Category talk:Suggestions/Archive3

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.

Recently Closed Suggestions

Is anyone against using Category:Suggestions for a list of recently closed suggestions, as originally discussed here? The actual page isn't used for anything at the moment and putting the list on Category:Current Suggestions would probably confuse newbies trying to make a suggestion.

Here's an example of what the page could look like. I'd be willing to maintain the list, though any help would certainly be appreciated. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place. Make Category:Recently Closed Suggestions, this is the main Suggestions discussion and namespace.--Karekmaps?! 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not do that as it'd result either in having to cycle every suggestion twice or an empty category, neither of which is a very good idea IMO. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't play Project Welcome with the suggestions system. The amount of work doesn't matter someone will always do it, taking the easy way out because you don't want to be that person leads to the system being more confusing and causes problems, like say, misuse of this category/page. As for the closed suggestions category, just add it into Cycling suggestions, from there one user can periodically clear the queue(like with Talk:Suggestions) and it's all fine.--Karekmaps?! 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, guess you're right. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, created the category page. Any further discussion should go on it's talk page. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Giving up the ghost.

Ive put many suggestions up on talk suggestions that pretty soon were shown to be ridiculous, and so ive deleted them (moved them to my archive) and moved on. But a lot of people leave on ridiculous tat for days, regardless of the fact they've abandoned it.

Cant we put up a note about how you can remove your own work on talk suggestions at any time, as i'm not sure if its clear?--RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I've commented on a suggestion, I like it to have the "this will be deleted" thing up so that I have some warning to copy-paste to my computer anything I care about. It's also nice to be able to read the suggestions for a few extra days, sometimes I don't get around to looking at something until it's gone red. --Ms.Panes 05:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Anything that has been removed is normally, if it's in overflow you'll have to look there, marked in the revision history of the page. I make sure it stands out just look for the suggestion title and the word Removed.--Karekmaps?! 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nav Bar FTW

Discussion on a navbar for this and some other pages (as suggested on the Deletions page) can be found here. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

New Sub Category

I added a sub-category called "Suggestion Pages" that contains EVERY individual suggestion voting page done since the "suggestions overhaul". This makes searching for past suggestions much easier when all you remember is the name of the suggestion, not what category it eventually ended up in. To implement this, I had to modify one of the templates used on said pages, but the modification is otherwise invisible. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 17:03, 27 August 2007 (BST)

    • Re Yes please. It's impossible to find some things. --Jon Pyre 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)



Suggestion Discussion

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

Change Humorous Suggestion Voting

I think the whole Humorous Suggestion section is confusing to go through, and I feel the whole page could use a fix, but right now, I simply recommend having the Humorous Suggestions section work very much like the main ones, just reserved for Humorous ones. 2 Vote types=funny, not funny. Voting open for 2 weeks. After voting closed, it's moved to 1 of 2 places, a funny thread if it has more funny votes than nonfunny, and the non funny thread if it doesn't. That also means changing the current list into funny and nonfunny sections, but that should simply clean things up.--Kolechovski 21:28, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Update Reaction Suggestion Policy

This policy proposes that making suggestions as a reaction to a game-update before a week from the update has passed would be forbidden (putting suggestions up for discussion, or making Humorous Suggestions would still be allowed). If made, any user could remove the suggestion from voting. The removed suggestion could not be used as dupes. Making these suggestions would not be vandalism unless persistent.

Update Reaction Suggestion Policy Discussion

Why? Because Kevan doesn't write all the details about the updates in the news. He often makes bugfixes even days after the update. The irregularity of the RNG pretty much ensures that there is no way to tell with any kind of certainty how things work based on only a couple of days of testing.

Making suggestions based on buggy behaviour, or incomplete/incorrect information benefits no-one. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:07, 30 May 2008 (BST)

as long as the suggestor is informed on his talk page the reason, then fine. Im guessing this is to apply to actual suggestions, and not talk/suggestions? --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 14:11, 30 May 2008 (BST)
Yeah, just the main suggestions system, not discussion or humorous suggestions. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:13, 30 May 2008 (BST)
Fair enough, id prefer if there was a template for posting like for spam, peer reviewed etc. Your suggestions has been removed because of this policy Please feel free to resubmit it after the week has passed. tyoe thing. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 14:14, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Pointlessly restrictive. We don't need another frekkin policy to deal with this. Yes, putting a suggestion up for voting right away is a pretty bad idea, for many reasons. These include incomplete information on the game effects; and the possibility that a good suggestion will just get spammed for being too soon and end up being duped in perpetuity. However, Suggestions that go on the Help/Development page, while possibly jumping the gun, harm no one. In fact, they get people talking and thinking about the implications of the update. --WanYao 16:53, 30 May 2008 (BST)

I only meant that they couldn't be put to voting. I'll clarify that. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:05, 30 May 2008 (BST)

A template, however, and a special category for suggestions spammed because they're posted too soon... So it doesn't end up becoming a needless dupe... Okay, that makes perfect sense. But if you're going to do it, it should be a real policy allowing sysops (or hell any user) to simply remove the suggestion and bypass voting altogether. Otherwise it's just more needless red tape. --WanYao 16:56, 30 May 2008 (BST)

yep. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 16:58, 30 May 2008 (BST)
Err... it is a real policy. This is the place for policies about the suggestions system (unless I missed somethething big when I was less active). And yes, it would give all users the right to remove a suggestion from voting directly. That's what I meant with "like edited or multi-suggestions currently are". --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:08, 30 May 2008 (BST)
It's not a real policy yet. It's not worded as such, it's totally vague, etc. Draft an actual policy as opposed to an idea for a policy, and put it up. --WanYao 07:08, 31 May 2008 (BST)
I clarified the removing-bit and re-worded some things, but I don't see anything else it needs. Care to explain how an "actual policy" differs from this? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:44, 1 June 2008 (BST)

There have been many times where the only reason Kevan made a change post update was because someone suggested it before the update was, by any definition, old. --Karekmaps?! 14:01, 31 May 2008 (BST)

I wouldn't really consider a week that old, and Kevan also checks Talk:Suggestions. Instead of just being removed from voting, the suggestions could also be copied to Talk:Suggestions. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:55, 1 June 2008 (BST)
Yeah. Honestly, a lot of the suggestions put out are made by short-term members of the wiki. If we just take them out of circulation, a few good suggestions may be lost. And there are oh so few of them. It would be good if, along with the move to Suggestions, the move was noted in the header or something. --Vandurn 02:38, 3 June 2008 (BST)
The move could be mentioned in the cycling-template for this. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:11, 6 June 2008 (BST)
I'm talking hours to days here.--Karekmaps?! 04:20, 6 June 2008 (BST)
Still, if these kind of suggestions were moved to Talk:Suggestions, he'd only need to look there instead of both there and in voting. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:35, 6 June 2008 (BST)

Question: What's to prevent someone from simply vetoing all suggestions for a week after an update under the terms of this policy? --Specialist290 03:46, 4 June 2008 (BST)

I guess the bit that says "as a reaction to a game-update", but it should probably be defined a bit more. Like, if it was a suggestion about mechanics, well, any game update affects mechanics, at least minorly. I think the question should be, what's the line, and who's the judge? --Vandurn 00:25, 6 June 2008 (BST)
I mean this to work the same way as deeming a suggestion as humorous works. Which essentially means that there are no exact rules about it, and that anyone could, in theory, do it to any suggestion. In practice, however, there would probably be a couple of "Too soon" votes before someone actually removed the suggestion. Clearly bad-faith removals would naturally be vandalism, and questionable removals would be resolved in Arbitration. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:43, 6 June 2008 (BST)
If you want to contest a claim, there should be an easy way to... --BoboTalkClown 18:09, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Most of the reactionary suggestion makers are likely those unfamiliar with Wiki policies to begin with. So having this rule wouldn't prevent it from happening, and would create more work for the admins that week after game changes. When I see this happening now, most people already vote No and say "too soon - wait to see how it shakes out" already. If you want to make a policy affecting this, I'd suggest looking at preventing Dupe votes on returning suggestions that got Spammed/No voted off the page due to the "too soon" lobby.--Actingupagain 19:38, 10 June 2008 (BST)

If suggestions removed because of "too soon" were not allowed as dupes, the amount work would be pretty much the same (even if I'd include the move to Talk:Suggestions in the policy). The main difference would be that in this case the suggestion could be removed earlier than in the other case, which means no non-author re striking, formatting fixes or other maintenance tasks. The work saved by early removal would be about the same as the additional work of moving the suggestion to Talk:Suggestions. However, your suggestion has one advantage; it'd be a shorter, simpler and clearer policy. I'll have to think about this. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:31, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Straight off reading it, I like it, because it holds a reasonable part of time, and does not include developing suggestions. --BoboTalkClown 18:08, 23 June 2008 (BST)

I'm going to do this the way Actingupagain suggested. I'm also going to include other things of a similar nature, so I'll make it as a new proposal. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:15, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Suggestions Un-Dupe Policy

This policy proposes a new vote type to be allowed for Suggestions voting, called the Un-Dupe.

  • The Un-Dupe can be placed in any of the three sections: Keep, Kill or Spam.
  • It counts for the final tally as whatever section it appears in.
  • It negates a Dupe vote.
  • No Un-Dupe may be used until a single valid (i.e. linked) Dupe vote has been used.

Suggestions Un-Dupe Policy Discussion

Be discussing this insane notion here.

If Un-Dupe can be placed in any section, why not Dupe, too, with the dupe-vote counting towards the section it's in if the suggestion isn't duped. Anyway, I support this insane notion. However, there is a problem; at first a distantly similar link is posted as a Dupe, which is followed by a pile of (perfectly understandable) Un-Dupes, which is then followed by a link to a practically identical suggestion. Resulting in a huge number of Un-Dupes that count against the link to a suggestion that is practically identical. Maybe the Un-Dupes should be targeted at a specific link? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:05, 16 April 2008 (BST)

I like the idea in which you can challenge a Dupe vote. A non-dupe would not count as taking your one vote up, but a dupe would. I'll demonstrate what I mean:

  1. Dupe - Very similar to me. -- Fred
    1. Dupe. Obvious. -- Lolwut
    2. Not dupe. -- Idiot 16:21, 16 April 2008 (BST) Deleted, no reason given. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob T
    3. Not dupe. Shows differences here and here. --Andy
    4. Not Dupe And there and there. --Zombehman
    5. Not Dupe - The subtle things make all the difference. --God
      Not Dupe - 2 Dupes to 3 Not-dupes. Kept. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob T
  2. Spam - Lolwut. --Called Bob
  3. Dupe - Different page.
    1. Dupe - Yup. --Other user
    2. Dupe - No gameplay changes. --I don't really exist
      Dupe - 3 Dupes to 0 Non-dupes. Removed, a duplicate of Different page. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob T

I would say that if after the minimum time that something has before it is duped, there are more Dupes to Non-dupes, and there are enough dupes, as current suggestions, it is removed. Things will have to be tidied up, but they always do. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob T 16:21, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Interesting, but I don't see why why Dupes need to have justifications. Or why Dupes would count as votes and Un-Dupes wouldn't. Also, duping would have to get its own section if it gets that complicated. If it goes to that, I'd propose something like this instead. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:47, 16 April 2008 (BST)
I'm for a Suggestion Suggestion dealing with Dupes but I think this takes a wrong approach. If someone says that a new suggestion is a dupe there are people out there already who will post disproving them. What we need is a rule saying that a suggestion can't be shouted down just because it's a dupe. Oh, someone suggested this thing or something very similar to it before? Well boo-frigging-hoo. If it's well thought out then apparently it's something that needs to be brought up again so it will hopefully get some attention from Kevan. It's not like a person making suggestions actually gets anything game or wiki related from doing so.--Zardoz 17:13, 16 April 2008 (BST)
Please take a trip down to Duped suggestions before saying something like that. If most of those were in circulation they would have been spammed eventually or killed en masse because we have a significant touchy-feely group here that votes keep on everything that doesn't involve auto-death or encourage alt coordination.--Karekmaps?! 17:34, 16 April 2008 (BST)
On average we get 3 suggestions a day, the whole duped category is 91 suggestions, this is the total for almost a whole year, that means out of over 1095 suggestions only 91 have been duped, less than less than even 10%. Duping is not a problem it's rare that things ever get duped, ever get 3 dupe votes, or ever get 3 dupe votes and without a disagreement over the validity of removal, things that get duped removed almost always are dupes, I say almost always because in that year there have been, maybe, 4 questionable cases. That's all, 4, Dupe removal works fine as of current, however, if you really want a way to deal with dupes install some sort of oversite on what can be dupe removed, we have SysOps that could perform the task there have also been suggested methods of altering dupe removal that have been grounded due to some irreconcilable differences in regards to whether the original suggestion is preserved separately or not and how that would be done.--Karekmaps?! 17:34, 16 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah, I suppose the actual results are pretty good. I haven't looked for it, but it seems (from my own expereince) that unreasonable dupes don't result in removals. It would still be nice if unreasonable dupe votes never could result in removal, but I suppose any suggestion can be removed for any reason, if the editor is willing to resort to vandalism or misconduct. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 19:58, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Woul it not just be simpler to have Not Dupe counter specific dupe links? I mean if we have 3 voters saying something is a dupe based on 1 link and 5 others saying they disagree then surely it makes sense to have those 5 nullify the dupers?--Honestmistake 10:00, 17 April 2008 (BST)

I'm dropping this on the basis that it's becoming a sort of precedent-rule, which seems less complicated than enshrining it in policy, and also on the basis that Karek's point is valid: it's not enough of a problem to counter it via policy. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:26, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Suggestions Loophole Closing Policy

This policy proposes the following amendment to the suggestions (cycling) process:

  • Suggestions forcibly removed due to author-editing (after voting has started) may be re-posted by the author as a revision, and not thereafter removed as a multi (if posted on the same day).

But why?

  • The specific case is rare - it's when a suggestion is removed (not by the author) because the author edited it during voting, on the same day as they first posted it. The author then resubmits the suggestion. Anyone may then use a loophole in the rules to remove the suggestion as a Multi (more than one suggestion from the same author in the same day) because the author didn't explicitly remove it as a revision. And there is precedent currently set in A/VB for anyone to be able to use that loophole without punishment, as long as they claim good faith.

Suggestions Loophole Closing Policy Discussion

All for 2. But 1? Im guessing you mean when someone proposes something, and then amends it and resubmits on the same day? And only in those circumstances? --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 17:37, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Definately needed. I don't want anyone to have to go through the hell I did with my suggestion. --Hhal 17:41, 14 April 2008 (BST)

2 is just foolish, we should be limiting the ability to strike more, not punishing users for not striking as much as possible. 1 is just useless but is something that goes in Cycling Suggestions not suggestions rules and should be extremely limited if implemented, although why it matters is another matter entirely as the only case in recent memory of that ever being an issue has to do with something I removed that led to some considerable drama on the issue, and when I say recent I meant something like 4 months old, maybe more.--Karekmaps?! 17:55, 14 April 2008 (BST)

I'll be honest about this, and first state that I don't want to start up a long-winded argument on the matter, and also that I'm not attempting to have a go at you personally. That said, both of these alterations are directly connected to your previous actions, yes.
  • In the case of (1), although it has only happened once (to my knowledge), it did force everyone who had already voted twice, to vote a third time (all within the same 24 hour block), on what was essentially the same suggestion. I should accept some of the blame for that because it was me who initially removed it due to editing. As I recall (although I'm not checking the history) I reported you to A/VB and whilst you were found not to have commited vandalism, there were comments that your actions were not considered helpful. That being the case, to avoid any such repeat of that particular fandango, I propose that the loophole be closed.
  • In the case of (2), invalid votes were removed from the Keep section but not similar votes in the Kill or Spam sections. (There was an accompanying Misconduct case, as the removals resulted in the same editor then utilising their sysop-spam ability.) Similarly to (1), the case was found not misconduct, although there were similar comments that the actions were not considered helpful. Similar reasons for closing the loophole, although I'm altering the text to make it one way, as Keep votes are generally allowed to go without a justification (precedent).
I reiterate - I'm not having a go - just trying to remove things that stuck in my craw. I'm ready to be told they're both pointless, but I thought I'd give them a try. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:08, 14 April 2008 (BST)
They're both pointless. The second one more so as the obvious reason is to address people removing keep votes even though we all know everyone will still look the other way in regards to them remaining unstruck. And if you would like to go with precedent I can remember when doing exactly what you're trying to cement in the rules was considered vandalism because it was purely a tool to suppress people's abilities to vote or target users you don't like, it doesn't matter why they chose to vote what they do because there are already places for the author to get their suggestions revised and to receive input, we've always known that votes are a poor tool for that and yet that's what the "justification justification" is entirely based on.--Karekmaps?! 18:26, 14 April 2008 (BST)

On (1): When an author edits a suggestion to become a revision, yes, it makes sense to treat it as revisions are normally treated. --Toejam 03:23, 15 April 2008 (BST)

The specific case I'm thinking of is rare - it's when a suggestion is removed (not by the author) because the author edited it during voting, on the same day as they first posted it. The author then resubmits the suggestion. Anyone may then use a loophole in the rules to remove the suggestion as a Multi (more than one suggestion from the same author in the same day) because the author didn't explicitly remove it as a revision. And there is precedent set in A/VB for anyone to be able to use that loophole without punishment, as long as they claim good faith.--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:01, 15 April 2008 (BST)

I'd suggest changing number 2 so that any kind of selective striking is vandalism, not just striking Keep votes while leaving others alone. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:06, 15 April 2008 (BST)

Yes - the trouble there is that Keep votes are often left without justification, the generally understood unwritten rule being that the suggestion itself is their justification. I may have to just drop (2). Whenever anything about justification comes up (either trying to switch it always on or always off) it causes huge controversy. It remains the case that any user may abuse their power regarding the striking of votes, without any comeback. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:01, 15 April 2008 (BST)
In my opinion, a more useful change along these lines would be to require that anybody who wishes to close the suggestion ensures that all votes are valid before voting is closed, on penalty of a vandalism report. In other words: don't interfere with normal editors doing good-faith ad-hoc striking - require a higher burden of proof on those doing the closing, as invalid closure is the problem this change is aimed at preventing, no? ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ 05:06, 16 April 2008 (BST)
Aha! Genius. I likes it. I'll think on a revision. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:21, 16 April 2008 (BST)
I don't think that's such a great idea. If a vote is struck before the suggestion closes (which is what currenly happens most of the time), the voter at least has a chance to re-justify their vote. If the votes are struck at the same time as the suggestion is closed (which is what that would probably lead to), they don't get that chance. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:24, 16 April 2008 (BST)
The same Justification can be applied to any vote that isn't justified. It's also why we did not allow striking like this for a long long time. Nothing good comes of it, less good comes of making it enforceable as vandalism because that can only result in favoritism. Thus why we should be limiting the ability to strike, not making the problem, and it is a huge problem that makes the Suggestions System a hassle to even bother with more so now than ever in the past, worse.--Karekmaps?! 12:43, 16 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah, wasn't so long ago I was arguing that no justification should be entirely acceptable, but that got shot down in horrible, horrible flames. Well, not so much that, as nobody really cared enough to vote. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:56, 16 April 2008 (BST)

You're gonna want to add in something about putting down a non-author RE, then striking it...All in one edit vandalism...After the last incident, this might also be considered a loophole. --3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399 375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282 306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644 6229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 4856692346034861045432 6648213393607260249141273724587006606315588174 881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951 94151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854807446237996 2749567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946 3952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320 0056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014 6549585371050792279689258923542019956112129021960864034418159813629774 771309960518707211349999998372978049951059731732816096318595024459455 346908302642522308253344685035261931188171010003137838752886587533208 381420617177669147303598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957781 8577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952572010654858632 78865936153381827968230301952035301852968995773622599413891249721775283 47913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509838175463746493 93192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047101819429 5559619894676783744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949 1293313677028989152104752162056966024058038150193511253382430035587640 2474964732639141992726042699227967823547816360093417216412199245863150 302861829745557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029553211653 4498720275596023648066549911988183479775356636980742654252786255181841 7574672890977772793800081647060016145249192173217214772350141441973568 548161361157352552133475741849468438523323907394143334547762416862518983 569485562099219222184272550254256887671790494601653466804988627232791 7860857843838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929 8489608412848862694560424196528502221066118630674427862203919494504 7123713786960956364371917287467764657573962413890865832645995813390478 02759009946576407895126946839835259570982582262052248940772671947826 84826014769909026401363944374553050682034962524517493996514314298091 9065925093722169646151570985838741059788595977297549893016175392846813 82686838689427741559918559252459539594310499725246808459872736446958 486538367362226260991246080512438843904512441365497627807977156914359 9770012961608944169486855584840635342207222582848864815845602850601 684273945226746767889525213852254995466672782398645659611635488623057 745649803559363456817432411251507606947945109659609402522887971089314 5669136867228748940560101503308617928680920874760917824938589009714 909675985261365549781893129784821682998948722658804857564014270477555 1323796414515237462343645428584447952658678210511413547357395231134271661 021359695362314429524849371871101457654035902799344037420073105785390 621983874478084784896833214457138687519435064302184531910484810053706 146806749192781911979399520614196634287544406437451237181921799983910159 195618146751426912397489409071864942319... 21:02, 15 April 2008 (BST)

Good point. I'll think on adding that into a revision. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:21, 16 April 2008 (BST)
Pointless addition, it's already vandalism and when reported will be ruled as such, please stop trying to prevent SysOps from doing the job they were promoted for, the less things that force vandalism escalation as a response the better, these are not the type of rules we should have or want and make it harder on everyone to edit the wiki and make it harder on newcomers to use the wiki at all.--Karekmaps?! 12:43, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Sadly the whole justification thing is one of the biggest problem with the suggestions page. When people give reasoned feedback to explain their vote is all good, but counting any gibberish or insult as justification just brings the whole thing into disrepute. Perhaps banning comments altogether on the vote or at least paring them right down would work better, especially if we were to make the talk page compulsory. --Honestmistake 23:03, 15 April 2008 (BST)

Okay - (2) was dropped, and it's all about what was (1) and is now just the entire policy. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:20, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Authors would still be subject to the "one revision per day" limit? --Toejam 17:22, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Yes, of course. In fact, this enforces their right to one revision per day, and doesn't allow wiki-lawyers to claim that the one revision isn't a revision because it was removed due to editing. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:22, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Dupe Votes

There have, recently, been several votes listed as DUPE in suggestions and the links are to suggestions 2 and 3 YEARS ago. To me, that's ridiculous. The game can, and has, changed significantly in that long a period of time. My proposal is simple. Dupe votes do not count if the suggestion is older than 6 months.--Pesatyel 03:56, 7 April 2008 (BST)

That should never be accepted for a simple reason, the differences in the voting frame aren't significant enough. Something like Flamethrowers will never be in a game environment that is balanced without a completely different game, the basics are still the same and nothing so significant that it changes how a suggestion would apply or work in game has been done since the first 2 months of the games existence, with the singular exceptions of Powered Searches, Revivify This Specimen, and and NecroNet Access. Not to mention that this change would change the way suggestions functions from being based on the actual game to being based on the current state of the balance(the numbers alive:dead).--Karekmaps?! 10:53, 7 April 2008 (BST)
I'm not talking balance. I"m talking that the game has gone through a lot of changes since Suggestion X was voted on. Maybe the suggestion wasn't necessary/good/achievable/whatever at that time. But what about NOW? Whats to say that the idea wouldn't have merit now? Yes, there ARE some suggestions that would never likely make it. I warrant that. But that doesn't mean ALL past suggestions are unworkable. There were a LOT of past suggestions that ended up in the limbo of "undecided". I just get the impression that lot of us older players (wikiers?) are very quick to pounce on a suggestion as a dupe without really reading/considering the suggestion. MOre like "I've heard this idea before, so I don't care". It would help if the older suggestions weren't a complete mess to search through too.--Pesatyel 09:18, 9 April 2008 (BST)
Not all, far from it. I can think of a few dozen off the top of my head that haven't had a change that would effect them in the last 2 years. If the game has changed significantly enough that it could be considered a new suggestion it can't be duped. And I will take this moment to mention that Kevan plans game updates, usually, out well in advance some things he mentioned years ago are just being implemented somewhat recently he has a long list and chances are if it was suggested two years ago and isn't on it suggesting it again will probably not help the matter.--Karekmaps?! 12:03, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I don't know about a 6 month limit but I am all for a 1 year limit. Its's not just the game mechanics that change but also how (and why) people play. Sure most flamethrowers are going to be dupey-spam but other things might not be and given how often Dupe is used on very dodgy grounds limiting what counts as eligible may well prove a very good thing. Also, just because it got passed 30 months ago but not implemented doesn't mean Kevan didn't like it... he is mostly harman and might forgetten ;) --Honestmistake 14:38, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I agree with one year. It's not that big of a difference in Spamming the flamethrowers and assault rifles once every year instead of Dupe-ing them. In both cases they're most likely out of the system in six hours. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:21, 9 April 2008 (BST)
Instead of having a hard limit, let the suggestion maker defend it by telling what has changed in the game in the time between the two suggestions. --Druuuuu OcTRR 04:46, 15 April 2008 (BST)
While that's a nice idea in theory, its a pain in the ass drama factory in reality. Look at the case of a suggestion I recently made where not only had there been significant new developments since the linked suggestion was made 11 months ago, but the linked suggestion duplicated only half of what I suggested, and even that half had MAJOR differences. I think I "defended" it pretty well, And yet, with 5 votes supporting the dupe (vs 21 keeps), it still could be removed and and I would be forced to go to arbitration or whatever to defend it yet again. That's ass, because I have no assurance that my defense means anything, and because I don't need that kind of fucking drama. Hell, people can put in a vote with a link to a TOTALLY UNRELATED suggestion, and if it gets 2 other dupe votes (which don't even have to support that specific link, btw) its allowed to be removed, forcing an arbitration . vandalism / misconduct case to resolve the issue. The dupe process is (potentially) a total cluster fuck, with essentially no rules other than "get three people who want it gone, and its gone". SIM Core Map.png Swiers 07:22, 15 April 2008 (BST)
A strict one year expiration would make us vote on everything all over again. What a waste of time. How about instead adding a guideline to the Dupe rules saying that if an author can present a valid reason why a change in the game now justifies a second chance for a suggestion that was undecided before then it is not a Dupe. What counts as a valid reason is up to the voters to accept or not. --Jon Pyre 16:30, 15 April 2008 (BST)
The problem is that voter support of the author's arguments means nothing when it comes to dupe votes. If any 3 people say its a dupe of some arbitrary link, then its up for removal, with no drama-free recourse of protection. So again, the "author presentation" thing, while nice, can easily be undone by 3 arbitrary dupe votes. If there was some way for other vcoters to "un-dupe" and cancel out a dupe vote, the "author argument" idea would make sense, but as it stands, popular opinion that a suggestion is not a dupe really doesn't mean anything.
Perhapd we should remove the dupe process from the normal voting process, and have it take place on the suggestions talk page. People would be able to vote dupe or not on the talk page, in addition to and seperately from their normal vote. Say something like, if the suggestion was up for 24 hours and had more than 4 dupe votes, and dupe votes were in the majority, then it would be eligible for removal. That not only makes the "author argument" actually mean something, but it prevents a screwball minority from being able to use a dupe bomb, AND allows people to use kill and dupe (or even keep and dupe) as a legitimate vote, rather than the current hybrid bastardization we see that only allows the spam / dupe combo. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 19:35, 15 April 2008 (BST)
I was originally against this but how about we actually organize the system somewhat, you want to make moderators(Oops) more moderatory and actually place trust in them in a real way, simple, restrict cycling of Dupes to moderatorsSysOps. That way there is actually someone determining what a valid similarity or change is, after enough votes are recieved they can simply comment on the suggestion using the already existent NOTE: mechanism and say if it is a valid dupe and why or why not and then act accordingly. This would count as their vote if that's an issue.--Karekmaps?! 17:32, 16 April 2008 (BST)

The quickest and most efficent plan here is to remove the magical kill vote, oops, I mean dupe vote and, if its a dupe, to vote kill/dupe. If its a real dupe vote, and people feel things haven't changed, they can vote accordingly. Otherwise, Speaking as new player, I say we revote everything and ever single new player who enters the game gets to vote. Point being not only does the game change, the people change too. Gabdewulf 16:21, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Screwed up? to the discussion!

I'ld like to propose a policy about dealing with "screw-ups", i.e. suggestions made in the wrong places, newbie-first-suggestion-without-template "i don't know how to submit ideas, but i want..." stuff, etc. The main idea is to allow such stuff to be moved automatically to the Talk:Suggestions, not directly to the voting system (with fixing format) where it will be then just spammed. This would avoid having such stuff hanging in Current Suggestions and people pouring out their emotions in spam section. An according "closing template" would be added. --~~~~ [talk] 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think moving it to Talk:Suggestions would be a pain in the ass. Why not just allow sysops to close improperly formated suggestion (using a template) as being "not yet ready for voting" and keep discussion going on that same page? SIM Core Map.png Swiers 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Swiers idea sounds good to me. We get at least 2 or 3 of these newbie ones a week and all they get is a slagging off because they haven't read the format instructions. -- Cheese 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Seb, i', talking about things like this and this (susequently being transformed into this). It's not like there is something to close. there's not even made on the page --~~~~ [talk] 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I gotcha. Well, you can always move it and leave a note; that seems a good faith edit. If the note is a template, so much the better? SIM Core Map.png Swiers 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No, every suggestion deserves it's day in Wiki-Court, Sysops should be uninvolved with Suggestions(closing, etc.) as humanly possible.--Karekmaps?! 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing is the screwing up newbs don't know that they are giving it "a day in wiki-court", as in examples i've shown they're not even adding it to the right place of "wiki-court". also very often they act as if that area is a discussion. There's no mention anywhere is suggestions policies that screw-ups should be modified into a formatted suggestion. there should be one covering it and it would save a lot of people's nerves if it would go to the discussion page, not modified into a formatted suggestion --~~~~ [talk] 12:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh so you're willing to have it be completely up to some random Sysop's judgement as to whether or not it deserves to go to voting? Just because a user doesn't know the system doesn't mean they should be excluded from it, when someone does something wrong you show them how to do it right, you help them so that they don't make the same mistake in the future, you explain the ambiguities in the system. I've said this once before and I'll say it again here with a slightly different meaning. Do not play Project Welcome with the Suggestions system.--Karekmaps?! 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Show me at least one suggestion that was screwed-up by newbie and after being fixed into format wasn't spaminated. >>completely up to some random Sysop's judgement as to whether or not it deserves to go to voting<< no, i actually think that every suggestion doesn't deserve to go to votng without previously being in discussion area. but that's another policy change and different story --~~~~ [talk] 12:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't because I'm not willing to waste the time to go through ever suggestion ever submitted to try and figure out which ones were and which ones were not. I will, however, point out that them not bringing it to discussion connects directly to the Project Welcome point, if you think people should take ideas to discussion to be refined make an edit on their talk page to let them know there is a discussion area and how they could best go about getting constructive criticism there including what to avoid suggesting and why. See, this time "Do not play Project Welcome with the Suggestions system" means don't not help them then complain about what they don't know, don't even complain about what they don't know because what they don't know is a direct reflection of what we haven't made easy, accessible, or available to them. Not everyone has the time to read through 10 pages of Suggestions dos and do nots or to skim through the archives to see what has been frequently suggested, when they have difficulty with something as simple as formatting a suggestion it's kinda obvious that they need help, take the time that would normally be used complaining about them and help them.--Karekmaps?! 12:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think making a policy to deal with such screwups is a good idea. Most newcomers to the wiki that make such ill-formatted suggestions seem to have no trouble finding the suggestions page, so they shouldn't have any trouble reading the directions on it. However, it seem that many of them are too lazy to read and follow the "advice" and "how to" sections. Many of them don't even take the time to spell check their suggestion, or even capitalize the first letter. Why should we spend extra time fixing these suggestions that the author did not even care about enough to make a decent effort on them in the first place? That being said, there are the occasional new wiki people that do make an effort, but just don't understand the directions clearly. We could try to make the instructions on the suggestions page more clear to people unfamiliar with wikis, and also more concise. --PdeqTalk* 11:05, 7 April 2008 (BST)
Why should we spend extra time fixing these suggestions You didn't fully understand me. The thing is we are already spending extra time fixing these suggestions, i provided links above. However, there is no policy saying what's the right way to fix them and where should they go. All i want is for them to go to discussion. It doesn't change for occasional new wiki people that do make an effort - their suggestions are also better if go first to discussion. --~~~~ [talk] 14:31, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Amendment of Past Suggestions

There are suggestions out there that are very, very good suggestions, but has a tiny problem associated with them. The problem is, resuggesting the suggestion with the small change is a Dupe, which I agree, a total dupe.

But would it be possible to instead have a vote to 'amend' the suggestion instead, to fix the flaw associated with the Suggestion? Instead of letting a dumb suggestion exist that grants people too high of a search rate, you make an amendment bringing down the proposed search rate?

A good idea would be here. The pro-zombie lobby would be against the obivosuly harman-inspired names given to the Zombies, but if those names get changed, so much the better. However, resuggesting the whole suggestion based on a small change is not really needed and just waste time. So, if there was a framework where you would find a Peer Review/Reject suggestion, cite it as the Original Source Material, then have the proposed amendment get to a vote, maybe it would allow more people to express their opinon, allowing Kevan more knowledge into what we want.

I am posting it here to gauge if there is any interest.--ShadowScope 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've suggested this in the past, but it will take some work to make it useful. I've been thinking on it since, and I believe a separate section is needed for amendments, where people vote on whether the amendments make the suggestion "better", "dupe" or "worse" than the one it is replacing. If the new suggestion is voted better, the old one is removed from whichever archive/category it was in and copied to the amended versions talk page or linked to it, so that only the better suggestion is left in the peer reviewed (or whatever) archives. It becomes troublesome however, when we have to find a way to decide whether an amended version of a suggestion gets moved up from undecided/rejected into the peer reviewed category -- boxy talki 01:36 1 February 2008 (BST)
Yes, please propose an amendments system, so that it can be mercilessly revised and edited until it meets something that could serve the community. A method of active revisions to old suggestions would be very helpful.--Karekmaps?! 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I typed up an example amendment to demonstrate how the system would work. The words "Suggestion Type" will be replaced by "Amendment of", followed by a link to the suggestion that you are amending. Amendments can be Kept, Killed, Spammed, or Duped, with the sole exception that you cannot dupe the Amendment by linking to the original suggestion.

Other than the fact that the Amendment is based off an orignal suggestion, both will have seperate lives. Amendments may go to Peer Review, Peer Reject, or Peer Undecided, just as regular suggestions. A Peer Rejected Suggestion may have a Peer Reviewed Amendment, and a Peer Reviewed Suggestion may have a Peer Rejected Amendment. The original suggestion will not be moved up or down, and instead, will remain where it is. This is done primarly for ease, and a Peer Reviwed Amendment would anyway rely heavily on the Original Suggestion and thereby be 'de facto' accepted by the community.

I'm also putting this on the UDWiki News to get more advice on how to fix it.--ShadowScope 03:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried that the author of any suggestion can have it effectively re-written (by other people), after it earned it's place in Peer Reviewed. However, I also see the positive aspects of this. I think the pass-bar should be set higher, and stricter governance of the voting in amendment cases be observed. Also, I think the original author should have some sort of power of veto over other people mauling their work. And I disagree with boxy's idea of replacing old with new. Amend old, don't replace it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 08:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Im all for this, unless we get lots of microvariations over a few days. --RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We could list amendments after a suggestion, under an "amendments" section. --PdeqTalk* 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest concur the original suggestion should remain intact. Amendments would be "tacked on" to it somehow. Confusing, perhaps... but... safer. Anyway, this is a very good idea which I wholeheartedly support in principle. Let's find a workable way to do it! --WanYao 00:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wanyao, that amendments should just be put into an amendments section for a suggestion--CorndogheroT-S-Z 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so if a suggestion has an amendment, a link to that amendment will be placed in the "Amendments" section for that suggestion. Yeah, I should have made that clear to begin with. Any other ideas?--ShadowScope 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be ultra-unanimous. 75% pass rate. The original author should be empowered to note whether they agree or disagree with any amendment. Justification should be absolutely enforced for all vote types: Keep included. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I second the agreement with WanYao: the original suggestion should remain intact. Amendments would be "tacked on" to it somehow. --Ms.Panes 06:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep two versions of the same thing in the archives, that's just foolish and is just an excuse to remove Dupe as a valid vote type. The idea is for Dupes people like better than the original version to replace the original, anything else is spamming up the system so we can all feel good and have double hugtiems.--Karekmaps?! 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the author of the amendment is aware that they're suggesting an amendment, in which case we could have a special suggestion type (an amendment) with the sole purpose of amending, rather than replacing a suggestion. Under a system of replacement, the work of the original author is being replaced - which isn't fair. If someone copies a Shakespeare play, but makes a minor improvement to one small part of it, they shouldn't then be able to claim authorship. I'm all for suggestion amendments, but all against replacements, on the grounds I've stated. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair and Smart are two seperate things. It's not Fair that we remove suggestions for being Spam or Dupe, it's done for a reason. It's not Smart to spam up the suggestions system with every dupe ever made because we're worried about people getting offended because someone came a long and did their suggestion better than they did the first time. --Karekmaps?! 23:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, you're suggesting that not only should plagiarism be allowed on this wiki, but that it be encouraged alongside theft. I disagree that it would be smart to allow either. I also think it's particularly spurious to accuse people who don't like their efforts being plagiarised and stolen of being "[easily] offended". I don't think I know anyone that wouldn't be offended if someone ripped off their work. For what I consider very good reasons that I've already provided, I'm all for suggestion amendments, but all against replacements. You should take note that all the users who contributed to this discussion, above this part of the conversation, agree with me that amendment is better than replacement. You only dislike the idea because you're assuming that it requires a vast increase in Dupes. It doesn't - it just requires a redesign of your concept of the process. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Totally, cause we're not a wiki and who comes up with an idea is suddenly of importance. It's a goddamn wiki and the suggestions system is about getting an idea to Kevan as efficiently and completely as possible without making it a hassle on him to read our ideas. I dislike the idea because it's as moronic as scrapping Dupe and Spam votes completely as it's pretty much exactly that, next time read twice RE once.--Karekmaps?! 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that a system that both amends instead of replaces, and makes it easy to read the amendments, is possible. It's not a simple case of Choice A or Choice B. That would be moronic. We live in a more complex world than the binary one that you're presenting as the basis for your argument. Note: I do not have the entire solution yet at my fingertips - but that's fine, because this is supposed to be a discussion, rather than any single contributer shouting that they're right and everyone else is wrong, when the topic hasn't yet been fully explored. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. Find a way to do it right then or don't contribute, we don't need you using Category_Talk:Suggestions as a way for you to get people to feed your massive ego. Don't reply to someone if all you can add it something along the lines of "No! We can have it both ways but figuring that out would be too easy for me so I'm going to talk about how much it will hurt peoples feelings if they don't get credit!". Maybe instead of trying to suppress views that don't agree with you by spamming res where you say nothing you could actually try and think of a decent solution for once that addresses the problem presented?--Karekmaps?! 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that the royal "we"? Jebus, and you accuse me of having a massive ego. Look to yourself. My solution is as given: add amendments to currently existing suggestions - I just haven't set out concrete details of how to add the amendments, although simple edits would suffice, I suppose. I'd go further than simple links, to make it easier on the reader. The only controversy is what to do with the amendment vote pages. But then, your solution (as far as you've outlined it) is almost exactly the same, except you want to replace existing suggestions - and do what with the originals? Delete them? Archive them under a new heading? Both solutions work the same way, except one is amendment, and one is replacement. Can't we discuss that point without you starting up with the personal insults because someone disagrees with your point of view? It's very distracting from the main point of the discussion - the amendment of suggestions. Let's please try to stick to the topic. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of having my old suggestions altered by others, and I'm sure others feel the same way. It'd be like filling out a comment card at a restaurant suggesting they serve hamburgers, and someone else taking it out to erase "burgers" and write in "roast beef" because they prefer it. I don't think Kevan is reading the suggestions from two years ago anyway. A new suggestor is probably better off fully rewriting the idea anyway. --Jon Pyre 16:35, 15 April 2008 (BST)
No offense intended but, Jon, That's your conceit. If someone likes your idea enough to expand on it or alter it to make it more relevant not only to their interests but to the communities and the current state thereof who are you to stop them? If you're suggesting things simply for the sake of getting your name connected to a suggestion so you can extend your e-peen if it gets implemented that is not something we should be reinforcing, it's the exact type of thing that leads to crap getting spammed in the system by suggesters constantly re-suggesting slightly altered versions of their own past suggestions until something is close enough to something implemented in game that they can brag about it. It wastes the time of everyone who reads the suggestions system.--Karekmaps?! 17:27, 16 April 2008 (BST)

I am going to send this to voting soon, but I am re-reading the comments to see if there is anything that can be fixed. I will however not aim for 'replacing' suggestions, only because Kevan may actually prefer the old PR version that we as a community would want to go tear down. I am also under the opinon that all 'Amendments' will be noted under each Suggestion, with a note stating if each Amendment is In Voting, Peer Review, Peer Undecided, or Peer Rejected/Spaminated.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 23:51, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Garbage From the Suggestion Namespace

Went through the Suggestion namespace. This produced

  • incorrectly withdrawn suggestions (which I withdrew properly)
  • empty suggestions (which went to A/SD)
  • humorous suggestions lacking the {{Notfunny}} template (which I applied on them)

In addition to those there were suggestions that haven't yet been closed (and I don't mean those that are on Category:Current Suggestions). One qualified for dupe and I removed it, but most have only had minimal voting or no votes at all. They're all lacking a tag to Category:Current Suggestions), which explains why they're still open. They just vanished after dropping off Today's Suggestions (if they ever were on it). What should be done about these suggestions? Do they get deleted? Closed? Voted on?

The list:

--Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

looks like some of them where removed with {{multi}}, but authors removed the tag themselves. i've reverting these removals. Rest of them deserve to just be deleted, imho. --~~~~ [talk] 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, didn't notice that. Well, they're struck from the list now. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Three of them were redone properly later, putting them to A/SD. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Emm... maybe {{Revised}} would also work, aside of SD... --~~~~ [talk] 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider them revisions as the original versions never were in voting. Kind of like saying that the "real" suggestion is a revision of the one you had in the sandbox :/. Besides, it's not really worth the trouble to keep them. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The rest haven't been voted on, except for Suggestion:20071008_Rancid_Gut's. I don't think they fit any of the criteria for Speedy Deletions, so do I just take them to Deletions for two weeks? On the other hand, couldn't this be voted in as a scheduled deletion? This kind of thing is bound to happen again. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they'll have to go through the deletions page. However I'd suggest a policy to add this type of page to the speedydeletions criteria... suggestions pages never placed on the Current Suggestions page, more than a week old (or something) -- boxy talki 15:27 5 January 2008 (BST)
The remaining ones are now there. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the ones that remained that still needed it. -- Cheese 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools