasional brainfarts (check the referenced suggestions) and controversial suggestions. So, I'd like to propose a set of guidelines on the issue.


As a general rule, the mechanic of how the suggestion works should be the deciding factor in whether the suggestion is a dupe or not. For example:

  • Two suggestions that are named similarly or propose the same item, but have different gameplay effects are not duplicates.
  • Two suggestions that try to fix the same problem using different methods aren't dupes either.
  • Suggestions that were a part of an earlier suggestion, but are now being proposed individually are a more complicated issue, as it depends on how important the currently suggested feature was in the earlier suggestion. If the the current suggestion was a major part of the earlier suggestion and works much alike, it is a dupe. On the other hand, if the current suggestion was a minor sidenote in the earlier suggestion or works differently, it is not a dupe.
  • Suggestions that incorporate a feature that has been suggested earlier on it's own are also more complicated as it depends on how important part of the current suggestion the duplicated feature is. If it is a major part and works similarly, it is a dupe, but if it's just a minor part or works differently, it isn't. If most of the features in a larger suggestion are duplicates, then the suggestion is a dupe.


These guidelines should probably be placed on the Cycling Intructions page and be linked to from the Voting Rules template. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Guidelines for Duping

I'd vote against this policy change. I don't have time to explain why, but it's got something to do with blanket regulations not being able to cater for all circumstances. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why they're guidelines, not rules. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We need some sort of guidelines... As it stands, it's a free-for-all... Sure there is a generally accepted practice that works most of the time... and that practice is very much what this guideline puts into words... But some users vote DUPE quite willy-nilly, and when feces hits a fan re: dupes, it's a gawdawful mess... Therefore I, myself, support posting some guidelines -- these are reasonable and, as I said just spell out the current accepted (ideal) practice. --WanYao 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, they're guidelines that sysops will end up quoting as rules, so, they're de facto regulations that you're suggesting, and I disagree (in certain cases) with this: "Two suggestions that try to fix the same problem using different methods aren't dupes either." Often, it's exactly the case that a different method adds nothing new to the mix. Dupe is, sometimes, abused, but rarely enough that it's pretty much a non-issue. The Duped suggestions are stored now, anyway. They used to just be deleted. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd wager they'd end up being used pretty much the same way as "absolutely no viable differences" is used as a rule (ie. not very strict). I don't think dupe is exactly abused, but I do think it's used a bit too loosely. The thing about different solutions to the same problem is that, in the end, we're doing the suggestions for Kevan. We can't know whether he didn't implement some suggestion because 1) he thought the problem was a non-issue or 2) he didn't like that solution to the problem. Because we can't know (unless he explicitly tells us), IMO we should provide him with alternative solutions.
If the scope of the problem is small (like "leftover-bullets are lost when reloading"), then there are only a couple of different solutions to it. After those are done, there's only going to be variations to them, which would be dupes. On the other hand, if the scope of the problem is large (like "survivors outnumber zombies"), there's a whole bunch of different solutions to it. Most of these are not dupes.
Let's see... would that guideline be more acceptable if it read "Two suggestions that try to fix the same problem using significantly different methods aren't dupes either."? Or if I added the bit about the scope of the problem? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I will vote kill as this is worded. Its the bit about suggestions that were part of previous that does the damage for me. Dupe as a vote really doesn't often work, sure lots of crap is frequently suggested and is dupe worthy... however changes often mean that things which are dupes will be well recieved and far better fits than when suggested. Dupe as a vote should (arguably) be removed entirely for anything that isn't a sniper/assault rifle! --Honestmistake 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with that? How would you have it worded? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Do something with Boxy's suggestion of making a method of cycling the dupes, other than that it's fine as is.--Karekmaps?! 00:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why these couldn't be used together with boxy's dupe recycling. One of the problems I'm trying to fix is the fact that occasionally suggestions are duped when practically the only thing common between them is the name. IMO suggestions like that are definitely not dupes. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had something duped when I (and several other voters) thought that it was different enough to not be. So, I've been thinking, what if you see something that's gone through voting, but the version that's been proposed just doesn't sit right with you? Maybe we could have something where a person can propose an addition, variation, or tweak of an existing suggestion. Then, you could have it listed beneath the suggestions, titled "Variations on Existing Suggestions". Then at the bottom of the "original" suggestion (in PR, undecided, etc.), there could be a link to a page listing variations and dupes. I mean, why should I have to wait for something to be implemented before I can say, "This way of doing it sucks, how about this way instead?" And, the dupe already links to the original, why not the other way around? --Ms.Panes 03:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the place to complain about your suggestion getting duped, we don't care, btw, if you want to show something is wrong with the system, show it, don't complain about your suggestion getting duped by a huge mass of dupe voters who, apparently, did think it was close enough to the same thing to be a dupe.--Karekmaps?! 04:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You might not care, but don't go saying that on behalf of others. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is it's the wrong place, but by all means, keep bitching.--Karekmaps?! 12:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You might want to read the rest of her post, instead of just the first sentence. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe your suggestion would fall under the second guideline. Same problem, different solution. It would still be the job of the voters to decide if the solution was different enough, though.
I like your idea. Kind of like doing a revision to someone else's suggestion. Maybe you should talk to boxy, he was planning something about recycling voted-on suggestions. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Interesting. We need a proper definition of dupes! The only trouble I can see with this is that it is going to have to tread a very fine line between providing too restrictive and long definitions of dupes while at the same time providing enougth of a definition to cut down on, or remove disputes on dupe votes that descend to a level of it being a matter of opinion.--SeventythreeTalk 22:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Exactly 50% of votes: Undecided or Rejected?

Quick Q, really: I was cycling Suggestion:20071119_Crushing_Grasp and realized that it neither had less than 50% of votes (rejected) nor above 50% of votes (undecided). Whats the rule on these situations? --Karlsbad 10:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd put it to Undecided. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
50/50 would be undecided as there was no majority.--Karekmaps?! 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the author's vote (if present) should only count as 50% of a vote. That way, as long as the author votes SOMEWHERE, the number of keep/kill votes can never be exactly equal. Yes, it would result in a slightly higher percentage of suggestions going to Undecided or Rejected, but at least they would CLEARLY belong there. --Steakfish 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Give 'em the benefit of the doubt, round up -- boxy talki 06:27 7 December 2007 (BST)
I'd say undecided. It doesn't swing one way or the other. In fact, I'd say that's exactly as undecided as you can get. It's like a perfectly balanced seesaw, with no one going anywhere. --Ms.Panes 15:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

50/50 is always undecided. I've had one with 50/50. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Justification Change in Enforcement

I'm thinking instead of removing the requirement for justification altogether it be changed in a way that only the suggestion author can ask for justification and after doing so if justification isn't provided the vote is considered invalid for tallying(like a linkless dupe). Possibly with the requirement that justification needs to be in bold for it to be a call for it. That might solve the problem with having justification required while still allowing for it's requirement.--Karekmaps?! 17:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel this could be an improvement, but I see a couple of problems with this. What counts as a justification? Could a suggester ask for justification for a vote like "Kill - la la la" or "Spam - WTFCENTAURS"? The decision of whether the justification is good enough would seem to fall to the person cycling the suggestion (IMO not a good thing). Then there's the fact that a lot of people don't look at suggestions they have already voted on, so they wouldn't see the request for justifying their vote. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is to take the current system, dedramafy it, and keep the good things people want. If it's justified(explained when asked), no matter how good/bad the justification is it is justification, striking it after that would essentially be assuming bad faith or would be bad faith.--Karekmaps?! 18:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So if someone voted "Kill - la la la", the author requested a justification and the voter justified it with "because I like to vote Kill", that'd be it? This would be status quo. Just not an improvement on this part.
What I also meant was that if someone justified their vote with something simple like "overpowered" (or just something the author didn't understand), the author requested a justification and the voter didn't provide any (possibly because he didn't see the request), would the vote be considered invalid? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Really doesn't matter to me, it has no significance in with the rule as it currently is. Small steps.--Karekmaps?! 20:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it matters to me, mostly because I've recently started to cycle suggestions. Would I count it as a vote or not? My personal decision would be to count it as a vote, but it could as well be interpreted as invalid. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say err on the side of leniency. --Karekmaps?! 02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the person cycling the suggestion shouldn't have to make these kind of decisions, especially as anyone can cycle suggestions. This wouldn't remove the drama, just sweep it under the rug. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why it's the author that has to ask for justification. If there is a response that give some justification it's still justification.--Karekmaps?! 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That isn't the issue. The issue is when there isn't a response. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If there isn't a response and the author asked for one the vote is invalid.--Karekmaps?! 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if the vote actually did have a justification? As I said, a lot of users don't check suggestions after they have voted and would be likely to miss the request, thus invalidating their vote regardless of the justification. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't care enough to defend your vote there was no point to you voting in the first place, at least that's how I see it.--Karekmaps?! 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure they would defend their vote if they knew it was being questioned. How about you add in a condition that when requesting justification, you also have to notify the voter through their talkpage (or something like that)? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This would be a nightmare. Someone like Jon Pyre would demand full justification on each and every vote, and would probably argue that some votes which seemed justified to the entire population of Mongolia, weren't, according to his twisted logic. What you're suggesting, in reality, is that we unleash a flood of drama on the suggestions page. The rules on the suggestions page make no sense - none of them. There's the one that says Spam isn't a strong kill, which then describes Spam exactly as a strong kill. And the one about justification, and then the other one that says it's not the place to discuss the suggestion - it's just for voting. And then there's the huge backlog of precedence set where there is no need to justify a vote. Really, it's only when someone like boxy gets their knickers in a twist we have to worry about any of those so-called rules being half-heartedly applied in some kind of vain effort to control the chaos of a system written by 15-year olds and self-taught lawyers. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is a compromise to get rid of the everyone can strike votes portion of the current rule.--Karekmaps?! 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Giving increased power to strike votes to the person making the suggestion creates an immediate conflict of interest, and empowers them to act upon it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
They have no power to strike the vote, they just have the option to ask, once, for justification, beyond that they can do nothing.--Karekmaps?! 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no difference between requesting a justification and striking the vote, it's invalid anyway. And only the voter could "unstrike" (regain validity) the vote by providing the justification. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Now you've got me totally confused. If it isn't struck, then how is it marked as invalid? It might as well be struck. And, the key point is that the suggestion-maker gets to mark any vote they feel isn't providing justification as invalid - which brings me back to my original point. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, the vote is considered invalid if the author requests justification. It is considered valid once again when the voter has provided one (no matter what it is). You could just as well give the author the right to strike any vote, with the voter being the only one with the right to unstrike it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Same as a dupe vote, it only matters for tallying. That and if the request for justification is responded to, as long as it's not refusing to justify, the vote is justified and valid.--Karekmaps?! 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"You could just as well give the author the right to strike any vote, with the voter being the only one with the right to unstrike it." --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Striking is a form of suppression and it is annoying, this stops Edit conflicts that would arise if I made that change.--Karekmaps?! 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Karek, you're not making sense. Whether you call it "striking" or "a justification request", the result is the same. The vote is made invalid. And you want that power in the hands of the suggestion maker. That's insane. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Certainly no more insane than allowing anyone to strike votes. a justification request has no real power. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.--Karekmaps?! 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Has no real power!?? It can invalidate a vote! --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No, the voter's apathy invalidates the vote, they have the power.--Karekmaps?! 15:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That's philosophical bullshit. I could just as easily argue that the suggestion-maker's stupidity (or, indeed, apathy) drove me to make an unjustified vote. After all, if they can't be bothered engaging their brain, why should I? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that the community has voted for the justification rule simply because they want some rule that forces users to justify their vote. I'm just trying to change how it's enforced to make it cause less problems.--Karekmaps?! 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"the community has voted for the justification rule". I must have missed that meeting. When did that happen? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The time voting for removing it failed because users wanted some for of justification, check the archives, although I'm surprised you would need to considering you're the one who put it to a vote.--Karekmaps?! 16:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
More were for it than against it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The time voting for removing it failed because users wanted some for of justification, check the archives, although I'm surprised you would need to considering you're the one who put it to a vote.--Karekmaps?! 16:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(I'm de-indenting this as it's getting mad.) A policy failure to garner 2/3 support isn't the same as the opposite of the policy gaining 2/3 support, as you (presumably) know only too well. Also, a policy failure doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite (if it's measurable as such) is favoured by the community - only that the specific wording of the policy was not in favour. And, as Mid pointed out, more were for it than against it. You'll note the incredibly poor turn out to vote as well. It was more like community apathy than anything else. I've come to the realisation that the current system (odd as it is) is what's wanted by this wiki, at least in a purely democratic vote on the matter. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A policy favor means you need to compromise to get it passed. I prefer to believe that if a version is suggested that addresses the major issues each side wanted it might have a chance, that might just be a crazy idea though considering I've seen anything and everything fail/succeed for no reason at all on this wiki.--Karekmaps?! 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the author only request justification on kill, spam, or dupe votes? I doubt he/she would demand such on keep votes. And I don't consider it apathy when someone takes the time to read the suggestion, think about it, then cast their vote. If they were truly apathetic, I doubt they'd vote at all. If they were truly apathetic, I doubt they'd even have bothered to join the wiki. I know that if I didn't care about Urban Dead I certainly wouldn't have. And how do you define *not* apathetic? Casting a vote with a 10 page essay to back it up, and then refreshing the page every ten minutes on the off chance that theirs would be the one vote to come into question? Unless you put an explicit limit on it, the author could call a vote into question at any time, days after a vote, even 5 minutes before the vote closed. --Ms.Panes 15:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a completely unworkable system. The only reason the one we have does work is because justification isn't (usually) enforced. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes and when it is it is always one kill/spam votes. I define not apathetic as say adding the page onto your watchlist and checking that once in two weeks, you know cause that's how long the vote is up, it's not like you're pressed for time.--Karekmaps?! 09:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There are currently 22 suggestions under voting. Most of the edits to those suggestions will not have anything to do with my vote. I only watchlist suggestions that probably will spark discussion about my vote (like Jon's, he RE's everyone). Putting every suggestion on the watchlist until it's closed is overkill. What's wrong with adding the requirement to contact the voter through their talkpage? If the author really wanted a justification, that's what he would do. Not wait for the voter to return to a suggestion he probably disliked. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Remove stupid overlord power?

From Spam Cycling Rules: Eligibility for Spamination is acheived if there are at least 7 Spam votes and the number of Spam votes are equal to 2/3rds or greater of the total number of votes, with the author vote included in all these tallies. In addition, A Sysop can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps; this includes their own spam vote. Suggestions may not be removed as spam unless voting has been open for 6 hours.

See that bit in bold? Why's it there? It's only ever used to early-Spam suggestions that, under normal voting rules, wouldn't be spaminated. Shouldn't we remove it? None of the other voting systems on this wiki allow sysops to ditch things in this way. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I don't know. Are there any examples of this being misused? I mean, if after 6 hours there are more spam than keep votes that rather suggests that the sysop is removing something dumb like ninja lazer firing centaurs. Having said that, however, early spamming of a suggestion might lead to the suggester not gaining any positive feedback, such as us lot telling them to use the discussion page in future.
The main problem I can see is that the removal of early-spam suggestions realy does help with clearing up the suggestions page. If it hasn't realy been misused is there any reason to remove a (fairly minor) sysop power that means obviously spammed suggestions don't have to hang around for bloody ages?
Having said that, Funt, you may be right. Allowing sysops to circumvent the usual voting rules does add somewhat to the idea that they are somehow superior to other users, and lack a level of accountability. The question, as I see it would be; is it worth sacraficing a little bit of the effectiveness of the suggestions page to remove a power from the sysops that may be seen as undemocratic and unfair? At the moment, I'd say, maybe, leaning towards no. --SeventythreeTalk 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There's really no purpose for that bit.--Karekmaps?! 05:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The purpose being to remove Spam from the suggestions page and queue, reducing the "required reading" for a user. Suggestions that have more spams than keeps are not things the page needs to leave hanging around. Consider that a suggestion with more than 15 spams and 5 kills needs 40 Keeps to pass and 5 keeps to be removed outright. Anything in the in-between spot is more often than not worth spamination. However it *is* a judgment call which is why it is given to people considered trusted users. In my opinion any suggestion that gains more Spams than Keeps should be up for Spamination by any user, but sadly I know that the tool would obviously be abused by unscrupulous users. If there are any problems over the suggestions its been used on I invite discussion, but if you object to it in principle I have to say I disagree for the above reasons. --Karlsbad 06:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Consider a suggestion that you either love or hate. It's going to have Keeps and Spams and very few Kills. Let's say, 15 Keeps and 16 Spams and no kills. It would need one Keep to get into Undecided, but could still be removed. I know it's an extreme example, but we get many, many suggestions per day, it's bound to happen sooner or later (or has happened already). It would result in much drama if any user could remove a suggestion as spam with those conditions.
What I can't understand is why Spams have to be 2/3 of all votes. This makes Kills and Dupes work against Spams, which is counter-intuitive. Why not allow removal when Spams outnumber Keeps two to one? This would have allowed spamination of Suggestion:20071127_Interior_Barricades and Suggestion:20071127_Dodge would have needed only one more spam vote. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 07:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Those links really don't help your point. Also Dupes don't count for anything when tallied, they don't work against spams, as for kills, those view the suggestion to have redeeming qualities and should still be looked at.--Karekmaps?! 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My point was that if the sysop-spamination was removed, those suggestions would still have been spaminated by the rule I suggested, so yes, they do help my point. Kills working against Spams is probably one of the reasons why Spam is used as "Strong Kill". And your interpretation of Kill is closer to Change than to the official description: "Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit." --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The example you state is a kind of judgment call that SysOps are specifically tasked to make. If the suggestion is being voted keep for bad reasons, then as a SysOp I would spam it- that is all. You seem to have a problem with the system as a whole, which I have to say is beyond the scope of this discussion. --Karlsbad 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the system is flawed in many respects. This discussion touches one of my concerns. My problem is with undemocratic decisions where practically the same (or better) result could be achieved with a democratic decision. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to note that the results you speak of are not similar enough for you to use the word "practically". A correct use of this tool creates a more efficient Suggestions system because you don't have "Spammy" suggestions taking up a user's read-time. And because this Wiki is a reference tool for a browser-based RPG it is the efficiency of the wiki that is paramount. However if there are any problems with the use of this tool over a specific suggestion then again I invite discussion. --Karlsbad 10:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... actually, you're right. I also realized why suggestions shouldn't be spaminated if they have a lot of Kills; the ability to withdraw and do a revision. So yeah, my proposal wouldn't work. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Karlsbad convinced me that this is a non-issue. I had no problem with a specific use of the power, just the rule itself. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation of the Suggestion:Talk page

Intro

Firstly, let's start with the fact that there are few other pages on the wiki that are as cluttered as the suggestions talk page. It often trips the "this page is too long" warning and on one occasion I can remember even started not displaying signitures properly due to it's length. It's also rambling, with suggestion after suggestion posted on top meaning that suggestions on there for more than a few days get pushed down to the bottom and rarely read. As someone who often uses the page to get vauled feedback on their ideas it can be a little annoying when you put something up for suggestion only for it to dissapear and never get visited again.I'm not suggesting deleting any suggestions, or anything, merely that the page itself gets a long-needed overhaul.

Proposal

The talk:suggestions page will be split into seperate category pages, much like the Peer reveiwed suggestions page. These categories, I guess would be something like

  • New equipment/change to equipment
  • New skills/change to skills
  • New weopons/Change to Weopons
  • Changes to UD Interface
  • Miscelanious

Much like the PR category, there would be a link to each of the seperate pages, followed by the list of titles for current suggestions in question. Clicking on the link would take you to the page, where you could then discuss the suggestions in that category much like you do now. I am more than happy to help run any maintainence or help create these new pages, by the way.--SeventythreeTalk 09:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss

Yes. This is also done, sort of, in the clothing suggestions. Excellent idea and I support it enthusiatically! Lemme just see if I have any small nitpicky things to criticise... :) --WanYao 12:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead mate! Ideas are always welcome--SeventythreeTalk 12:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick sorting of Talk:Suggestions gives me the following statistics:

  • Equipment: 4
  • Skills: 16
  • Weapons: 3
  • Interface: 1
  • Misc: 12

Based on this data, I'd suggest joining equipment and weapons and splitting skills into zombie skills and survivor skills. A new category called map/building suggestions/changes would probably make the Misc category a little smaller. Interface suggestions aren't very frequent so they could probably be merged to misc. Otherwise, a great idea! --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. So, something like this?

  • Equipment/weapons
  • Zombie skills
  • Survivor skills
  • Map/building suggestions
  • Misc

Any more thoughts?--SeventythreeTalk 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems insanely complicated to do nothing that helpful, right now they are organized by what is most likely to have discussion/how old they are. As is the idle time has been reduced from 5 days to 2 days and it is actually working great on keeping the page from breaking and keeping it to a somewhat reasonable size. There are actually multiple sections, there's currently one for listing what is in Overflow, one for what was on the page and is now under voting, and one for what is currently under discussion. These are all fairly recent changes but do seem to be helping out a lot.--Karekmaps?! 13:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Decreasing the idle time solves only the breaking of the page. The suggestions just don't get comments if they aren't near the top. Dividing the page into separate pages would create more "tops" and possibly more comments. And what's so insanely complicated about five separate pages? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions suggested in the last 2-3 days do regularly get comments, suggestions suggested in the last 5 days rarely do receive comments, suggestions on convoluted pages that would confuse people would confuse people and it would end up like the Clothes/Suggestions pages, there's a reason why people don't search for dupes, the way the PR pages are set up is a large part of it.--Karekmaps?! 13:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
People don't search for dupes because they're lazy. Same as why a lot of people don't use the talkpage. Personaly I would like to see the talkpage used a lot more, but to be honest, it's a bugger for me to navigate around, let alone a new user. It's a bit of a mess, you have to admit.--SeventythreeTalk 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A Simpler Way to Re-structure the Suggestion:Talk page

I think the simplest thing to do would be to just have people slap up an idea on its own page (maybe with the "namespace" of "Suggestion Talk:") and then put a link to the page on the [[:Suggestion:Talk] page. This would be similar to how suggestions are now done, but less "formal". It has the added advantage that you could include the page on your officially submitted suggestions talk page (using curly brackets) when it came time for voting. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 20:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

brilliant! let us make it so. ;) --WanYao 06:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't any simpler than the other option. Instead of five different pages you'd have to go through 40 different pages. You do realize that Talk:Suggestions gets an average of 5 suggestions per day? I don't think there's any point in archiving the suggestions that don't go to voting, so this would create either a humongous amount of garbage on the wiki or approximately 5 extra delete requests per day. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 06:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Mea cupla... i didn't think about that, feh... WanYao 12:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Anyone object to my suggestion overly? I like Swiers's Idea, but while it works for suggestions, I can see it running into some very real problems with Talk page. There's gotta be a way to sort this. --SeventythreeTalk 13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How about having a new page for all suggestion discussions each week or so? -- boxytalk • 02:13 23 November 2007 (BST)

I do, people frequently have problems with normal suggestions, Talk:Suggestions is meant to be newbie friendly.--Karekmaps?! 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. You could have "Talk: Suggestions / Nov 24-30", for example, and then each week, the "Talk: Suggestions" page could be edited to be a re-direct to the appropriately dated sub-page. People might be annoyed when their idea falls off the current page, but its just for brainstorming anyhow, and they can cut and paste if they need to keep the topic active. I suspect falling of the current page would in fact matter little, especially if there were a list of all the sub pages easily available (say on each newly created sub page, a list of all the older pages goes at the top.) SIM Core Map.png Swiers 03:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought a simple set of link to the recent few weeks pages (perhaps with a list of what suggestions are on each page). It would make it easier to go back and find your discussions, and make archiving easier. Although it may be better to delete the old pages regularly, given the amount of duplication of ideas on that page usually -- boxytalk • 06:34 23 November 2007 (BST)
That might work if we start archiving them again, but remember for a few months now Talk:Suggestions content has been deleted outright, archiving it would just take up space and waste peoples time for stuff no one will need anyway, the only use an archive would be is citing good variations of ideas other people came up with which could just as easily be suggested as a change instead of linked to an archive.(the difference is linking to an archive is essentially saying "Don't bother, they thought it better")--Karekmaps?! 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't solve anything. There are currently 36 suggestions on Talk:Suggestions less than a week old. The ones suggested in the beginning of the week would still be at the bottom and the ones suggested at the end of the week would move off the current page too fast to get any real discussion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 08:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Stuff removed from talk:suggestions:

This page is huge as hell. Couldn't we divide it somehow? IE: Suggestions Talk A-G, Suggestions Talk H-Q, and R-Z or something like that? Am I even allowed to write up here? --LumiReaver 13:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The "official" area for discussion on this page's structure is Category talk:Suggestions. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 20:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A Proposal regarding the Justification and Validity of Votes

Preamble

The purpose of this proposal is to replace the current rules regarding the issue of what isn't accepted as a justification, what kind of votes are invalid, what can be done about them and by whom. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Policy

The following are considered invalid:

  • votes with incomplete or no signature
  • votes with an invalid justification (defined below)
  • votes which clearly abuse the voting system
  • multiple votes from the same person on the same suggestion


Any user can strike votes with incomplete or no signature and multiple votes from the same person. Only sysops can strike votes with invalid justifications or ones that abuse the system. The following actions may be considered vandalism:

  • striking votes only from specific sections, while leaving invalid votes in other sections alone
  • re-voting with the same justification or one whose content is very similar after having a previous vote struck because of the justification


If you think a vote's justification is invalid, you should say so on the suggestion's talk page. The voter may defend their justification or change it if they wish. If a sysop thinks the justification is invalid they should strike it.


Invalid Justifications

  • Nonsense: Justifications which have absolutely no relevance to the suggestion. Satirical votes are allowed. Examples: "WTFCentaurs with rocketlaunchers!" (valid on suggestions about WTFCentaurs or rocketlaunchers), "Brnhr" (valid on suggestions about zombie speech), "Because I like to vote [section]", "D&D" (valid on suggestions about swords, magic or something like that)
  • Misinformation: Justifications that have information relating to the suggestion or the game that can be proven false. These are practically either mathematical issues or misunderstandings on how the suggestion would work. For example; claiming that the damage per AP on a weapon suggestion is larger or smaller than it really is. Proof of falsehood must be provided. Example: "If you raised the knife's damage by one, its damage per AP would be 7,5" (proof could be the formula ((damage * hit-chance)/AP-cost-per-attack) and the correct figure (1,5))
  • Personal attacks: Any justification that includes a personal attack on any member of the wiki (past or present). Attacks on the suggestion are allowed. Example: "You're fucking retarded" is invalid, "This is fucking retarded" is valid


If you agree with someone who has voted before you, you can vote for example "As VoterX" or "As above". If a vote has no justification, an implicit "As above" is presumed. If there are no valid votes before your vote, you MUST justify your vote.


EDITS

  • 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC): Invalid justifications apply only to more extreme cases.
  • 16:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC): Only sysops can strike votes with invalid justifications. Little fixes, re-organization, grammar.

Discussion on Justification and Validity of Votes

Original Version

...goes here. Did I forget anything? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont like the no personal attacks. How about saying that personal attacks cant be most or all of your justification. Its pretty much traditional to flame here. Also, it doesnt explicitly state that things must be justified. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does; If there are no valid votes before your vote, you MUST justify your vote. Just next where it says that no justification = implicit "as above". I'll bold it so it stands out more.
The "no personal attacks" clause is actually in the current rules and I see no reason to remove it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the 'invalid justifications'- traditionally, anything goes is the rule for justifications- it's always been fine as long as there's something there.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no point in requiring justifications if "lalala" is enough. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Any user can strike invalid votes, but only sysops can unstrike them. Is pretty horrible, users should not be able to randomly strike votes it only leads too drama. As for the rest, your Invalid Justifications are problematic as nonsense often serves a purpose, I can prove anything false with enough work, and civility policies have been rejected by the community(i.e. all the issues with those apply too that).--Karekmaps?! 15:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said to Grim, the "no personal attacks" clause is already in the rules and I see no reason to remove it. Randomly striking votes doesn't result in drama, it results in vandal warning/banning as it should. And what purpose could nonsense serve that can't be said otherwise? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A lot of things can be proven dubious or not exactly accurate with enough work, but straight out false? Give an example and I'll seriously consider changing it. Also, if you can give a good reason to remove the "no personal attacks" clause, I'll do it. Same goes for the nonsense thingie. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference is who enforces it, not it's existence in the rules. And Randomly striking votes results in drama, especially when you don't provide the voter a chance to justify it or listen to their justification, it's part of why what happened to Sockem in the recent A/VB case did. As for nonsense, it's needless effort to type out "Your suggestion is completely unworkable and should never be suggested again" when WTFCENTAURS would suffice and is accepted vernacular. And last thing, Lh778's votes on Suggestion:20071117 Serrated Claws and Suggestion:20071115 Repairing Building Damage v2.0 serve as examples of votes some users seem too agree with but can easily be proven false.--Karekmaps?! 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Under this system, Sockem would have struck the vote once, Funt would have defended his vote and a sysop would have made the decision of unstriking it or not. Simple.
My point is that "WTFCENTAURS" can be easily substituted with "unworkable". Wow, that's one letter shorter! And what good is WTFCENTAURS to first time suggesters? They don't know what it means and it's their suggestions that will most likely recieve votes like that.
If you can prove Lh778's justifications false, please do so. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's a bit absurd too just strike a vote without asking for clarification on what they meant, your version assumes bad faith.
WTFCENTAURS means a lot more then unworkable, suggestions voting is not the place for discussion and feedback, each suggestion has it's own talk page for that even if you ignore Talk:Suggestions which exists for specifically that purpose.
By increasing the odds by just 5%, it would take 11 less AP (10 AP to destroy 3 sections multiplied by 17 ), and this extra AP can then be used to do other things. Multiply that 11 AP by the 10999 currently standing zombies; and (do note that according to the UBP at least one of each type of essential building per suburb has to be kept at VSB++) are all I need, he's assuming too many zombies, ignoring that a significant number of zombies are mrh? cow survivors, he's purposely ignoring the fact that this would obviously be a last in line skill meaning less then approx 40% of all active zombies will have it, and he is basing it being powerful on a player made tactic instead of a game mechanic, all of which make his vote extremely over the top numbers wise and fear mongering.--Karekmaps?! 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... you might be right with your first sentence. I could change it so that someone has to "accuse" him on the talkpage, after which a sysop decides whether to strike it or not. I just took the mechanic from how the Note worked.
When WTFCENTAURS means something other than "unworkable", you can say it too. You don't have to go on "I think this suggestion is bad for the whole game and should be killed because blablabla", you can just say "blablabla". WTFCENTAURS can mean so many things that it doesn't really mean anything else than "I really don't like your suggestion".
Since he is so profoundly wrong, what harm would it be to strike his vote before it can mislead other voters? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
While I believe he is wrong I also believe in his right too be wrong. The point too the nonsense is that you're forcing users too essentially post nonsense, just instead of WTFCENTAURS that they do mean it will be an "as above" that they barely mean.--Karekmaps?! 17:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe in a person's right to have an opinion that differs from mine, but if he can be proven wrong with cold, hard facts, then it's just misleading others.
Writing concise justifications isn't that hard. "game-breaking", "ridiculous", "overpowered", "unbalanced" and "useless" cover most of the cases where WTFCENTAUR is used. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
All of those add nothing more then the unjustified version and as such striking one over the other makes no sense and kill some of the fun of voting.--Karekmaps?! 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally as a suggester find justifications like that infinitely more useful than "WTFCENTAURS" or a blank justification (under the current system where it doesn't mean anything). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Way too strict, and open to abuse by sysops, who (as a rule) are provenly not un-biased when it comes to the suggestions system. Especially, I've noted that many sysops at the moment assume bad faith, and accuse people of drama if they question them in any way. There's also a tendency to ignore discussion in favour of "might is right" editing. The last thing we need is to hand them the ability to fix the voting system, in partnership with high-handed users who might insist on various undefined levels of justification. Further, there's a danger here that voters will shy away from providing much justification beyind the most bland "as above" or "I don't like this", just in case they get struck out on some argument over the validity of a longer justification. In short - WTFCENTAURS? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of the system I proposed to karek? ie. users would not be able to strike votes anymore, but they could put in a sort of "complaint" on the talkpage, after which the voter could defend the justification or change it himself and if he doesn't, a sysop could strike the vote if he deemed the justification invalid.
As for voters being afraid to justify their votes; As I said to karek, WTFCENTAURS and other nonsense justifications provide absolutely nothing and thus even simple ones like "ridiculous", "overpowered" or "no free actions" are infinitely better. What I meant with "provably false information" was cases where the justification contains blatant lies or clear misunderstandings, things that can be proven to be false with absolutely no shadow of doubt. Maybe I should clarify that. Personal attacks mean insults directed at specific persons. Attacks on the suggestion would still be allowed. I guess that could use a little clarification too.
None of these are hard to avoid. People don't accidentally spew nonsense, personal attacks or lies. Misunderstandings and other mistakes are understandable, but they still should be either struck or fixed to avoid misleading the other voters. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Boxy's recent actions prove, without doubt, that sysop powers are abused as common practise on this wiki. I would absolutely have to vote against any proposal that increased those powers. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I really balked at this otherwise very sensible proposal when I saw the clause about WTFCENTAURS? etc. That little phrase has meaning... in fact it is chock FULL of meaningful implication of allusion... So do many satirical votes possess meaning and are thus valid justifications. For example, here is one of my recent Spam votes against a burning barricade suggestion: "i fell down in a barricade on fire, down down down as the SPAM count went higher... and it burns burns burns, this Wall of Fire". While not directly addressing suggestion's particulars, I expressed pretty clearly that I considered the suggestion to be simply ridiculous and spammy. Similarly, the meaning of Funts simple "D&D" Spam vote was VERY clear in the context of the suggestion, which was for a Buster Sword, whatever that is. It was much more justified than, say, "Ni", or even my absurdist jibe about burning barricades. And, frankly, absurd suggestions often deserve absurd spam votes... JABBERWOCKY!!!! --WanYao 12:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Funt's D&D vote is valid. It's not very clear, but I think he meant that "this isn't D&D" which is a valid vote indeed. It isn't nonsense or irrelevant. Technically your wall of fire vote isn't nonsense or irrelevant either. But, as I said to karek, WTFCENTAURS can mean so many things that it doesn't mean anything else than "I really don't like your suggestion". --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"I don't like this" is currently valid justification for a kill vote and should remain as such... the problem is when WTFCENTAURS or other garbage is used to justify SPAM votes as then it instead is probably a smug way to say "this is nonsense!" Justification isn't really needed for KEEP and KILL votes as the category is already a basic explanation; in these cases a strong recomendation is all that is needed. SPAM and DUPE votes should require clear and concise justification as even when it is obvious (as it often is!) it means that at least people have read the suggestion first rather than vote on instinct/prejudice/puppet-meisters-orders! Oh and one last thing... No form of personal attack should be tolerated, there is just no way they can be defended as good faith edits. Attacking a suggestion is acceptable but attacking anyone personally should not be! --Honestmistake 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

November 20th Version

New version. Changed invalid justifications to apply only to more extreme cases. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some votes are unjustified / unjustifiable. Living with them is easier than the hassle / drama of fixing them. The suggestion author can already comment that they think the vote is unjustified; anything more is begging for administrative drama. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I hate to admit it, but this entire debate has been pointless. I've suggested that no justification is necessary, but that's not proving a popular notion. You're suggesting that justification be absolutely necessary and you're attempting to define it. The current system is that everyone has to pretend to justify their vote sometimes, but sometimes not, depending on the whim of various contributers and how any passing sysops might be feeling that day. That's the system we've got. That's the system people seem happy with. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That system is flawed as you've yourself witnessed. The current system is entirely pointless as it requires justifications but puts no limitations on what is accepted as a justification. Now that I think about it, your policy change is better than the current system. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the current system is more that anyone can strike a vote they don't think is justified, not only that but bolded text is magically excluded from justification even though anything after bolded text is considered a justified vote. --Karekmaps?! 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What if users would not be able to strike votes, but they could put in a sort of "complaint" on the suggestion's talkpage? After which the voter could defend the justification or change it himself. If he doesn't, a sysop could strike the vote if he deemed the justification invalid. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That is generally how it has always been done, except only the author can ask for justification as it doesn't matter to anyone else.--Karekmaps?! 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

December 1st Version

Quite possibly the final version. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Adjust Justification

Note: This is now available for voting, at the bottom of the page. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed suggestion policy:

  • Replace the sentence "Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped" with "Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. Justification is strongly recommended."
  • Remove the sentence "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote."

This would mean that users would not be forced to justify their votes on suggestions (in line with all other voting systems on this wiki), but it would be encouraged.

Note that Template:SugVoteRules, section Advice to Voters contains this text:

  • "It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion."

Reasoning behind this proposed change:

  • The current system already works in this fashion, except that occasionally someone tries to strictly enforce the justification rule, which, because it is not common precedent, causes upset between users.
  • It is supposed that the voting community (in general) will continue to provide justification for their votes, as they always have.

---

I'm going to put this forward as a suggestion policy, so this is the official policy discussion which has to remain up for 24 hours, after which time, all things considered, I'll probably put it to a community vote. (This was already attempted as a straightforward good faith edit, which lasted for 24 hours before being reverted by another user.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just too loose. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's actually just what happens right now. Mostly, people justify themselves because it comes naturally to do so. You can see this in other votes on the wiki where justification is not a requirement. Sometimes, when it's fairly obvious what the justification is from previous comments, the intrinsic meaning of placing a vote in the relevant section is usually accepted. However, occasionaly, some users take it upon themselves to try to enforce justification, often forcing people to add "I don't like it" or "I like it", which is a waste of time and effort for all involved (as it adds no new meaning, whilst causing additional work), and can (as recently) lead to edit wars and users being banned or taken to arbi over the matter. I don't envisage the system changing in operation from as it works currently, just minus a ton of drama. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was it undone, it was never accepted as policy and pretty much never enforced. --Karekmaps?! 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it again cause Nali's opinions aren't suddenly better then the communities.--Karekmaps?! 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest it be reworded: "Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. Justification is highly recommended." No?--  AHLGTG 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no I don't suggest that. Nvm haha.--  AHLGTG 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Justification: Mandatory versus optional; or, the alternative

Should justifications be mandatory or should they be optional? Or should they be, as Boxy has asked, recommended, and say that votes may be removed rather than will be moved without a justification? On the pro side, this would mean no more struck non-justified votes for people who don't feel like putting one there. On the negative side, this would allow for misunderstanding if someone accidentally voted in the wrong section. So, the question is: Justification: Mandatory, Recommended, or Optional? I'll put this up for a vote once I've got the winds of the community's thoughts.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the policy wording slightly. Better? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the changes; but change "Remove the sentence "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote."" to "Change the sentence to "Votes that do not have reasoning behind may be struck.You SHOULD justify your vote."", or to "It is recommended that you justify your vote"- for consistency's sake.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
But that's already there in a different section: "It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion." If justification is optional, then it's not invalid. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Well, then, I guess it's okay as is. But as boxy says below, if unjustified voting becomes overly common, the change might have to be undone.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm totally open to that. Yes - in everything in this wiki, we have to revisit things that haven't worked. All I've ever said about this is "trust the community". --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the rule stay, but the wording changed to reflect the fact that it's not a rule that will generally be enforce unless non-justified votes become commonplace, and that striking only be done by sysops in that case. It is a rule that makes it clear to voters that a justification is expected, and that is one of the things that makes the suggestions page such a vibrant place to visit, and such a source of new blood to the community. The arguments that this is unused and therefore should be gone altogether can equally be used on the rule above it, invalidating server load justifications. I've never seen it enforce myself, but it is still essential to make it clear to voters that it is unacceptable, and is something that can be referenced by authors to show that a voter has no point when they give such a justification. Unless it becomes a problem (a suggestion looks like it will be killed on server load worries) it is better to just point out in a re: that it is invalid -- boxytalk • 01:53 18 November 2007 (BST)

The thing is this, boxy - I heartily disagree with you. If I place a vote in the Kill section, it is implicit that I dislike the suggestion enought to vote Kill. Forcing me to write something as trite as "I don't want it in the game" doesn't strengthen the meaning of my vote in any way. And what you're saying is that my vote would be (under interpretation) invalid. Look at all the other voting systems on this wiki that don't force justification. Everyone (the vast majority) still do provide explanations, because we all like to get our opinion in there. It's just natural. This is like a nanny rule. We don't (as a community) need this much nannying, and we don't need (I certainly don't need) some cretin coming in and striking my vote just because (in their opinion) my justification isn't quite up to scratch. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion system is different to admin votes though. The high number of newbies who make suggestions means that educating them (so they don't produce spam fodder) is a priority there. They get nothing out of WTFCENTUR vote, and they are the ones most likely to receive them, because (honestly) they do usually come up with some pretty crap suggestions first up -- boxytalk • 02:05 18 November 2007 (BST)
Leaving no nannying will result in idiots making stupid votes. Too much nannying and it becomes hindersome and annoying. Balance the two, yes?--  AHLGTG 02:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the vibrant discussion you enjoy so much will not disappear, and exists in spite of the "you MUST" rule as it currently stands. There is already a healthy balance of justification, and all the rule does is cause occasional drama when someone tries to enforce it. Why do you want that to stay? I don't get it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying we shouldn't change anything? Er, but slightly more lenient?--  AHLGTG 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hardy harr harr! I'm trying to stop the drama that happens when someone comes along and tries to enforce an unenforceable rule. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Either, justification recommended, or required, right? Makes sense, so mishaps like so don't happen again.--  AHLGTG 02:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And that could easily have been a sysop. It's just like an open trap, and Sockem fell right into it. I say, take away the trap. Plant flowers there. Dance and sing! (I'm going to take a back seat now - I've had more than my fair say here.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A trap you set... that's why I was arguing against his banning. You took him to A/VB for an edit conflict that you had set up to bring this to the fore. I figure you wanted Grim to take the bait (by using his name as your pseudo-justification), but he's too wily for that, eh, so you took the fool. He really needs that warning retracted, that case was a crock of shite -- boxytalk • 11:32 18 November 2007 (BST)
Boxy, that's bullshit about my motivations. All I did was vote. Anyone who looks at the case can see the facts: I tried to discuss the matter with him - he ignored me and then he asked to be taken to A/VB. Again - in case you missed it - he refused to discuss it and asked to be taken to A/VB. I tried to sort it out with him without drama - but he ignored me. How is that me setting something up? You're being utterly fucking paranoid here. The very idea that I'm sitting here like some machiavelian villain, planning all this! It's idiotic, that's what it is. If you're going to accuse me of bad faith, you better have some facts to back it up - because otherwise it's just fucking slander. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well I've just been through the current suggestions, and guess what. You've gone from someone who justifies their votes (usually to a very high standard), to suddenly be one of the worst offenders in unjustified voting... not even bothering to write in "kill" or "spam" in at least one case. What am I supposed to think? -- boxytalk • 11:44 18 November 2007 (BST)
All I see is you throwing wild accusations at me (because you disagree with this policy), and when I point out where you're wrong, you move on without even bothering to apologise. "One of the worst offenders". It's not an offence, though, is it? Or is it? That's what I'm trying to sort out here. (And, look again at my recent votes - I think you'll find the majority of them, where it's appropriate, do have justification.) Take your blinkers off, please. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and of the Current Suggestions, I count 15 instances of me justifying my vote, and only 4 where I've provided shorter, arguably non-justified votes. In the 4 cases, all the required feedback for the suggestion-maker has already been made by other voters and it's simply not necessary that I add to it. And, it's one of those where Sockem decided to take me to task. Facts, boxy. Facts are important. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The position I think the wiki has taken on justification is, if it's within the bold- anything other than kill or spam- that's an implicit justification- or if it's outside the bold, then it's a justification, no matter how inane.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  14:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was more than happy to debate this issue, and accept the communities decision on it. But it's damned obvious that you're doing you best to keep this issue in the spotlight with shit like this. I for one don't appreciate the drama, especially after seeing someone banned already because of similar. Ignoring people who don't justify their votes because of disinterest is one thing, deliberately doing it to make a point is another thing altogether -- boxytalk • 12:14 18 November 2007 (BST)
I'm totally open to debate. You can see, here, how various people have suggested changes to the policy, which I've either argued against or implemented. You can see how the policy text has been altered to include more explanation, and is now mutating from my original idea of ditching justification necessity altogether to a different system of strongly recommending it (which is pretty much what we have now, except without the potential for misunderstanding). That Nali thing's just another example where justification wasn't necessary. Look at the suggestion, look at the votes - it's clear-cut Spam, and didn't need anything extra from me to define that. You'll note, on that page, that nobody took the voter who wrote "Jesus fucking wept" to task, did they? Why didn't Nali strike their vote, when they struck mine? Is "Jesus fucking wept" more of a justification than no justification? I put it to you that Nali targeted me specifically in that case, instead of applying the rule universally. The rule's broken - I'm trying to fix it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yay, Boxy, if anyone is able too be accused of doing that crap it's me not Funt, you're aim is getting sloppy.--Karekmaps?! 13:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
He did try to strike the fucking wept one, Funt... it got rolled back. You sticking your unjustified vote in our faces to make a point about this policy discussion could well have gotten him banned for a week, Funt -- boxytalk • 13:23 18 November 2007 (BST)
Boxy, that is a lie I NEVER tried to strike the Jesus wept vote- That was suicidal angel! Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the kind of circumstance I'm trying to rule out with this policy. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
When that exchange took place was before the reversion of the rules by you but after the change by Nubis.--Karekmaps?! 13:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just me, but I've always understood that the view of the rules and community is that suggestions submission isn't the place for getting feedback on your suggestion, the argument that it looks like is being made for justification is that voting is meant too serve the purpose of Talk:Suggestions instead of Talk:Suggestions.I left for a while too cease drama mongering--Karekmaps?! 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true. However, I agree with boxy that a lively amount of feedback on live suggestions isn't something we want to lose. (I don't think we will lose it with this policy, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be pressing the point.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Replace the sentence "Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped" with "Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. Justification is recommended but not required Theres my 2 cents. Omega 02:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure everyone knows my stance by now.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget the newbs. Imagine the votes that SA would make if no justification would be needed. --  AHLGTG 02:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well ,I really don't vary from the base "Keep, Kill, Spam, Dupe" votes. I'd just leave the area afterwards blank. Gotta remember, I'm not Sonny.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Without justification, there is no way the author can either contest the vote or gain any feedback from it, as such, i think that justifications should be essential. Everything else here about not justifying is a bunch of lazy dicks who dont want to take a minute out of their lives to write something, its already enforced with a ridiculously loose definition of justification, this is just drama for the sake of drama, and we have had more than enough of that recently. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"a bunch of lazy dicks" - nice trolling, there, Grim. What's the difference between "a ridiculously loose definition", whereby votes such as "la la la" (and there are hundreds or thousands of similarly well accepted examples) and no justification? As far as I have witnessed, the only difference is that occasionally, someone will take the rule and try to apply it as it's currently written, thus landing themselves in hot water (if they're a normal user), or landing the voter in hot water (if it's an ardent sysop). The current rule causes the drama - and this is a good faith attempt to remove that issue. I take it you wouldn't change the current system in any way? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, im just accusing you all of being lazy dicks. You personally, im accusing of being a troll, right now, what with this edit and this edit and this edit, in fact, pretty much everything here. You are going out of your way to troll and cause drama regarding this issue, and it really is a shame Nalikill took your bait. Cut the crap. The rule doesnt cause drama, People like you and, in this case, Seventythree, are causing the drama by ignoring the rules. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You really want me to come up with all the links where many, many other users ignore the rules, and have done for years? If the end result of this proposal is less drama (or potential for it), then what's your problem? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt matter. They are not doing it in bad faith, as yours are. You are simply trolling to stir this up to drama level. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're right, then I'll vote against my own policy, because I supposedly love drama so much. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Dont put on that act. You are stirring up the drama to make this seem like its a bigger and more serious problem than it actually is while trying to force through a policy change regarding this "major" problem you have created. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion of my supposed motivations is really beside the point. Have you anything to discuss regarding the actual policy? Or is this all just a personal attack? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I take offense Grim, I'm not doing it in bad faith so I can be a lazy dick, as you'll see I spend far more time then is necessary trying to make the cogs in the suggestions feedback machine turn in a way that makes it easy to use and understand. I go out of my way too justify my votes whenever I think the suggestion warrants it even though suggestion voting isn't the place for suggestions development, why did I start this and this then if not for being a lazy drama troll? Simple, because the way the rule is written and how it was created encourage drama in the system and encourage random users to hassle voters whenever they don't think a vote is justified right. It's a rule that causes more crap then it's worth and should be rewritten or removed completely, the way it was implemented just helps show how little chance such a rule would have had in voting in the first place.--Karekmaps?! 13:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Justification of votes is and should be essential. Votes like "lalala" or "WTFCENTAURS" should at the very least be stricken as invalid, repeated flauting of the justification rules should be followed by a warning. If you are mature enough to fill a role in the community then you can damn well spend 60 seconds of your time typing "I do not like this because..." or I do like this because..." Its not like the because needs to be complicated, because i feel it adds nothing to the game" would be good enough. Votes like "WTFCENTAURS" just scream "look at me, look at me I am teh funnies voter alive" most of us just read them as "I am a 12 year old with no friends and no social skills to get them. I can type in nonsense slang though!" Grow up, if you think your opinion is worth counting then make your opinion worth counting!!! --Honestmistake 12:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to justify your vote, just say "As above". In fact, I suggest that would be placed in the new rules as well.--ShadowScope 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's yet another reason why the rule serves no purpose other then drama.--Karekmaps?! 12:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the purpose of justification to give the author feedback, or to keep "lazy bums" or "unworthy voters" from having their vote counted? Or is the purpose to make a voter "prove" that they knew what they were voting on? When it all comes down to it, what's the heart of the reasoning? Seriously. --Ms.Panes 09:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensible (?) Dupe Reform

Note added here because it gets complicated down below: - I'm dropping my support for this change. I won't be placing this up for a policy vote. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy re-wording:

Not Dupe - this vote is to be used where the (non-author) voter believes that an existant Dupe vote is incorrect. The Not Dupe is to be placed in any of the sections, Keep, Kill or Spam, and counts towards the vote tally for that section.
Each Not Dupe vote nullifies a Dupe vote, so that three uncontested Dupe votes are required for removal. In order to give voters time to consider Dupe votes, the suggestion must remain for at least 6 hours beyond the time of the first Dupe vote (where that doesn't conflict with other time limits).

--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put this forward as a policy, so this is the official policy discussion which has to remain up for 24 hours, after which time, all things considered, I'll probably put it to a community vote. Constructive criticism welcome. And Cyberbob. That's a joke. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I love this. So many times I come across a lovely suggestion that holds only some similarities with another suggestion, and then someone Dupe votes it! Quite annoying, especially if the suggestion just entered voting.--  AHLGTG 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Examples please? The reason that "lovely" suggestions get duped, is because they are so lovely that others have suggested them, or something very similar, before. There are plenty of dupes that are worthy suggestions, but they've already been through the system, Kevan has already seen them -- boxytalk • 23:04 16 November 2007 (BST)
Here's an example, of course. The point isn't whether or not you, personally, think a particular suggestion is a Dupe. It's whether or not the community thinks it is. As you are openly for democracy in the suggestions system, I can't understand why you would support undemocratic early removal of a suggestion that a majority of voters don't agree is a Dupe. That seems totally at odds with your stated objectives. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked through all those 66 dupes and I actually couldn't find a single one that wasn't dupe worthy (although I did find one that was duped with only 2 dupe votes). Good point Boxy, except Funt's link is the reason why I made that comment above in the first place. Er, so Funt pretty much responded for me. As Funt.--  AHLGTG 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So this is all because of Jon's suggestion... an aberration, rather than the rule? And we are going to change the whole system because of it? -- boxytalk • 23:29 16 November 2007 (BST)
Oh, and that one with only 2 dupes, it was so obvious I think I was going to vote as well, and remove it (don't usually like to do that)... musta forgot forgot to vote -- boxytalk • 23:33 16 November 2007 (BST)
Yeah, I didn't/don't care. --  AHLGTG 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Dam your persuasiveness! You're right, ish. I'd still like the ability to contest dupe votes, but I suppose this would eventually just create drama, people contesting dupe votes left and right with out any real care to the relevance of the dupe. --  AHLGTG 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This has happened before, as well, prior to the current storing system, back when Dupes just got deleted. And, I wouldn't have gone as far as a policy change if it weren't for the fact that no sysop has come forward to defend the community decision in this case. Like Jon or not, it shouldn't be acceptable to openly bully him in this way. If someone with authority would stand up for the community here then there would be no need to try to create a set of rules to stop this kind of thing from happening.--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, could Boxy's suggestion (below) fix this?--  AHLGTG 00:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Even though it was somewhat marginal, I agree that it is close enough to be considered a dupe, and I don't bully Jon. If you've got to go back 6 months or more to find another example of a disputed duping of a suggestion, I put it to you that the system is working as is, but may need a little tweaking rather than having multiple levels of voting. This policy change would mean that everyone has to vote keep/kill, and then if a dupe link is provided, they have to vote again, dupe or not dupe -- boxytalk • 00:07 17 November 2007 (BST)
No, they could choose to vote again, they wouldn't have to. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to go back quite that far... I made a suggestion in September which was duped, and the dupe votes were contested by myself and "keep" voters. Less than a third of total votes voted against the suggestion in any way, and only 3 out of 41 votes cried "dupe." Here's my pointless, silly attempt to shout down the vicious dupe machine: why did I bother?--FT MCDU: Black Knights 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
More disputed dupes:
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20071016_Wall_Crucifixes_%28revised
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20071021_More_Colorful_Kill_Text
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20071115_Wave_Hello
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070928_More_Knives
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070826_Subways/Sewers
These suggestions would have died without dupe votes, and the dupe votes here are just too damn typical of the laziness of dupe voters to ignore. They highlight a pattern of abusing "dupe" rules to more expediently spam suggestions:
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20071003_Retune_Radio_Transmitter_Tweak (the first dupe voter simply stated "this is an invalid vote- obviously just using their dupe vote as a place holder, so that it would be available if somebody found a similar suggestion. The suggestion which was eventually used as a basis for duping actually joined the full body of this suggestion with another suggestion- making it significantly different! This suggestion is not a dupe- and it didn't have to be called one to fail!)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070916_Assualt_Rifle (It's spam, not a dupe- it doesn't even link to another suggestion! Just a note stating that a suggestion by a similar name has been removed! WTF?)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070927_Fuel_Can_Attack (more spam- but any idiot can see that the actual suggested mechanic here is significantly different from that of the suggestion it supposedly dupes. Dupe votes here are clearly being used as an expedient, irrefutable substitute for spam votes. They're even combined as such! Completely irresponsible, flagrant abuse of broken rules.)
This is only going back a couple of months. There are probably many more like this. The good ones are unfairly shot down because somebody finds one which is vaguely similar and there's no way to dispute it, and the bad ones are removed via the wrong method: kill works, spam works, voting "dupe" and hoping somebody can dig something up to kill a spammy suggetsion is an abuse of broken rules.--FT MCDU: Black Knights 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am all for this one. I think this would be a good addition/change to the current system. - Whitehouse 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said below, a lot of people either don't understand how dupe works or are completely against things being duped on pricipal, all this does is make the rare dupe removal many times harder too achieve. Sysops have been the arbiters in the past and it has always worked out fine, although it may be best too have sysops who check a little more regularly and leave notes for whether or not it is/isn't a dupe and why. I just see a lot of needless drama coming from this change, which seems to be brought on by Jon Pyre complaining too a suggestion of his that got legitimately duped.--Karekmaps?! 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's false to blame Jon for this. If you read all the votes on that suggestion, you'll see that a majority of the voters explicitly stated that they thought it wasn't a Dupe. For it then to be removed as a Dupe seems to against the wishes of the community, whilst blindly following a rule. The drama is caused by the community being ignored in favour of a minority. And, it wasn't a sysop who removed it. In the vast majority of Dupe cases, there's no dilemma - three people vote Dupe, nobody disagrees and off it goes. No problem. I can't see this disrupting that to any great degree, whilst allowing the community to have more of a say when there's a conflict of opinion. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Read my comments on the suggestion to see how completely I disagree with that.--Karekmaps?! 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
We have read them, Karek. And many of us do not concur. I am not sure how I feel about this specific policy idea... I have to mull it over. But the current system is showing its cracks. Because there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY for dupe votes. If someone says, "It's a DUPE!", provides a link, and two people just vote dupe without blinking... The suggestion is gone. Even if the dupe claim is not valid. That is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. --WanYao 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Karek, I know you thought it was a Dupe - that's not my point. I'm talking about the majority of voters, and the fact that their opinion is being dismissed by the minority. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
What suggestion system have you been posting in? That has never been how it is done and oftentimes the majority of suggestions that get three dupe votes and a link are not removed, why not ask Boxy, after all he is usually the one who closes suggestions.--Karekmaps?! 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well then what are the rules, exactly??? Where are they? Hey! Here they are! And they are VERY explicit. 3 Dupe votes and it can be removed, i.e. it is invalidated. The only exception to its crystal clarity is who can remove the suggestion? From what I can gather, it is anyone -- once the criteria are met. Just because boxy is leniant, or busy, does mean there arent cracks... [EDIT] I mean, what? are people not following the rules??? Hmnnnnnnnnn... --WanYao 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Bullet number 1 disagrees with you.--Karekmaps?! 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That relies entirely on the definition of "absolutely no viable differences". This would move the responsibility of defining that from the person cycling the suggestion onto the community. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not the only one that removes dupe, I guess I have done a fair percentage of them since the new suggestion system was put up (simply because I understand it all). 3 dupe votes does not mean that I will automatically remove the suggestion. I look at the link provided, and make a decision on whether I believe it is close enough or not. I will also consider anyone else's justifications for saying "not a dupe", but shear numbers one way or the other has never been part of the criteria. And I don't think it should be either, because dupes are much more likely to be contested if the suggestion is one that people want, despite the fact that it (or something very similar) is already in the archives. Most voters couldn't give a stuff if the archives get filled up with heaps of suggestions with little or no difference. Those archives however have a purpose, one of the major ones is so that Kevan can easily find the suggestions that the community have decided would be useful updates/changes. Filling them up with similar suggestions is counter productive to this purpose, making things hard to find -- boxytalk • 23:24 16 November 2007 (BST)
Thanks, boxy, for actually responding to my comments with sensible and actually meaningful content. for the record, i wasn't trying to impute that you do a bad job or something, but was trying to make a point about consistency and clarity regarding the rules and their application. and the way you describe yourself handling dupes is, in a precect world, exactly how i would like them to be handled.
but, in this exact situation, if the sysopy crowd -- or at least the most vocal sysopy crowd -- were alone making the decision, odds are the Wave Hello thing would be gone daddy gone. against the will of the community, a will whose logic is quite reasonable, in spite of what those who differ might say. and i understand THEIR point, i just diagree... i also understand the rationale behind the dupe system, and its purpose. but i still think the current debacle is showing some cracks -- either in the procedure itself or the way it is applied, i am not sure which exactly... or how to fix them... sigh... --WanYao 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop using that case, it's been decided and a majority came back too say that they did want it duped, people who didn't vote because it was removed, which in a way makes most of the reasons for this whole drama debate invalid, the system does work, it has not actually failed in the past, as others have said. It's just beating a dead horse too try and use it as a defense for that point of view.--Karekmaps?! 05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Karek, but you're wrong about that. Counting the votes, there are 5 Dupe votes, and 6 users who explicitly say it's not a Dupe. Of the 5 Dupe votes, 2 were added after this become a topic of heated debate, and after it was removed from voting. One, by Cyberbob, makes it personal, by attacking Jon directly, and the other, by you, is only there because, and I quote, "you people won't shut up". However, let's assume good faith on those. It's still 6:5 in favour of carrying on voting. If the time is taken to read the talk page, and the opinions there added to the tally, it's 8:6 in favour of carrying on voting. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Read the talk page, not everyone voted, but some of those votes you are counting really aren't worth much considering their content/reason, I only see three people and the author who actually have a reason better than Bob's personal comment(which is a view that has been expressed by many users many times in the past regarding Jon's suggestions).--Karekmaps?! 09:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I did read the talk page, and included the opinions from there. All you're saying in reply is that you disagree. I already knew that. You're one of the 6 - there are 8 people who disagree with you. Dismissing their views is arrogant. I'm flabbergasted that you can be so entrenchably insisting that there's no problem to deal with here, when so many users are upset enough by the outcome to take part in extended discussions on the topic. And it has happened before. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much that I don't think it's an issue, I think using Wave Hello detracts from your point and makes this seem like it's only purpose is because you disagree with it's removal. That and I do believe that it's not as much of an issue as is being claimed here, the system works, with a few cases of drama as will happen no matter how the system works, the only thing that really needs clarifying is the thing Jon Pyre suggests below, who makes the final decision for removal.--Karekmaps?! 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Too me this is equivalent too this, at least in how it's being done.--Karekmaps?! 10:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
When are things supposed to be fixed, if not when they're found to be broken? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not that they are found too be broken, just that someone stirred a shit fit and someone else agreed.--Karekmaps?! 11:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree with the Dupes under the current system, the only thing you can do, is to have a "shit fit". I certainly find that to be broken. Things that are working properly don't attract shit fits and policy reforms. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Cause nothing ever gets passed around here without drama. Come on Midianian, you can come up with a better reason then "I can't think of another way".--Karekmaps?! 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Lots of things go around without drama. Do you see anyone ever dispute the Peer Rejected/Undecided/Reviewed decisions? No, because they have an official way of saying their mind and the decision is made entirely based on numbers, a democratic decision made by the community, not an opinion of the one person cycling the suggestion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear! :) Also, as I have said REPEATEDLY, the problem with the current system is that there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY for Dupe votes. None whatsoever. 3 people can vote dupe, and THEY WIN. Case closed. And if boxy, or others, are not necessarily deleting a suggestion at that time... Well, they are doing the the right thing -- but they are not following the rules, are they? Which means the rules are broken. And the fact that people are having a "shit fit" -- and over a suggestion that itself many of us do not even think has any merit! -- demonstrates that there is a PROBLEM. --WanYao 14:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about WanYao? As I've said before, 3 dupes does not automatically mean that a suggestion is a dupe. The link provided needs to be close enough. That is indeed following the rules when I don't remove duped suggestions that I don't believe are close enough -- boxytalk • 00:21 18 November 2007 (BST)
As I said above, the current system relies on the definition of "absolutely no viable differences" of the one person cycling the suggestion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No offence Boxy but if more people think there are enough differences for a suggestion NOT to be a dupe would you remove it anyway? If so you are ignoring clearly stated majority opinion... now I don't think you would do that if the majority had made clear and cogent argument in their favour but at least one other has. The problem we are annoyed about is not how a sysop acts so much as how they can act if they want to, the current system leaves it to their discretion. Currently a dupe can go with just 3 votes and 1 link even if there are more voters who clearly disagree. That is wrong and should be indefensible... it doesn't matter how often it happens or might happen, its happened now and annoyed a lot of us. Saying we are wrong and the system is fine is to dismiss our opinion... offering up the evidence that its a rare problem does not justify not listening to us! At the end of the day all we are asking for is that "Dupes" with clear disagreement over the validity of that vote be left up for the full term and possibly that no vote be closed before 6 hours after the 1st dupe to allow opinions to be made! If its so rare then this will not matter, its a simple rules fix to deal with an emerging problem and given each vote is on its own page its also not going to result in spamming up suggestions!--Honestmistake 12:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've already said that I consider the link, and only remove if I believe the similarity is close enough. I read everyone's reasonings in saying dupe/not dupe, but shear numbers isn't part of what I weigh up... and that includes suggestions with a lot of dupes as well. Now, I didn't remove the one that started all this myself, but I agree, it is close enough, so yeah, it would have gone. The answer to this problem isn't to allow the community to say they want a heap of emote suggestions in the archives, the answer is to allow us to upgrade the suggestions that are already there, by replacing them with better ideas. Sort of merging new ideas into them, or updating them for game changes. This has the potential to improve the archives hugely, and open up new avenues for suggesters ideas that were blocked by the dupe rule -- boxytalk • 13:51 18 November 2007 (BST)
Maybe it's time for a new section, the indents are getting a little big and the discussion seems too be about a specific type of reform now.--Karekmaps?! 13:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
And Done, please continue there as it's getting hard too read and edit here.--Karekmaps?! 13:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative dupe reform

Seems pretty sensible. Alternatively we could just change the rules so only mods can Dupe label or remove suggestions and that Dupe votes can be put in any category, Keep, Kill, or Spam, and just serve as a request for a moderator to remove the suggestion. For example the rules could state: "If you believe the idea has been voted on before you may vote Dupe in any category and provide a link to the previous suggestion. After six hours of voting a moderator may at their discretion remove a suggestion as a Dupe if a majority of voters considered it as such." It depends whether we want to limit Dupe removal to mods or not. --Jon Pyre 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that is something I can get behind a lot easier then Funt's suggestion.--Karekmaps?! 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I like that concept better too, however I feel that (the active) sysops have enough on their plate already with admin pages (that's what their job is supposed to be, not suggestions cycling). Perhaps group of suggestions workers (rename needed?) may be better. A group voted in because they understand the system and are generally impartial voters, who are the only ones allowed to cycle suggestions (including dupe, spam and archiving) -- boxytalk • 23:51 16 November 2007 (BST)
It sounds reasonable but it wouldn't work. At least one of the dupe votes was made by a sysop and under that system he would have been able to remove it. Putting extra responsibility on the sysops, who lets not forget are also voters, will just open them up to accusations of bias/heavy handedness! Grim voted dupe on the linked suggestion and while I (and others) disagree with his reasoning it is a perfectly reasoned vote. The problem isn't about objectivity, its about consensus... If the majority don't feel its a dupe why should the minority (who can easily include a sysop) get to outweigh their opinion? Claiming that some vote only because they like the suggestion is to basically accuse them of bad faith. You are effectively accusing them of ignoring the rules for their own purposes!!! --Honestmistake 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
People often do ignore the fact that a suggestion is a dupe and vote keep for it anyway, stating quite clearly in their justifications that they think it is a dupe, but they like it anyway -- boxytalk • 00:09 17 November 2007 (BST)
A completely seperate position might be best, but sysops have a bit of a heads up cause they have scheduled protections, they should be checking duped and removed suggestions anyway.--Karekmaps?! 00:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Without changing the topic... It is possible to vote for a dupe even when you know its a dupe and be right to do so... things voted on 6 months ago may deserve to pass now even though they failed then, if we look at things that cite dupe with suggestions 2 years old we are looking at a very different game! Dupe should not be automatically valid on any link over 6 months old as the game can and does change drastically in that time. For those who don't know "headshot" used to remove XP not AP, Ransack is fairly new and wire cutters did have a purpose! I have voted keep on a number of dupes for exactly this sort of reason... the game changes and what was crap sudenly becomes gold!--Honestmistake 00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I always liked the idea of allowing dupes to replace old suggestions in the archives if they gain more support than the original. This has at least a couple of advantages, it allows suggestions to move up from rejected to undecided or reviewed if they become more useful or better suited due to subsequent changes, and it also allows suggestions in the archives to be improved over time and respond to game changes. If the new suggestion gets a better keep/kill ratio than old one, it would be placed in the relevant category, and the old one copied to the new ones talk page for reference (so that it isn't lost, as it may also be a good suggestion) -- boxytalk • 04:01 17 November 2007 (BST)
i have seen suggestions non-duped exactly because they function differently after a game engine change. so i think that is working already. usually. however, communities and the collective attitude change. and something that was loathed 1-1/2 years ago, for whatever reason, may have validity among the current community. there are some STINKERS in peer reviewed... and some good suggestions in rejected... should the game stagnate to appease a possibly outdated old skool status quo? and, frankly, i respect the opinions of the older users on many, many issues... including dupes and suggestions. however, they are not always right... anyway, nuff said for tonight. --WanYao 04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there are some terribly outdated suggestions in the archives. Perhaps we need to seriously look at a process to clean them out. Have a group to go look through the archives and nominate the worst of them for a vote for removal by 2/3rds majority? -- boxytalk • 00:21 18 November 2007 (BST)

Updating Archives

This is for continued discussion on the idea of cycling suggestions out of the archive and how it might be done.--Karekmaps?! 13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, what I said above... the answer to this [dupe] problem isn't to allow the community to say they want a heap of emote suggestions in the archives, the answer is to allow us to upgrade the suggestions that are already there, by replacing them with better ideas. Sort of merging new ideas into them, or updating them for game changes. This has the potential to improve the archives hugely, and open up new avenues for suggesters ideas that were blocked by the dupe rule -- boxytalk • 14:02 18 November 2007 (BST)
How would we go about this, would we hold a vote after something is dupe removed to decide if it will replace the old?--Karekmaps?! 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps a separate page may be in order. One for considering the deletion (or moving to rejected) of outdated suggestions in the reviewed/undecided sections, and for people to take duped suggestions (if they wish) to be compared with ones already in the archives, and replacing them there if they are decided to be better (the old one taken from the archives and placed on the new ones talk page) -- boxytalk • 14:24 18 November 2007 (BST)
So basically a section like A/D that's purpose is cycling archives?--Karekmaps?! 14:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but more flexible. But it would take some working through. Maybe I'll sandbox the idea soon -- boxytalk • 16:42 18 November 2007 (BST)

The Dupe System Doesn't Work

This is for the people who want too continue the debate about why the dupe system is horrible and needs reforming so as too keep it out of the other headers. --Karekmaps?! 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats just it though, this isn't an emote... if anything its almost a dupe of an old suggestion that allowed whispering to 1 person! The point is that those of us that didn't think it was a dupe can and did make reasoned argument as to why and that was ignored. It is not a sysops job to decide that the community is wrong, it is a sysops job to make things run smoothly.. overunning our wishes is despotism and should have no place here. Upgrading duped suggestions may be a good idea but the argument here is about what counts as a dupe and who decides that in the first place! --Honestmistake 14:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I put this under a new header as it really doesn't have anything to do with the above one.--Karekmaps?! 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

boxy, somewhere above you asked me what the hell i am talking about... well... i was talking about this:

If a suggestion is a duplicate of an earlier one, and has received at least 3 Dupe Votes linked to the Duplicated suggestion, then it can be removed as per the guidelines below.
  1. Confirm that there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate.

If it gets 3 DUPE votes and a sysop (?) agrees that it is a dupe, then it is gone... How am I wrong?? Tell me, please.... But who decides if it is a dupe or not, who makes the call that "there are absolutely no viable differences"? How are legitimate conflicts and disagreements dealt with? That is the problem. Where is the accountability for that final decision? I mean no disrespect -- in fact I have faith in you, boxy, personally that you are doing a fair job of making that decision... but as has been pointed out, what if someone else does not do as good a job, or you happen to make a mistake? what then? see, I honestly feel like you (and not just you, boxy, it's an inclusive, plural "you") are just not getting the point many of us are making... seems we are not even connecting there... hmph. --WanYao 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That might be because it seems like you don't even really understand what you are saying. If you mean change the text to comply with the way it is enforced currently then that might be a good thing, but if you are saying it is currently enforced like the text you really need too check up on your duped suggestions. There have been very few problems with the way the rule has been enforced, so few that a drama case by a drama magnet that's sole purpose is causing massive drama is needed to even justify complaining about it.--Karekmaps?! 15:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion can be duped by three persons and a link. This is a fact. This is not democracy. Even if it works most of the time, doesn't mean that it isn't fundamentally broken. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, pick your argument so that it's the right one, until then you contradict yourself. It has never been used in that manner, ever.--Karekmaps?! 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC) At least not that I'm aware
3 people and a valid link! No system is perfect, and to keep on calling something, that works the great majority of the time, fundamentally broken is just bleating because you didn't get your own way. Put a bloody vote up already, and let's stop the bloody circular drama session, eh -- boxytalk • 16:13 18 November 2007 (BST)
Who decides the validity of the link? The person cycling the suggestions. The entire system relies on the judgement of a single person. Admittedly, most of the time the persons cycling the suggestions make good judgements, but what do you do if they don't?
This is Funt's policy, I've got one I'm planning to put to voting and a person can put only one policy under voting per week. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That one can wait, there are three other discussions on the same thing and yours was unneeded, espcially considering the others have been under discussion longer and submitting that for voting would look very much like you're trying too rush through the process too get desired changes. If this is so important it should come first, also, for this, if not you who?--Karekmaps?! 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There are at least three dupe reforms too. This is important, but as both of us have said, it works most of the time. The justification thing doesn't really have a proper policy so I'd rather put that to voting first. I worked on it for several days before putting it here, so no, it isn't rushed. Besides, Boxy's idea seems interesting, so I'd rather wait and see what comes from it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it really be such a big problem to leave a suggestion up for its full vote period in cases like this? I mean come on more of the voters thought that this was not a dupe than thought it was. They specifically reference that factin their vot and were overridden by the sysop who spaminated it! if it was left up for the full duration the total vote would have shown where opinion lay and there would not have been this drama. If the majority had thought it was a dupe it could have then been spaminated if not but a large minority had voted dupe it could have been archived as appropriate for the result but with a note to explain that significant numbers thought it was a dupe. End result = suggestion recieves a proper hearing with democracy serving to reduce/eliminate drama! Its not like this happens often so its not like it will cause a huge amount of work for anyone!!! --Honestmistake 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because people don't vote on a closed discussion does not make you right.--Karekmaps?! 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"Just because people don't vote on a closed discussion does not make you right" No but it doesn't make you right either. I can prove more people DID vote that it wasn't a dupe while you can only claim that 3 of you did... the others voted after it had been removed from voting which would normaly lead to them recieving a polite warning and having their votes struck... funny how that didn't happen this time and you used their votes in defence of it being duped! All I want is a minor change in the rules to avoid this kind of drama in the future, it seems that what you want is the right to dictate to the rest of the community. I am not for a second suggesting that anyone broke any rules in removing the suggestion the way they did and if it happens again they won't be breaking the rules then either... that doesn't mean there was malice involved but it does mean that the majority was run roughshod over. A rule that not only allows that but ouright supports it needs modifying to prevent it happening again. --Honestmistake 09:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
While I feel like I should be considered a biased party because my Wave Hello suggestion was the one that triggered this whole argument, it seems pretty fair just to have another persons vote cancel someone else's on a one to one basis. Dupe votes work most of the time, but why even leave the possibility for error open? The great thing about rules is they leave personal judgement calls as a last resort. Not Dupe seems like a conservative fix that should almost never make much of a difference. --Jon Pyre 03:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Category_Talk:Current_Suggestions into this page

As Funt mentioned further down, the current system is absurdly confusing and over complicated, So, I'm gonna put this too a vote after some discussion on how best too do this, but it's probably best too just get rid of Category_Talk:Current_Suggestions, as far as I can tell it serves no purpose that this page didn't already serve and since this one is more sensible it should be folded into this one. I'm thinking via a redirect too this page if that's possible.--Karekmaps?! 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything that means I don't need to watch as many pages to follow the same damn strand!!!--Honestmistake 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't think you need a policy vote for that though, it's just moving talk to a more appropriate place. I was getting annoyed with having to make the same argument on multiple pages too. As long as no one objects within a few days, I suggest that you can move all the rule type talk from there to here, but leave the discussions about how the other category page itself works (mechanics rather than general suggestion rules) over on it's talk page -- boxytalk • 23:58 16 November 2007 (BST)
Maybe add a notice like "Talk about the process of posting and voting for suggestions goes to Category_talk:Suggestions." on top of the page, so people won't post things there that belong here. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Im with you karek, just have the other ones talk page redirect here. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
same here, redirect --~~~~ [talk] 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Dupe Reform

In order to end "wikidrama" once and for all...

"Voters MUST vote either 'Keep', 'Kill', or 'Spam'. In addition, they MUST also vote 'Dupe' and 'Not Dupe'.

Only Peer Reviewed Suggestions and Peer Rejected Suggestions that are less than 6 weeks old are eligble for being duped.

You will need at least 1/3rds of the voters voting 'Dupe' for the Suggestion be considered a Dupe. To be actually a dupe, a sysop must come and decide for himself if there is in fact consesus on if it is a Dupe or not a Dupe. If there is any reasonable doubt that the suggestion is not a Dupe, it should therefore not be declared a Dupe. The judgement of the Sysops is final."

There. I hate it. I hate it fully. But I realize that this is what people want, and in the end, why not?--ShadowScope 02:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, bad idea, for one a link might not be provided until late in voting, and people are notoriously bad for not checking suggestions after casting their vote. For two, we get a lot of people who are against dupe voting in general for whatever twisted reason and they often don't care if it is or isn't a dupe at all, and For three, people often don't like qualifying their vote, because of that many avoid bothering with calling something a dupe, forcing them to qualify their vote doesn't work(also see below), so forcing them to decide if something is a dupe and take the extra time of searching won't work either.--Karekmaps?! 03:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Make it six months and you've got my vote.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA! "End wikidrama once and for all". And no, ideas are generally rejected on solid foundations, resuggesting crap doesnt help anyone but allow jon pyre, allowing him to rake us over the coals with a 6 week long loop of suggestion of the day. Im not against making the dupe vote require a little more justification, but the three dupe removal should remain, to allow easy removal of such suggestions from consideration. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As per Grim. No way in hell only 6 weeks. Some suggestions come up again and again and again -- and they HAVE to be duped out. The burden of the proof already is upon the dupe voter, you know.... Also, people are generally pretty cool with allowing something that is close-but-no-cigar to go to voting. If it is a dupe, it is gone; but if it is something different, it stays. And let us be perfectly honest here: the main reason this has come up now -- and with all this drama -- with Jon Pyre's "Say Hi!" suggestion is because he is basically spamming the suggestions almost every single day, trying to get his suggestions rammed through somehow. And people are damn sick of it, and wanted his latest suggestion of the hour (not a dupe btw) out of the way... --WanYao 06:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would like some guidelines to justifying a dupe apart from simply providing a link and saying "well if there are no differences then it's a dupe", and maybe a method for contesting the dupes. - Whitehouse 08:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A method for contesting DUPE votes is a very, very good idea. Or, rather the votes themselves should not be contested -- merely not counted. But the effect of getting pulled after 3 Dupe votes should be subject to an appeal... I think only a sysop should pull dupe suggestions... and they should do so ONLY after reading the suggestions in question and making a judgement: dupe or not?... And the sysop is accountable for their decision to send it to dupe oblivion... Thus, if someone disagrees with that judgement, it goes to Arby. --WanYao 10:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this wiki drama about dupes? i don't see a problem in how duping works right now --~~~~ [talk] 09:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you really mean that every time someone votes, he would have to vote both on the Keep/Kill/Spam aspect and the Dupe/Not Dupe aspect? Or is just a bad choice of words? When voting starts, everyone would be voting Not Dupe. This would create a huge obstacle if the Dupeness was discovered later in the voting. For example, if the Dupeness was discovered only after 20 people had already voted (Not Dupe of course, because there's no reason to vote anything else), you'd need 10 people voting dupe to to achieve 33%. Also, this would prevent abstainers from taking part in the Dupe aspect. And 6 weeks is just ridiculously short. Make it six months like Nali suggested or maybe even a full year.
I'd rather have so that Dupe and Not Dupe can be voted whether or not the voter has already voted Keep/Kill/Spam. Also, I'd suggest that Not Dupe votes cannot be given before a Dupe vote has been given. For the suggestion to be considered Dupe, Dupes would have to have a simple majority over Not Dupes (meaning more Dupes than Not Dupes), a link to another suggestion and at least 3 Dupe votes. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's simple common sense, as Midianianian says - remove it, if it has three Dupe votes (although there should be minimum voting period of 6 hours, in line with Spamination, to give people time to vote), but only if those three Dupe votes are not contested by non-author votes. A contested Dupe should, for clarity, read, in bold, Not Dupe, but otherwise be counted for the section it is in, as Keep, Kill or Spam. I hope that's more or less what happens already. (Forcing everyone to vote Not Dupe, is just fucking stupid.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Funt Solololo, I meant the Not Dupe to be a separate vote in the Spam/Dupe section, but your idea might be better. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"Not Dupe" votes being able to counter Dupe" votes should work very well. Sadly it is demonsably not the way it currently works at the moment but it certainly should be! The only problem I see is that anyone who votes before the dupers arrive is unlikely to know and thus change their vote to "Not Dupe" If it can be removed after 6 hours the author would not even have time to rally the support of those voters! --Honestmistake 13:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No no no... This is one time when the meatpupper and/or groupthink argument is valid. If we do it your way, HM, people who can't be bothered to actually read and think about it will just vote NOT DUPE, either knee-jerk, or just to be asshat... and Kevan will be innundated with redundant Peer Reviewed Suggestions. Not good. --WanYao 13:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.... The way it is now is open to meat puppetry. All it takes is for 3 people to find a vaguely defensible link and regardless of how many people disagree with them if they offer justification and a link they win. If every registered user went and voted keep on Jon's "wave" suggestion it would not matter a jot because 3 users have voted dupe and provided a link which has a very slight similarity... they do not think its different enough to avoid being a dupe and your opinion and mine and everyone elses cannot over rule them! So tell me, which is more open to knee-jerk reactions and Asshattery? --Honestmistake 13:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Voting "not dupe" on every non-dupe vote is insane. It just is. Also, this problem hardly ever comes up, and common sense usually prevails to the point where the current system is not openly abused. Now, you could change it so that the suggestion cannot be Duped off until six hours have passed from the first recorded Dupe vote. Yes, there's the issue whereby previous voters probably won't revisit, but *yawn*, c'mon, this hardly ever is an issue. And when (never!) have an evil group of three meatpuppeteers come in and started evilly false-duping suggestions off the page. I think just allowing the Non-Dupe to exist on an even footing with Dupe is good enough as an interim measure. I can't see why people would be against that first step to a fairer system. You can always ask for more later. We had to reach a similar compromise on the 6-hour Spam rule, which started life as 24, then 12, then 6-hour, as compromises were reached. As it is, it's worked rather well, and, in my opinion, has reduced the amount of drama surrounding speedy-spaminations by a great deal. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly not suggesting that people vote "not dupe" on every suggestion... if anything it should not even be a valid vote unless someone else has already voted "dupe" As for meatpuppeteers, we have not had em try this yet and i hope we never do but it is possibleand should not be! The 6 hours from the first "dupe" sounds like a very good rule of thumb though! --Honestmistake 14:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The system that is currently in place is working. There is no need to fix it, except to allow a few choice users to freely spam the suggestions page with inane and repetitive suggestions. Dupe is just that; a duplicate of a suggestion that has already been made. If someone doesn't like that their dupe suggestion has been removed, then they should take it to the Talk:Suggestions to have improvments made. Again, a few choice users don't like Talk:Suggestions because they feel they do not get any help, or that all they receive is negative criticism. Again, the system in place is fine. --Ryiis 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring the point that some people vote Dupe when suggestions are only similar. In fact, that is what usually happens as (obviously) they're not really duplicates. When the similarities get stretched, as with JP's recent suggestion, the incredible power of the "three Dupes and you're out" rule starts to grate with voters and suggestion makers alike, even when, as in the most recent case, nobody has gone as far as actually removing it. Tell me, what do you have against a system whereby an Anti-Dupe vote is worth the same as a Dupe vote? What could anyone have against such a system? And why would you argue that the system has nothing wrong with it when you are posting on a page where many users are discussing the problems with it? That seems a bit odd, really. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The statement that I made was originally commenting on the addition of new system where a voter would have to vote Keep, Kill or Spam as well as voting whether it is a Dupe or Non-Dupe. I was not making a commnent on your idea of an "Anti-Dupe" vote - which I would find acceptable. However, I think that the problems that are being brought up are problems created by the suggesters themselves, not by the system. Obviously, some of the suggestors are taking old ideas, cutting them in half, and resubmitting portions of those suggestions. They are not wholly "Dupes" if you will, but are very, very close in many cases. As well, there is one specific suggestor who seems to have the inability to go even a day without submitting something to suggestions. I will admit, that once in awhile that suggestor has some good ideas... other times they are recycled ideas that have been subtly changed. The issue at hand, wouldn't be an issue, if people would use the Talk:Suggestions page. Granted, sometimes it is easy to get flamed rather than getting help - but the majority of people that lurk on that page provide sound advice to suggestors. --Ryiis 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Lets cut to the chase here... yes Jon does suggest a lot in very short bursts but... his suggestions are rarely overpowered nonsense and are normally fairly minor and inoffensive things. Sometimes a suggestion gets killed or spammed as too many ideas at once, to then dupe those ideas when suggested seperatly seems wrong! more later but the pub calls ;) --Honestmistake 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of HAVING to vote "dupe" or "not dupe" because maybe you just don't know if it is, so you can't say one way or the other. Change it to "dupe", "not dupe", and "don't know", and that could work. Some people don't want to spend hours searching to see if something similar has gone through the machine- they just want to say if they like it or not. Not trying to stop people from taking the time to do so, just saying it shouldn't be required in order to vote. --Ms.Panes 22:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sysop Spamination Policy Conflict

Compare Spaminated#My_suggestion_was_unfairly_removed! to Suggestions:Cycling_Instructions#Spam ; these are VERY different policies. The first one is in fact the one we tell people about (via the link in Template:Spam), but the second one seems to be the one sysops use in practice. It seems pretty shady (or at least silly) to use one standard, and then tell people you are using a different standard. Which applies? Personally, I think the "more spams than keeps" standard is VERY bad, as a suggestion could go two weeks, have more spams than keeps, and still not even qualify as peer rejected! Double as many spams as keeps would be much more reasonable, and nat hard to achieve for actually worthless suggestions. With the current suggestion system, its not like things get any more "cluttered up" when there are bad suggestions still up for vote; spaminating them before their time really serves no purpose. Indeed, having them stay up for voting longer may HELP, because it means there is less likely to be another similar suggestion while that one is up for vote / while people remember reading it. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your second link is the real thing. --  AHLGTG 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This isnt a policy conflict. it is instead a case where when a new policy was implimented, people forgot to update all the relevant pages. Every now and then we still turn up pages that refer to sysops as moderators despite the policy to change it. What we do in these cases is update the page. We dont have a sook about policy conflicts, when there really isnt one. Besides, Spaminated is not a policy page. It is an explaination page. I also converted your links to wikilinks. Also, if a suggestion has a decent number of votes, and spams exceed keeps, it is going to fail anyway. Suggestions require twice as many keeps as other votes to succeed, and there is a limited pool of voters. While meatpuppetry may be able to overwhelm that barrier, doing so really is an abuse of democracy rather than the general rule, and in such cases sysops are more than willing to spaminate it. The fact that suggestions are required to remain standing for a minimum of 6 hours means there is ample time for people to pitch in and vote on a suggestion, and those few that die after 6 hours are usually so overwhelmingly spammed there was no hope for them to begin with, and for the rest, well, if the vote is split to the point where the rule comes into force, its pretty certain to sink anyway without its help. As it stands, the system removes the clutter from the suggestions process, and i dont think it need changing. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the page in question to comply with the guidelines on the matter. Problem solved. Now lets all get on with our lives. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a conflict in the information provided to users (including sysops) about what a policy is. Call it what you will; "policy conflict" is the shortest descriptive term I could think of. Glad its sorted. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I added "Suggestions may not be removed as spam unless voting has been open for 6 hours." to the appropriate section. Might as well tell people the whole rule. --Ms.Panes 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Swiers that having suggestions stay up for voting longer may help. At the very least, though, I think the author should be able to remove his/her own suggestion before the two weeks are up, whether the vote is ended early or not. Currently, you have no idea when/if your suggestion's vote period is going to be ended early, so you have to guess whether you can leave it up for another day, or have to pull it now to prevent spammination/dupeification which would likely leave you unable to put up a revision later without it being dupified. --Ms.Panes 08:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The author can remove their own suggestions. {{Removed}}.--Karekmaps?! 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You dont need to withdraw a suggestion to make a revision of the suggestion either. However, in the case of your wagon, i wouldnt bother. Its out of genre and silly. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You wouldn't bother, I would. I don't think it's out of genre or silly. --Ms.Panes 11:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait, you're saying if I put up a revision, people can't dupify it based on the old one? --Ms.Panes 11:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much. --Karekmaps?! 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't. It's been put under page protection. There's no edit button. --Ms.Panes 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
IT probably got spaminated, if it did get spaminated spaminated suggestions can not be used to dupe other suggestions, only suggestions in Peer Reviewed, Peer Rejected, or Undecided can be used to spaminate other suggestions. --Karekmaps?! 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, spammed suggestions can and is used to dupe out other suggestions. However, if something is clearly marked as a revision of a non duped suggestion, it cant be duped out using the suggestion of which it is a revision, regardless of whether that suggestion was spaminated, undecided, reviewed or rejected. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, problem solved then. Thanks for letting me know. --Ms.Panes 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When the "spam" policy last got modified I argued for all suggestions to stay up for 24 hours but this got compromised down to the current 6! I almost agree with Grim that 6 would be plenty of time but that would only be the case if everyone was in the same time zone and suggestions were posted at lunch time ;) Sadly (actually its prettty good) we are a diverse bunch with Brazilians, Americans, Brits and Kiwi's etc... we all live in defferent zones and that means that 6 hours is nowhere near near enough! Suggestions frequently get posted about midnight by my time and can thus be removed at 6am... I tend to be asleep then and am sure a good many others are too. At the very least there is an excellent argument for extending the minimum vote period to 12 hours! --Honestmistake 09:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page. All policies, along with their associated votes and discussions, are governed by the Voting Guidelines established for this section.

A Proposal regarding the Justification and Validity of Votes

The purpose of this proposal is to replace the current rules regarding the issue of what isn't accepted as a justification, what kind of votes are invalid, what can be done about them and by whom.

The proposal has changed twice from the original, so I ask you to read it through before voting.

Discussion can be found here. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Policy

The following are considered invalid:

  • votes with incomplete or no signature
  • votes with an invalid justification (defined below)
  • votes which clearly abuse the voting system
  • multiple votes from the same person on the same suggestion


Any user can strike votes with incomplete or no signature and multiple votes from the same person. Only sysops can strike votes with invalid justifications or ones that abuse the system. The following actions may be considered vandalism:

  • striking votes only from specific sections, while leaving invalid votes in other sections alone
  • re-voting with the same justification or one whose content is very similar after having a previous vote struck because of the justification


Invalid Justifications

  • Nonsense: Justifications which have absolutely no relevance to the suggestion. Satirical votes are allowed. Examples: "WTFCentaurs with rocketlaunchers!" (valid on suggestions about WTFCentaurs or rocketlaunchers), "Brnhr" (valid on suggestions about zombie speech), "D&D" (valid on suggestions about swords, magic or something like that), "Because I like to vote [section]."
  • Misinformation: Justifications that have information relating to the suggestion or the game that can be proven false. These are practically either mathematical issues or misunderstandings on how the suggestion would work. For example; claiming that the damage per AP on a weapon suggestion is larger or smaller than it really is. Proof of falsehood must be provided. Example: "If you raised the knife's damage by one, its damage per AP would be 7,5" (proof could be the formula ((damage * hit-chance)/AP-cost-per-attack) and the correct figure (1,5))
  • Personal attacks: Any justification that includes a personal attack on any member of the wiki (past or present). Attacks on the suggestion are allowed. Example: "You're fucking retarded" is invalid, "This is fucking retarded" is valid


If you agree with someone who has voted before you, you can vote for example "As VoterX" or "As above". If a vote has no justification, an implicit "As above" is presumed. If there are no valid votes before your vote, you MUST justify your vote.

If you think a vote's justification is invalid, you should say so on the suggestion's talk page. The voter may defend their justification or change it if they wish. If a sysop thinks the justification is invalid they should strike it.

Voting

Withdrawn. Voting closed. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Yes

  1. Yes - This is mostly established practice, clarification on old rules and a little new ones. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes - fine... though i have some doubts in sysops' ability to see things being "nonsense" or not clearly, but giving this into hands of any user would be inapropriate --~~~~ [talk] 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


No

  1. No. I'm not going to justify my no vote on your stupid, shitty suggestion. Sorry.--Jorm 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. No Sorry, I don't think this is necessary.--Squid Boy 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. no I do not trust the sysops enough to choose what is right and what is wrong.--zinker 14:36, 6 December 2007(UTC)
  4. no You are stupid. just kidding, anyway no.-- BKM 20:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. No - It's close to being good enough, but I think it needs to be more streamlined/concise/clear. For example: is "WTFcentaurs!" a valid justification for a kill or spam vote in all cases or not? I think it should be valid, since it's commonly understood to mean "I think this is ridiculous!" The misinformation part might need to be removed or changed, since it's possible for two people to compute things in different ways that are both "correct." For example: How many AP does a character get per day? 48 or 50? How difficult is it to find a FAK in a Mall? It depends on whether you assume the searcher has all the relevant skills or not. --Steakfish 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam

  1. Spam - Misinformation gets this my kill, but then again so does it being completely dependant on the Sysops judgment, which isn't infallible. Also the personal attacks one is unneeded, a similar rule already exists.--Karekmaps?! 11:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    As it reads on the top: "The purpose of this proposal is to replace the current rules regarding the issue of what isn't accepted as a justification.." Keyword being: replace. That's why it's there. And that's why "votes that clearly abuse the system" (ie. trolling) is also there. Misinformation is there to avoid misinformed justifications from misleading other voters. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Doesn't change my vote, it's too early for another one of these just yet. Also there is not currently a rule on what is or isn't justification, as such you are not replacing anything in the current rules, you're just making there be multiple conflicting versions of similar rules that will just confuse voting.--Karekmaps?! 13:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't think you were such a nitpicker. "The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated." In short; personal attacks are not accepted as a justification. Compare with the text I quoted in my last reply. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - I don't trust the judgement of the sysops entirely, through experience of their collective behaviour. For example, boxy recently struck one of my justified votes but left completely nonsensical ones in place beside it, and he did so for purely personal reasons. All this does is hand someone like him an excuse to fuck with people he doesn't like even more than under the current system of "can't police it / won't police it". --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Has anyone ever seen a case of someone being pulled up for making no justification and then going "oh, ok then, I'll just change it to kill" Doesn't happen, and will only cause more trouble--SeventythreeTalk 18:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Further Justification. IT would be nice if this policy would work, but 1) It won't change how people vote. If you pull someone up and ask them to justify their vote then they are not very likely to do so. This will also cause no end of drama as people feel insulted that the reliability of their vote has been cast into doubt, some people just will not comply with it at all and others will start massive arguments over it. If this wiki worked perfectly, then I would vote yes for this proposal. However of course, in a perfect wiki this would not be needed.--SeventythreeTalk 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    It might not change how individuals vote, but it could change how newbies learn to vote and thus, with time, how the community as a whole votes. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam Engraved upon the spam vote is an masterfully designed image of a user and a policy. The user is striking down the policy.--Wooty 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Change to suggestions talk page proposal

This proposal aims to help organise the suggestions talk page in a clear, concise and easy to access manner. Doing this will (hopefuly) achieve two goals.

1)Allow users to discuss new suggestions for longer. At the moment, any suggestion more than a day or so old gets pushed to the bottom of an already crowded page. With this implemented, it will be eisier to see what suggestions are up for discussion and therefore eisier to comment and take part in the discussion.

2)Breaking down the page into sub-pages should allow for more information to be stored on the sub-pages, thus tackling some of the previous problems such as data overload.

The talk:suggestions page will be split into seperate category pages, much like the Peer reveiwed suggestions page. These categories would be as follows:

  • Equipment/weapons
  • Zombie skills
  • Survivor skills
  • Map/building suggestions
  • Misc

Much like the PR category, Found here there would be a link to each of the seperate pages, followed by the list of titles for current suggestions in question. Clicking on the link would take you to the page, where you could then discuss the suggestions in that category much like you do now.

I aim for the new page, now divided into 5 sub-pages to look something like this:

Equipment/weapons (with link to page with the equipment/weopons suggestions)

  • Title of Equipment/weapon suggestion 1
  • Title of Equipment/weapon suggestion 1

With this implemented, each page would have it's own seperate archive within the page itself, and, hopefuly with less suggestions to clog up each sub-page, suggestions would be able to reamin for longer, and gather more vital feedback.

Potential issues

(feedback kindly supplied by Boxy, Swiers, Karek, Midianian and WanYau)

This new system would be too complicated to use Most users seem to have picked up on, and are proficient at using the (still relitively new) format for suggestions.

People would not use this page. Look at how seldom people use the peer reveiwed page to search for dupes I personaly don't think that this is a valid comparison. People don't look for dupes in PR because they are lazy, or do not know of it's existance. The people who tend to use talk:suggestions are usualy more diligent as they wish for usefull feedback.

As someone who has (almost) always used the Talk page to gather vital feedback on suggestions before putting them up for voting, I feel this could make the world of difference to participation. Ease of navigation, longer discussion periods are tow of the most obvious benifits, but others exist. Not fantasticaly interested in discussing another rifle suggestion? Well now you don't have to wade through 10 of them to get to the one suggestion about necronet improvements you spotted yesterday that you wanted to add some feedback on. I beleive that this policy could turn a useful but sadly clogged and hard to navigate page into a much more efficient and useful source of feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration.--SeventythreeTalk 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting

Yes

  1. Author vote--SeventythreeTalk 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yeppers But change equipment/weapons to just a general "items". Some people have weird ass definitions of what qualifies as equipment.--Wooty 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes. Omega 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. not the best way to achieve clearer and less crowded page but somehow better than current talk system anyway --~~~~ [talk] 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yes - Much better than the current system. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 07:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yes - and to the person who coughed up the gunk that Peer Reviewed was hard to follow, chew on this. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. I'm curious to see how this idea would play out. Still, Actingupagain makes a good point in the againsts. --Toejam 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. In my view, every suggestion page is currently a mess. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Yes. I'm not sure this is a panacea, but it certainly can't make things any worse, and perhaps the process of change will lead to yet another improvement that DOES make it better. --Squid Boy 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No

  1. Sorry dude but No! It makes the whole thing far too fragmented. The current page does become a real pain in the ass but this just makes it a pain in the ass on multiple pages! Maybe leave each up for 3 days before giving cycling them to the new page? Thats when they get most attention but again it seems a bit forced? --Honestmistake 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Negative. The current format works well. --Steakfish 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. No for now. I can see a concern about new suggestors not being certain whether or not their suggestion should go in multiple categories (there have been many that are both survivor and zombie skills), or if they should just get dumped in the Misc. category. Also, as someone that scans that page almost daily to offer input, I'd grow weary of thumbing thru multiple pages to do so - thus reducing my desire to help. Don't give up on the overall idea though - the good intentions are evident, but it's just not there yet IMO.--Actingupagain 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. No more changes, for crying out loud!--ShadowScope 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Cause I'm the one that stirred that gunk, cause users refuse to bother searching for dupes because of the crapiness of the system and a similar system for clothes has done nothing but cause mass confusion. Obviously something meant for community use being useful to Kevan and no one else is how the wiki should be run(the point being that PR is useful to Kevan because he can see what the suggestions pertain to easier before considering to add them, that doesn't help anyone but him). Also more pages does not mean more discussion, it just means more difficulty for people not familiar with the system.--Karekmaps?! 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    If one person can see what the suggestions pertain to, and therefore find the system easier to navigate, then why wouldn't everyone be able to do the same? You're not making any sense. Oh, and before you go around saying how shite a system is, you should spend a little bit of time thinking about how to improve it. If you can't do that, then STFU. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't about adding an improved version of the system, this is about voting on the version that sucks, if I had been around when it was in discussion(aside from just the day it was written) I would have tried to work towards a middle ground that might be better, as is this is a shit system. As was said, give the current system time(it's not even a month old and when enforced keeps the pages very easy to read).--Karekmaps?! 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. No - To me, it's easier to scan through one HUGE page than a bunch of little pages. Plus I like seeing random newest suggestions- it's like getting a little taste of everything, you know? Now, if there were a way to do it where it's ordered newest to oldest, but you also had the choice of looking at them by category, that could work. --Ms.Panes 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ordering is possible. I added such to Mobile Phone Mast listing while ago. --Tumu 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Adjust Justification

Proposed suggestion policy:

  • Replace the sentence "Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped" with "Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. Justification is strongly recommended."
  • Remove the sentence "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote."

This would mean that users would not be forced to justify their votes on suggestions (in line with all other voting systems on this wiki), but it would be encouraged.

Note that Template:SugVoteRules, section Advice to Voters contains this text:

  • "It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion."

Reasoning behind this proposed change:

  • The current system already works in this fashion, except that occasionally someone tries to strictly enforce the justification rule, which, because it is not common precedent, causes upset between users.
  • It is supposed that the voting community (in general) will continue to provide justification for their votes, as they always have.

Author: --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting

Motion not passed. Voting closed. --Toejam 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Yes - author. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes - -- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 19:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes - Votes didn't suddenly start being justified in 2006 when the rule was added without a vote, they have always been justified. The way the rule is now does not encourage useful justification, and does encourage by claiming to allow people to strike unjustified votes, something that can and will result in either Arbitration drama or Vandal Drama--Karekmaps?! 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes Omega 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yes - Because the current system is absolutely pointless. It requires justifications, but puts no limits to what is a justification. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yes - I like manparts. – Nubis 16:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yes - yes. that was an example of a justified vote. Yes is not. SEE A FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THIS? I sure as hell don't.--Wooty 04:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Yes - Do I have to justify why I think votes shouldn't require justification? Ok... because I think I should be able to agree or disagree with something without giving a long detailed analysis as to why each and every time. Oh, that doesn't count as an adequate justification? Darn. Guess my vote doesn't count, then. --Ms.Panes 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No

No - Too loose. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Changed my vote. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. No Way - the reason the community has always at least partially justified its votes is because you are explicitly told to do so. Removing that removes all the barriers to bad suggestions on the wiki. --Karlsbad 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. No - On the one hand, I see the point that voting in a particular section (keep, kill, or spam/dupe) is essentially the same as justification. Almost any stupid crap written after the word "kill" counts as justification, so why require the justification at all? Some people (like me) believe that USEFULL justification is good practice, and common courtesy, and will always justify our votes in meaningfull ways, required or not. On the other hand, removing the justification requirement would make it easier for people to vote without reading, or vote "kill" on everything that's open to voting, and numerous other childish things. The justification rule should stand as it is, for now. In the future, perhaps a change could be made to require not only justification, but USEFULL justification. --Steakfish 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. No - "Hurr! I haete dis surgesttion lol!" Too loose. Some people will still justify, but others will see the change and think "I can put whatever I want!"--  AHLGTG 23:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. No - If you can't justify your vote then you shouldn't be voting. "I don't like you so i'll vote kill" is not a valid justification. There is no reason for this and it would only let idiots and trolls get away with spamming the suggestion system.--BlobdudeTalk TM MC 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. No Justifications are the only way to get feedback. Quit being so damned lazy. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    Justifications aren't required to be useful, "it sucks", "you suck", and "I prefer pink rhinos" are all justified votes.--Karekmaps?! 12:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. No - I prefer that people put some sort of justification on their votes --Ryiis 15:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. No- Any sort of justification is better than nothing. -- BKM 22:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Personal tools
advertisements