Category talk:Suggestions/Archive2

From The Urban Dead Wiki

	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.

1 Suggestion Discussion
2 Policy Votes

[edit] Suggestion Discussion

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Seventythree^Talk 22:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--Karek^maps?! 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 ^{talk • i} 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 ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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. --Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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)

(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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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

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.--Karek^maps?! 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)

[edit] 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 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. --Seventythree^Talk 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There's really no purpose for that bit.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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 13:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganisation of the Suggestion:Talk page

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.--Seventythree^Talk 09:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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--Seventythree^Talk 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?--Seventythree^Talk 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Seventythree^Talk 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. --Seventythree^Talk 13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I do, people frequently have problems with normal suggestions, Talk:Suggestions is meant to be newbie friendly.--Karek^maps?! 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.)

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 -- boxy • talk • 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")--Karek^maps?! 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.

Swiers 20:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Proposal regarding the Justification and Validity of Votes

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Discussion on Justification and Validity of Votes

[edit] 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).--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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

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

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)

[edit] 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.

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

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. --Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 1st Version

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

[edit] Adjust Justification

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

Proposed suggestion policy:

template:SugVoteBox

Replace the sentence "Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped" with "Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. Justification is strongly recommended."

Template:SugVoteRules, section Invalid Votes

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 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

21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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

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

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

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 -- boxy • talk • 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

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 -- boxy • talk • 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?-- AHLG T H 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

02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying we shouldn't change anything? Er, but slightly more lenient?-- AHLG T H 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

02:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Either, justification recommended, or required, right? Makes sense, so mishaps like so don't happen again.-- AHLG