Suggestion talk:20080211 Number Groups v2.1

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Wasn't this already up for voting? I don't see the difference from the last one. --Uncle Bill 08:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Karek made up a rule and removed it - some kind of bullshit about it being a multi, when really it was a removed revision-during-voting, which means it was a revision. Karek doesn't care that we all have to vote again on the exact same suggestion - he just doesn't like the guy that made the suggestion, and has a fucking atrocious attitude. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally, made up the rule, the one that has always existed that only allows 1 suggestion per day. Wah.--Karek^maps?! 16:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But allows a revision of the same suggestion to be posted, which is exactly what happened. You know it. I know it. The difference is, you won't admit it, because you're a stupid cock. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there was no revision, it wasn't removed for revision. It was removed, by you, for Hhal editing it after voting, although it was in the standard manner of adding a comment, which is allowed. But hey, as long as you want to argue semantics.--Karek^maps?! 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And now, I'm done feeding you and your trolling on this, so bitch alone in the quite.--Karek^maps?! 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

On a different topic, I have no idea why anyone is voting against this suggestion - it's like a no-brainer to me. The groups are already in that order - where's the harm in adding the numbering? I just don't get the objection. If people are prone to ranking, the numbers are already there to do so - so this doesn't even add that problem, it just sits alongside it. Honestly, this is weird. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because they think it's not needed, since as you said, the groups are already in that order. I also posted my reasoning before that many MMOs don't do their ranking that way, they just list people by their levels from highest to lowest without showing if they're n-th relative to the general population. --Aeon17x 11:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

They're in that order, so anyone can count their way to the rank - but that takes time, and it's the simplest programming trick in the book to stick a number there so people don't have to count. I still don't get the objection. I mean, if it's doing no harm, and helping out some, what's the beef? Some of those votes are like "well, I don't care, so it's Spam". If you don't care, don't vote. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

People are resistant to change. From what I notice, if a proposed change is good but has any indication that it's not actually needed, it won't pass. Quite an irony, when you think how we're all in a wiki where change is supposed to be the norm. --Aeon17x 11:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, adding a number highlights where a group is in the list and draws attention to the ordering. There a risk it could encourage snobbishness from the people in the "best" groups. (I'm not trying to persuade you here, I just want you to know where my vote was coming from.) --Toejam 12:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No probs, Toejam - it was partly your vote that made me start to wonder - because I respect your voting patterns. I suppose, from my point of view, the ordering draws attention to the ordering, so numbering wouldn't make any difference. However, I understand the argument that goes "because it's labelled, people will treat it that way". I guess it's possible that numbering it alongside the ranking and order that already exists would increase snobbery. Okay. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, it's appreciated. --Toejam 03:02, 15 April 2008 (BST)

2 Weeks

Isn't the two weeks of voting up today? Or did I miscalculate? --Hhal 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) EDIT: By UTC, it's yesterday. --Hhal 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)