From The Urban Dead Wiki

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

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

This section is for suggestions which have been submitted, and are currently under vote. Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

Developing Suggestions

This section is for suggestions which have not yet been submitted, and are still being worked on. Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

Kill Counts

Lower Revive Cost For Murder Victims

Burn Bodies

Military Districts

Expedient Shotgun, v.2

The Romero Cannon


Character Achievements ("final" version)

Zombie Weapon Use

Class-Only Skills (v2.0)


Tips For The Newly Revived

Maintenance: Generator Set Up Skill

Headshot upkeep

Class-only Skills

Resubmitted above as version 2. Original archived by author to: [my talk page]. --Matt Scott 9 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Antique muskets/Museum change

Eat Flesh

Rare/Holiday Items

Search For...

Register Group

Rend Barricade/Metal Grip

Throw Bones


New 'Steal' skill

Character Achievements

I know that discussion on this is ongoing, but I've moved it to Character Achievements because the length of this page is breaking the templates. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Actually, I don't think there is much more discussion that can happen here. I'll have to wait for the "help" when I put it up for voting.--Pesatyel 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Only Zombies can destroy Generators


Help The Confused Newbies!

Laptop Computers

Necrotech Research Facility (revision of Necrotech HQ)

Blackout Curtains

Maybe a PK suggestion we can all agree on?


Hunters Eye


Timestamp: Jon Pyre 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Bounty Hunters
Description: This would be a tracking skill for detecting PKing and equipment destruction with similar mechanics to Scent Trail. Witness the act and it'll tell you which way the perp went. Unlike zombie noses this is less precise (it's also weaker to give the PKer a fair shot at escape). This only tells you two things:
  1. Which direction they're in. N, E, S, W, NE, SE, SW, NW. Obviously they're not always going to be straight in any one direction but it'll go by the most appropriate direction.
  2. How far they've gotten based on how hot or cold the trail is. A hot trail means they're within 1-5 spaces, a warm trail is within 6-10, a cool trail is 11-20, cold is anything greater than that.

So you might see

Fred Barnes destroyed the generator (A cold trail leads east).

This provides SOME kind of clue to bounty hunters but is so imprecise that they'd have to devote plenty of effort to searching, and would probably not find anything most of the time. I think that's a fair balance between protecting PKers and allowing repercussion.

Discussion Orignally, I was okay with the idea, but now, I think it won't work. Why?

Well, Scent Trail is not overpowered because, while you interact with the zed, you can flee over to a place of barricades. So what if the zombie knows where you are located? He'll only be outside of the building and he won't be killed. If you mulitply this by a million, when a PKer kill, everyone in that room will know where he went, until there is another PK incident. Using your scale of hot, warm, or cold, you would be able to figure out where the person is located. It would becomes somewhat easy to kill a PKer. A nerf. There are no barricades to protect the PKer, and with the vague data, you may find the PKer.

Bounty Bounty Hunters may use this to help protect fellow PKers, but they are a rare breed, and mostly, this will be used to greif the greifers. And not just that, but it would also greif GKers, and you would encourge people to kill GKers...but those GKers are GKing to save the people inside that building. To be fair, it is the changes that everyone agrees with that get accepted. Changes that would divide the population, with half in support, and half against are changes that Kevan would not want to do, as it would get rid of half his playerbase. Maybe it would be for the best to forget this...--ShadowScope 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I'm in favour of it, as I see zombies not caring about death, just stand up and keep going, survivors caring about death, but defending through barricades and PK/GK bypassing the survivor defence quite too easy. It would be interesting to see PK/GK types facing the consequence of their actions more often. As some PKers like to brag, surviviors are too 'stupid' and revive them anyway, so it won't be the end of the PK world ;) Bluetigers 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a simple change that would be a little more balanced. Instead of seeing which direction they are currently in, you simply see which way they went when they left. That way, they could still double back and try to throw you off their trail. --Uncle Bill 04:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, but it should work for anyone on your contact list you cross paths with, instead of just perps. Now, I am not fond of PKers; my hunch is we lose more new players over PKers than over any other facet of the game, but fair is fair. GKers and PKers are survivors and should be able to use the Tracking skill, too. Griefers (which is the best inclusive term I have for Pkers, Gkers and zombie spies) could use it to find or avoid people. Also, why do you pick on Fred Barnes? Yes, he is a conservative #$@hole, but he is not, as far as I know a GKer. lol--Nosimplehiway 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.

Question about Moderator Manours

I am a bit confused. How is a helpful Re: from someone not involved (ie: author or voter) in the thread less useful than "cause you're an idiot and your suggestion sucks?" ... I mean, I get that he is a mod, and I get that I broke the rules in my attempt to help out the Author. What should I do if I see a mod break rule #1 for voting? (Note: New to the suggestions talk page. If this is in the wrong place or format, help me out.) --Ev933n 22:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a re: that you think is important put it either here or on the authors talk page. I would agree that the no "non-author RE:" enforcement can be a bit Draconian (heheh) at times but it's been proven a necessity. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, what about the Mods breaking rule #1 about voting? No flaming. What should I do if I see it?--Ev933n 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, with even Xoid (the active beurocrat on this wiki) rather enjoying telling people that their suggestion is "Stupid. Pathetic. Asinine. Moronic.", I doubt you'll get very far in convincing the mouthier mods to tone down their distate for any particular suggestion. Grow a thicker skin. You'll notice (as I have) that when moderator behaviour runs contrary to the rules written on the Suggestions page, they simply re-write them to suit the situation, and claim that someone else changed them months ago without them knowing about it. Of course, you've not really got a leg to stand on because you've continually broken the non-author Re rule, which is there to stop the Suggestions page descending into one of the lower levels of Hell. Summary: if you're allowed to be a bit of an asshat at times, then so are the mods. (And so am I.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If their suggestion is that bad, they've earned it. Suggestions that at least seem good at face value, but are irredeemable don't get that reaction from me (I'll tell 'em why it's unfixable and merely vote Spam). It's those that are incredibly poorly thought out, utterly irredeemable, are a clear waste of everyone's time and/or are formatted so they're illegible that get my iconic "Stupid. Pathetic. Asinine. Moronic." vote.
As to your claims; that actually happened, the rules were changed unilaterally — without consensus or warning. Check the history if you so desire, but don't make out like people were pulling excuses out of their arse when they were not. –Xoid MTFU! 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So, none of the rules of the suggestion page are real, then? Does that mean that anyone can break them? How about this one:
You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or degredate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated.
I mean, that rule not being real would explain why you were allowed to say this:
Stupid. Pathetic. Asinine. Moronic, and yes, I'm talking about you.
Honestly, Xoid - most of the time, you seem quite reasonable - but here, you're just being rude and obnoxious. As the "highest authority in the land", you're not exactly setting a shining example for the other contributers, unless it's "act like a complete cnut and you could be a mod one day". --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Forget what you wrote already, Funt? "…if you're allowed to be a bit of an asshat at times, then so are the mods." — Yes, I was out of line, but if you want me to go back and erase the author's initial trolling when he RE:ed Axe Hack and Cyberbob's votes, feel free to suggest that. Perhaps if the system breaks down altogether you'll remember why I said that we don't always enforce the rules to the letter on the suggestions page, for the sake of everyone's sanity if nothing else. –Xoid MTFU! 16:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
(And so am I.) Just proving a point. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Get rid of the rule if no one observes it anyway. It is rule number one where it concerns voting and almost no one obeys it. Xoid was not who I was referrencing, so I have no idea what is up with him. I just feel like why have rules that no one follows. I agree. I abuse the hell out of the Re: thing. Plus, the time I was referrencing, the Mod in question was not even saying anything bad about me, but about someone else. Eh, if the Mods change the rules on me, I will just ignore them and laugh... I just want to know who to complain to or what to do if I see the Mods breaking their rules...--Ev933n 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, trust me, if you spend enough time around the wiki, you will learn what's up with Xoid.--J Muller 07:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that many moderators aren't really into "moderating". Moderators are the ones that handle form and pose questions to opponents at debates. They're neutral, don't present an opinion, and exist to enforce rules and maintain civil debate. Moderators here aren't neutral, how can you ask them to be without missing out in a lot of fun of a wiki community. But sometimes it results in users debating or arguing with moderators and since everybody is involved there's no neutral party, no actual moderators to keep things civil and solve arguments. Just ordinary people with extra wiki commands. --Jon Pyre 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind the sysop's doing anything that breaks a rule, and I would not dream of telling them not to have fun, it just seems silly to have a rule that they break seemingly constantly. I don't make the rules. If I did, I would not make rules that I planned on breaking.--Ev933n 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like the word "moderator" at all. I prefer sysop.--Gage 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
children, children. I learnt long ago that mods are allowed to be rude if they like, they are after all only human. Of course if they don't like what you write you can expect some of them to strike it for breaking the rules. This is perfectly reasonable as they are only human. Oh and before anyone gets stroppy this only applies to a few of the Mods, the rest are perfect and shiny and probably robots;-) --Honestmistake 11:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Time To Change The Suggestions Dos and Donts

From Kevan's talk page regarding the current section on PKing:

"It's not a very clear quote, but all it says is that I'm not going to "prohibit" PKing, which I'm not - psycho survivors are a vibrant part of any post-apocalypse, and an out-and-out ban on attacking each other would be boring. Tinkering is fine, though, and if you've got any ideas to make PKing a more interesting experience for either participant, Jon, I'd enjoy hearing them. --Kevan 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)"

So don't get all riled up if you either want to leave PKing completely untouchable or ban it completely. Kevan isn't doing either. But I think we should replace that part of the Dos and Donts with this quote verbatim, like now. I'll do it later tonight unless anyone has objections but I think a clear statement from Kevan on the matter trumps whatever we have now.--Jon Pyre 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I already edited it to say "remove" instead of "prohibit", as I think some people must have been reading "prohibit" as "put any limits on, whatsoever".
There is a bit of a weird and unhelpful feedback loop going on with the page, though, which maybe needs addressing somewhere - it tells people to avoid particular topics because they're controversial and will attract solidly-argued negative votes from people who've heard it all before, but a lot of kill/spam votes seem to be merely because something was mentioned on the dos-and-do-nots page; "I am spamming this because the do-nots page says that PK adjustments will meet firm opposition". --Kevan 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else get the feeling that Kevan is getting fed up with this whole PKer and SPAM arguement thing? Something needs to be agreed on and that is going to take a sensible discusion without the "I am right and you are wrong" brigade trying to out-shout one another. PKing is part of the game and that is a fact whether people like it or not (& both sides have valid arguements) the main problem in game is that its too easy and supports people being DICKs rather than fun gameplay. The problem with the suggestions to alter or combat it is that they don't take into account the genuine reasons for doing it and just try to punish all PKers at the same time. I very rarely PK because its boring... make it interesting and I might. Interesting in my opinion is give it a purpose and make it harder, punishing players for it won't stop the DICKS but it might stop dedicated 'crazees' playing and that would probably make it a less fun game for all of us.--Honestmistake 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal discussion of policy changes for the suggestions page, as per the Voting Guidelines.

Remove The Special Mod Spam Vote

I think this ability has outlived it's usefulness. When originally created it was designed specifically to fight joke keeps that were being used to prevent humorous/satirical suggestions from being spammed off the page. This is around the time back when one keep vote would prevent spamination. Now that we've designated humorous/satirical suggestions as vandalism moderators can remove these suggestions without needing to vote at all. I think the normal voting process is enough to remove spam as it comes. The only real purpose of the mod spam vote currently is to remove suggestions that are otherwise going into the kill category. Since kill is sometimes used as a way of suggesting changes I feel the mod spam vote is currently detrimental to the process of revision and feedback. And if you feel like asking "How do you know what the mod spam vote rule is for?", well...I wrote it. --Jon Pyre 06:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That may have been your intention to begin with, but it has evolved into a time saving mechanism. I am saving whoever currently moves the different suggestions to Peer Reviewed/Rejected time by putting a horrible suggestion out of its misery now. You know what I think? I think you are bitter that I mod spammed one of your suggestions today (2 Keeps (one of em was you), 9 Kills, 7 Spams). In my eyes, that suggestion was headed to Peer Rejected, so I was just saving Funt (he moves the suggestions now) time by doing it now.--Gage 06:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking, what if the spamminated suggestion got moved to the author's talk page?--Pesatyel 06:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Peer Rejected has proved to be a place from which Kevan will pull potential game additions (feeding drag comes to mind) so that won't work. There needs to be a place for them.--Gage 07:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. What about just the VOTES then? They get deleted in the move and as Jon said, the main problem is feedback.--Pesatyel 07:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The votes can be pulled out of the history of the page if the author wants them.--Gage 07:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Gage, if voters wanted a suggestion to be spammed they'd vote spam. There's also a reason why spamination needs 7 votes and a 2/3rds mandate. I don't really care about today's suggestion (and I admit it needs a lot of work), it's really more about the way this vote is being used in general. There's a reason voting lasts 2 weeks. The mod spam vote wasn't put in as a way of making the vote process an express lane. And while an author can get vote comments already made from the history this prevents additional comments from being made. There has been many a flawed suggestion successfully revised by an idea in a late vote. If moving suggestions to peer rejected takes too long we can save time by simply not having a peer rejected section since it's mostly redundant with previous days. We can just highlight titles in previous either red or green depending whether they've passed/failed. --Jon Pyre 08:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That is REALLY a pain in the ass. Simplist thing would be to just keep the votes WITH the suggestion. I can understand the desire to quick remove, but I DON'T understand why it is necessary to remove the votes after the move. Do people REALLY wanna see the same shit every other day? THAT is the problem with removing the votes.--Pesatyel 09:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Then go change the wording on the page; you have no objections from me. 'sides, it's not like Gage's reasoning isn't flawed: the history is periodically purge. –Xoid MTFU! 14:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem is with page sizes; after all the votes go in the pages begin to get incredibly large, and only grow as the day goes on. Especially if some douche puts a three mile long suggestion on the page. It would quickly become impossible for someone to rapidly cycle the suggestions, allowing voters to vote and get in the way of the cycling. A circle that would feed upon itself; getting edit conflicted on the suggestions page is already enough of a pain in the arse without it impeding the cycling process. –Xoid MTFU! 14:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Crikey, Jon - you've gone from talking about removing the mod spam vote to re-jigging the entire suggestion process. One thing at a time, eh? Here's a thing - you keep talking about using the suggestion page to develop your ideas. That's not what it's for. This page is for developing ideas - but you never use it. Frankly, you're cluttering up Peer Rejected and are well on your way to stealing MrA's special template. As for mod spamination - it has a place, and it does save me (or whoever else might move suggestions to Rejected / Undecided / Reviewed) time. It also saves the time of voters, because they don't have to read through the worst suggestions. Anyone who makes as many suggestions as you (especially without discussing them first on this page) has got to accept the fact that the majority of their efforts are going to end up in the bin. That's natural. As you never take part in the maintenance of the suggestion system, you should listen to the experience of those that do, rather than quibble every decision that you don't like. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is for developing ideas - but you never use it. That's easy enough to SAY, but take a look at the last few days (hell ANY day) of suggestions here. How many people ACTUALLY participated in the discussions HERE? I don't think I've ever seen more than 2 or 3 other people (besides myself and the author) discuss ANY suggestion (unless it something big like PKing). Take a look at the this. Daniel Hickens points out that I was being a dumbass...but did he ACTUALLY take part in the discussion? No. So don't go throwing that is the AUTHORS that don't use the page. It is the VOTERS that don't use it. Of course, none of that really has anything to do with the discussion of the Mod Spam ability. What did you think of my idea to temporarily remove the spam vote?--Pesatyel 09:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Of my 7 Peer Reviewed suggestions, 4 of them only succeeded because of the input of other contributers on this page. This page is a useful place to garner feedback prior to making a suggestion, or when revising one that hasn't been well received. As for a temporary removal of the Spam vote, I think it's a stupid idea, and if you put it up for a Policy vote, I'll be voting Spam. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
While it's true that this place is great for developing suggestions only a few more dedicated voters come here. Two or three comments here while helpful isn't the same as the opinions of all twenty people who'd see it on the main page. --Jon Pyre 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying the page is useless. I'm saying the page could be MORE useful. If, as Jon said, a few more dedicated voters came here... Most people wait until voting starts to suggest changes. Where the hell were these people when the suggestion was put up here?--Pesatyel 18:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
And why is temporarily removing the spam vote a stupid idea?--Pesatyel 18:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If you don't know now you never will. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (I noticed that you didn't appreciate my aloofness here. I'm trying to make the point that I've explained my position several times, on this page, to you. Check the archives.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It had nothing to do with YOUR view but what is best for the wiki. Gage answered the question. You did not.--Pesatyel 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon Pyre. I think we can all agree on that. Cyberbob  Talk  13:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion and doing your part as moderator to avoid arguments and petty sniping. --Jon Pyre 14:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Why, you're welcome. It's a very tough job at the best of times. Cyberbob  Talk  14:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of the spam vote is a bad idea because it would easily triple the workload in the suggestion system. There are tons of suggestions that don't deserve two weeks of voting, and I think we all can admit that. Spam gets rid of them faster.--Gage 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...Getting rid of Mod Spamination...Now this is a touchy subject. Many people will probably look at this and mistakenly interpret this as being in opposition to the spam vote itself. Unless I'm reading something wrong, this would only remove mod-spamination and would have no effect on normal spamination. Now, I'm not part of the wiki maintenance crew (so feel free to correct me on any misconceptions I may have about it), but I don't really see what the problem is with eliminating mod-spamination. Some here argue that it is a time-saving mechanism. But isn't that exactly what normal spamination is for? Do we really need two express lanes to peer-rejected? Also, I don't understand how mod-spamination saves anyone time compared to normal spamination. Anyone can spaminate a suggestion, right? And either way it's going to take the same amount of time to move it to the proper section. The only difference is when and who does it. But if we want to save Funt or someone else time, can't we also do that by spaminating the qualified suggestions for him with the normal method? I mean, if a suggestion is deserving of mod-spamination, then the next 4 or so voters are almost certain to vote spam and thus make it spaminate-able by anyone, right? So why can't we just spaminate it then to help out whoever is cycling suggestions?--Reaper with no name TJ! 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Because quite often it takes a day or two for the required votes (Keep, Kill or Spam) to pile up. Cyberbob  Talk  00:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of people who vote keep on something because "it's cool", without taking anything into account. By the currently lax regulations on "you must justify your vote", any reason is justification. Two or three idiots voting like that can all but ensure the suggestion stays the entire two weeks, despite it being a forgone conclusion. –Xoid MTFU! 14:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"Because quite often it takes a day or two for the required votes (Keep, Kill or Spam) to pile up" I think that maight be the point, in those 2 or 3 days other voters might get the chance to make valuable suggestions on how to change something and get it into peer reviewed. not everyone checks the wiki twice a day or even twice a week and they should have as much right to read the posts without messing about in archives. While a spam vote is needed for the worse offenders the current system is too open to abuse and personal vendetta. --Honestmistake 13:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wooden spoon for Mr Honestmistake! You seem to find it really easy to say that the Spam vote is being abused, but have you any evidence? Any misconduct cases to refer to? Vandalism warnings? No? Didn't think so. That would make it just your opinion based on no evidence whatsoever, then. Yup. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions like "flying donkey bombardment" and the such don't deserve even a minute's time on the page. While in that particular example, you can claim it's humorous, there are numerous cases where they aren't 'humorous', just incredibly, incredibly poorly thought out. While yes, those cases should be left there until at least some people have given their insight, 7 people all saying "because 50 damage is ridiculously unbalanced" is not anymore helpful than 3 people saying it. –Xoid MTFU! 14:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm....since the issue is a matter of stopping helpful comments in the kill section howabout instead of getting rid of the mod spam vote we just change the requirements so that it needs to outnumber not just keeps but kills also? That way a suggestion with three spams and 15 kill votes with assorted advice wouldn't get removed. If voters want it to go, they'll vote spam and it doesn't impede early moderator removal at all. If they want it to fail but stay they'll vote kill. Here's the exact text of the rule change I propose:

In addition, A Moderator can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber the total number of keeps, the total number of kills, and the combined total of keeps and kills. --Jon Pyre 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I doubt it will fly though. I still think the simplist solution is to just transer the suggestion WITH all the votes to Peer Rejected.--Pesatyel 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We could do what we do with peer reviewed, and just have a section for a brief synopsis of why the suggestion was rejected. Of course, most of the time it is obvious.--Gage 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This really shouldn't change things that much. 90% of spaminated suggestions are often worthy of the immediate 3-spam removal. But I think this is worth implementing for the rarer cases. A Kill vote while opposing the suggestion is still a vote of confidence that the suggestion doesn't deserve to be taken out of voting prematurely. This would make Keep=I like this, Kill=I don't like this but it's worth letting people express their opinion/Here's How To Change It, Spam=Why the hell are you wasting my time with this crap. --Jon Pyre 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind writing a synopsis for Peer Reviewed suggestions - they made it, they deserve the effort. I'm not inclined to waste any more of my time on the spaminated stuff than it takes to dump it in Peer Rejected. Gage is right - it's usually pretty clear from the suggestion text why it got shot down. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Funt's right, if you wrote a synopsis for each peer rejected suggestion, well lets just say you could write a book. I seriously would have to go with Pesatyels idea, all it takes is just <!-- and a --> around the votes. Anyone with half a brain would be able to see the votes easily, if they can't work it out then they probably won't be able to fix up the suggestion. - JedazΣT ΞD GIS S! 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing I notice is that there are two types of suggestions in Peer Rejected, the spamminated ones and the ones that just died. For example this had 14 keeps and 12 kills, none of which was spam (though I see a few that WOULD be). Of course the suggestion is ALSO in Undecided I just noticed...--Pesatyel 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the mod spam ability? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Jon Pyre might have a good point back there, only removing Spam if it outnumbers all other votes might be a very good way to solve this, i would suggest making it after a minimum of 5 votes though just in case the first few got out of bed the wrong side or something! Oh and "Funt Solo" you can have your wooden spoon back, just cos i only complain about it here doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Yes most SPAM is annoying and deserves insult but an insult isn't a justification and the amount of times i have read votes like 'SPAMSPAMSPAMITYSPAM; its a Mr A suggestion' is taking the piss. If its not against the guidelines then it bloody well should be! --Honestmistake 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry - I was being a dick. You're not going to get anywhere complaining about the wording of Spam votes, though. Trust me. It is against the rules to be insulting, but no mods will enforce it. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks Funt, its cool and I thought it was funny anyway. I know I am banging my head against a wall re: SPAM but it is getting very annoying and it will start driving people of the pages if it gets any worse! --Honestmistake 11:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-Policy Spamination "Discussion"

??? isn't this page just for discusion, i didn't know you could remove stuff from it for SPAM, especialy within 24hours ??? --Honestmistake 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) EDIT: of course if I had read it before typing i would have known, still less than 6hour seems a bit extreme!

Blah blah, whine. Whine whine. Whine, whine whine whine, blah blah, whine. Whine? –Xoid MTFU! 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to be more helpful than your resident sysop, who's clearly in need of a holiday. If you read the Voting Guidelines you'll find that the removal is perfectly permissable. (And if you read the history, you'll see that it was a particularly poorly worded Policy that was difficult to understand.) Oh yeah, and with Gage and Pyre - it's personal - there's a history. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not by my choice. And I do think this was a bit of an unfair spamination (not by the removal rules, Gage was fully permitted to). I mean in terms of vote justification. If you dislike a suggestion why not vote KILL. That's what the KILL vote is for. 5 hours? Sheesh, this page is the dumps now. Nobody wants a fair vote, they just want to wipe things off the page as quickly as possible. I remember back when people voted kill and gave polite criticism. Check the voting record from last year, things have changed. Spam was for getting rid of stuff that wasn't worth debating like "Psychic Zombies" or "Give Zombies Disco Dancing Skillz!". Even a contentious issue like changing PKing or weakening barricades could be handled by a simple kill vote saying "I think this would weaken an important aspect of the game and I don't think it can be improved". Now it's "NERFS MY X, GET IT AWAY".--Jon Pyre 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs a real discusion and not just an insult fest. Most of us are grown ups (probably) and this is getting silly. Can someone move this back out of the vote section and possibly restore the actual subject matter? I would but am incompetant and will only break the page! SPAM use and abuse is getting out of control recently and so many of the SPAM votes should be KILL that its getting silly. The vote going on on the suggestion page regarding PKing has 7 or 8 keeps about the same spams and just 3 kills!--Honestmistake 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All that means is that PK-limiting suggestions almost totally polarise voter opinion - in other words, people either desperately want a limit or they desperately don't. Those that think a few alterations might get a Keep, or who just don't vote Spam ever (they exist) get a few Kill votes thrown into the mix. People use Spam as a strong Kill (ie I will never vote Keep for this suggestion unless it's re-written to the extent that I don't even recognise it as the same thing). What's wrong with that, anyway? This argument just goes on and on in circles, getting nowhere fast... --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Spam being a strong kill is it stops further keep votes from being put down. --Jon Pyre 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Discussion About Spam Being a Strong Kill

Imagine if there was a new "Strong Keep" category where as soon as a suggestion had at least 7 Strong Keeps and strong keeps were 2/3rds of all votes the suggestion could immediately be placed into Peer Reviewed. Plus a mod strong keep vote that let it be put in peer reviewed after 3 Strong Keeps. Does this sound like a good idea? I think strong kill spamination is equally bad. --Jon Pyre 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't add another vote category, because it will make it even harder to reach a consensus on the vote. Do you really want me and 2 of my friends to get together and usher a suggestion into peer reviewed? I think you'd we whining even more than you do currently about the spam vote.--Gage 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh heck no. I'm not suggesting we add this in. It's a terrible idea. It's just an analogy. I think ending voting early is bad either way. Which is why I think that spam should be reserved only when the suggestion is so bad or ridiculous that it is unlikely to get any support. For instance in 2008 if the US Presidental election pits McCain against Obama I wouldn't want the first 7 of 10 million voters to decide Obama doesn't have enough experience to be president and end the election right there before the next 70 million show up. Maybe McCain supporters are right, maybe Obama supporters are. But the election has to happen and everyone's views recorded. But if someone nominated Santa Claus I'd have no problem with the beloved holiday figure being barred from the election. --Jon Pyre 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So why do you have your panties in a bunch?--Gage 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The Spam vote should only crop up on suggestions everyone can agree don't deserve to be there. It should be almost unanimous. If we're seeing votes with 10 keeps and 10 spams that's a clear sign something is wrong. The Spam vote isn't a vote against the suggestion. Kill does that. Ideally it's a vote to save other voters time but if used to end voting early on suggestions that might get moderate support it's a vote against every other voter. That's why I dislike the Strong Kill spam. It's a vote against the suggestion's page. --Jon Pyre 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If people wanted the suggestion to get into Peer Reviewed, they would vote Keep. Their voting habits are their own, and can't be changed. Get off the cross, use the wood to build a bridge and get over it.--Gage 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Jebus H Palaver - I'm starting to think you've got a chemical imbalance, JP. The Spam vote IS a vote against the suggestion. Of course it bloody well is. Saying it isn't won't make you right. You just put your idea for limiting the mod spam up for policy and it got Spammed! Hello? McFly? Earth calling JP! Come in, JP! (And never mind this *power to the people* it's the principle of the thing bullshit - find me just ONE spammed suggestion that you truly believe has any farking chance whatsoever of getting into Peer Reviewed.) Fuuuuuuuucccckkkkkk!!! [FS dragged away by people in white coats.] --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No straight jacket for Funt. He is the sane one.--Gage 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether they'd be peer reviewed or not. This is a supposed democracy. Everyone should get their vote. --Jon Pyre 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, take a Midol. This place isn't a democracy, because Kevan owns it. Hurr.--Gage 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been here a long time and I'm seeing major changes I don't like to the nature of the page. It's all bitter partisan shouting matches, aka "panties in a twist" replacing actual ideas and points. Back in the day it was polite contibutions, friendly rejections, and constructive debate. I suppose I'm just trying to fight that but obviously the voters have changed and their attitudes as well. Screw it, let's just make the categories Keep, Abstain, and Retarded Suggestor. And if someone's idea gets retarded suggestor'd off the user gets banned for a month and people can legally vandalise their wiki page in the meantime. What's the point of this page? Nothing constructive gets accomplished here anymore. We might as well make this a forum for pointless arguing. --Jon Pyre 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, you don't have to spend your time here. The door is the third on your right. Don't let it hit you on the way out.--Gage 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, all this is pretty funny to me, because a few days ago I submitted a humorous suggestion that is exactly like the theoretical example Jon was talking about called Anti-Spam. I think everyone here knows how I feel about the spam vote, so I won't go too far into that. I just find it funny that someone brought up an example like that, because when I was writing Anti-Spam, I kept thinking to myself "You know, this really is just as fair as the spam vote. It's the same reasoning, just in reverse. It has the ability to prevent people from voting, it assumes that if a suggestion's votes are one-sided enough that it's guarranteed to be heading for a certain section, and it allows your vote to have infinite weight under the right circumstances. As ridiculous as the idea is, it only demonstrates what's wrong with the spam vote, because it follows the exact same rules only reversed. --Reaper with no name TJ! 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reaper, if you don't like it that means that your VAGINA IS PAINFULLY BLEEDING. And you should leave the suggestions page. At least according to our resident, sysop. --Jon Pyre 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Jon and Reaper, if I may - I've made a complete knob of myself on the internet more times than I care to remember, so I know where you guys are coming from - it's called the Land of Wrong. Democracy. Okay, say I take a 3-week vacation, I come back and I've missed out on voting on loads of suggestions. I say, hey, that's not fair - I didn't get my democratic right to vote - I demand that voting be re-opened until everyone is back from holiday - in fact, voting should never close! Ever! It's democratic! Bullshit, right? The 2-week limit is a structure that this wiki has chosen to place over the democratic process. So are the mod-spam and the 2/3 spam rules. Thing is, they work. Crap suggestions get spamminated. Less crap suggestions last two weeks. Good suggestions (generally) end up in Peer Reviewed. It's not a perfect system, but it works. Now, say you want to change that - then write a new Policy and put it up for voting. That's democracy. I know, I'm a smart-arse - but you guys are just going over the same ground time and time again, and not even bothering to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong, or not have thought it through completely, or are being irrational, or overly reactionary. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't trying to argue one way or the other so much as express a summarized version of my opinion and leave it at that. I've already discussed the topic in length with you and a few others; there's no need to go back to it. But the main thing I was trying to express was how funny I thought Jon's example was considering how I made a humorous suggestion about it a few days ago. Hmmm...but you have given me an idea for a possible policy...--Reaper with no name TJ! 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think pretty much everyone agrees that the truly bad suggestions like "zombies get bazooka's" deserve to die ASAP but this isn't really about that is it? If you hate a suggestion so much you think it is irredeemable your vote should reflect that, its called SPAM. If you think a suggestion is utterly rediculous and extracting the urine your vote should be able to reflect that too and it does, its called SPAM! The problem is that these are really two very different votes and the system should reflect that. By all means get rid of the 'mini-gun' and 'uberzombie' suggestions with the minimum of SPAMMAGE but... A vote on a subject that gets as much support and as much loathing as this topic deserves to live more than the few hours this topic got when put to the vote. I don't know what time zone other voters were in but in the UK the vote on the subject a few days ago was posted at about 5AM and removed promptly at 8AM with only 6 votes! Yes 5 of them were spam but i get out of bed at 7:45 and the first thing i do is NOT check the wiki, but 5 people who get up earlier (or go to bed waay later) got there first and removed it... still I would have liked the chance to vote all the same!!!--Honestmistake 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, a suggestion can be removed with as few as THREE votes (if the author doesn't vote; 4 if the author does vote). With that few votes, it is more a matter of TIMING than it is about who voted what. Look at that jackass Poopman who "votes spam because everyone else is voting keep." Granted his votes are removed, but I think some people here DO have the tendency to abuse the spam vote (such as before when people voted spam because it was a "Mr.A Suggestion." I think Jon is going to start getting those soon...). Basically, post your suggestion at the "wrong" time and it can be removed within minutes if the first 3 people think it sucks enough. Bear in mind too that voting is almost purely subjective (zombies with bazooka suggestions not withstanding). Jon is arguing that one man's spam might be another man's keep...but we won't know because the suggestion gets removed after 3 votes. The two choices I think we have on the subject are to

  • A) remove the MOD spam rule. We already HAVE a spam vote rule (minimum 7 and more spams than keeps) why do we need the other? And, no offense to any mods, it just seems to me too tempting a power trip to be THE deciding factor on whether a suggestion stays or not so early in the vote (and, yes I realize that mods here are NOT impartial).
  • B), I believe there was some discussion about requiring a suggestion stay up for a minimum of day before it can be pulled via the spam vote. I'll see if I can find it.--Pesatyel 03:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be open to making to where the mod spam vote had to have a minimum number of total votes. What does everyone think of 7 total votes, at least 3 spams, and spams outnumber keeps?--Gage 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that works. I also think there should be a way to revived spammed suggestions in case voters feel it should be restored, before the two weeks are up. How about this: spammed suggestions while removed to previous days are left on the main page, simply commented out. Voters can choose to read it and if they want it to come back they can sign it. If it gets five signatures anyone can restore it. --Jon Pyre 07:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a seperate page would work cos lets face it a lot of SPAM is worthy of the name. Surely a simpler method would just to rule that SPAM remains until the page cycles to a new days suggestions. That is whoever does the page refresh also deletes anything which would class as SPAM! Regular users would be able to read it, less regular readers would see the summary of why it was removed and be able to check the history if it looks like a close vote. I don't think this is ideal but it may be a compromise we can all agree on...--Honestmistake 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Test the Spam Vote

It's come to my attention that this whole issue with the spam vote is never going to be solved if things remain as-is. Here's what I think the crux of the issue is: People who don't like the spam vote: It removes suggestions before everyone has a fair chance to vote on them. People who like the spam vote: If it gets that many spam votes that quickly, it's total crap and deserves to be spaminated.

Now, I think the problem we have here is that both sides are making an assumption. One side assumes that spaminated suggestions have a chance of making Undecided or Peer Reviewed if given the chance, and the other side assumes they do not. However, as things stand now, we have no way of determining who is right. Basically, I think we need to test it somehow. One possibiliy I've thought of would be to temporarily have some sort of page where people can continue voting on a suggestion after it has been spaminated to see how it would have done had it not been spaminated. If at the end of the period all of the spaminated suggestions still fulfill the requirements, then we can conclude that the spam vote works. If there are spaminated suggestions that do not fulfill the requirements any longer, then we can conclude that the spam vote does not work.

Of course, that's just one idea. But I think something needs to be done. Otherwise this debate is going to go back and forth forever. --Reaper with no name TJ! 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that, its getting very angry here at the moment so why not test it just for a week or 2 and ban SPAM removals legitimacy temporarily. Yes the shit will hit the page cos some people will take the oportunity to post enough fertilizer to make ethiopia bloom but we might finally stop arguing and do something constructive, you know the stuff we really log on for?--Honestmistake 01:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of that as a possibility too, but I have a feeling that if it was put forth that way people won't like it. What I was thinking was that instead of moving spaminated suggestions directly to peer rejected they could be moved to some sort of intermediate page where they could continue to be voted on until the two weeks are up. That way they won't clutter up the main suggestions page. --Reaper with no name TJ! 01:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is another page to moderate... jesus... are you trying to kill me?--Gage 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Testing for a week is stupid. One week doesn't count for the number of people who come in every now and then to leave tripe en masse. Or the bad days, some days are fine. Others exist where crappy suggestions are pandemic. You want a month trial, I'm willing to consider it, but one week doesn't give enough time for the spam vote to prove itself. –Xoid MTFU! 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, hold on there. I haven't even gotten into how long I think this should last yet. Honestly, I'm not even sure how long it should be. That's one of the many reasons I'm putting this idea out there for discussion. --Reaper with no name TJ! 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've put forward my idea for a compromise as a Policy below. (This topic has been discussed non-stop for about 2 months now, so I think I've allowed the required discussion period.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If Funt's rather good idea below fails to pass what about this for an alternative: spamination doesn't remove the suggestion to peer rejected. Instead it just comments it and the votes out, leaving only the title, author's name, and a one sentence summary by the author. If future voters care to read the suggestion they can add their votes in the still commented out area. Once the suggestion has enough votes to beat spamination anyone can restore it. If it gets enough votes to be spammed again anyone can comment it out. Voters are still saved reading crap, it's all commented out and invisible, but if the suggestion summary is enough to get them to vote they still have a chance to and the suggestion can be restored. --Jon Pyre 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The problems I have with your idea:
  • It's not visible to many casual wiki surfers.
  • I edit the suggestions pages (cycling the votes), and having large chunks of commented out content will be a pain in the arse to work around.
  • The size of the pages (in KB).
  • The whole idea of people voting in an invisible environment, and the necessity for moderators to look both at the visible and invisible content.
--Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not designed to be visible to casual wiki surfers. This would just be for those willing to look at spaminated suggestions.
How would commented out comment make things harder? I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm just curious because it's just ordinary text like anything else. I wouldn't imagine moving it should be any harder.
Suggestions aren't as plentiful now that authors are limited. I don't think the page has gotten close to the limit in recent memory, even without things getting removed.
Moderators wouldn't need to bother with it. Once it got enough votes the voter would just remove the comment tags and make it visible again. --Jon Pyre 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you ask - it would be more difficult because as part of the cycling of suggestions, one has to find the point in the suggestions page code where one day's suggestions end and the other begins (unless one wants to move them all one by one to Previous Days). This involves rapidly scrolling down the page looking out for the name of the suggestion you've identified as the crossover point - and the more stuff that's on the page, the harder it is to find. Plus, you suggest that voters can add their votes into the commented out section, in order to de-spam a spammed suggestion. Those (invisible) votes would need to be moderated just as the visible votes are now. That's why your idea's not a winner for me. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Make Dupe a Seperate Category

I think we should make a fourth category for Dupe votes. They don't really mean spam, use different rules for removal, and I've seen people write things like "I like it but it is the same as ______". Dupe voters would be able to put down Dupe/Keep or Dupe/Kill so if the suggestion doesn't get removed as a Dupe they can have it recorded whether they support or oppose the change. --Jon Pyre 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for this change. Period.--Gage 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I count Dupe votes as no votes when I tally. For it to count as a Dupe during voting it has to say Dupe somewhere, not just this looks a bit like. 3 mentions of Dupe, with one link, and off it goes. It all works rather well. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There have been times when I've thought a suggestion might a be a dupe but didn't want it to be placed in peer rejected and have avoided voting Dupe for that reason. While Spam and Kill are judgements of the suggestion's merit Dupe is just about originality. Alternatively instead of making a third category we could just let people put DUPE in either Keep, Kill, or Spam. It'll count as a Dupe vote and if the suggestion isn't Duped it'll be counted in whatever category it's in. That way they can try to have it removed as a Dupe but also indicate their stance. --Jon Pyre 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Dupe votes would be lost that way. They would be hard to pick out of 25 votes.--Gage 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think it's a duplicate, Jon, then why would you want to Keep it? I mean, really? Voters are free to change their vote if, for example, they vote Dupe but nobody else does. This doesn't need any change in regulations. Just leave it alone. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
True, they can change it. I suppose it isn't that big a problem. --Jon Pyre 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam Removal Alteration

NOTE: This has been edited (note the strikeouts) after the voting that took place.--Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This policy proposes that:

  1. No suggestion may be spaminated (or mod-spaminated) until it has been moved from spent at least 6 hours on any Suggestions page. to Previous Days Suggestions.
  2. When a suggestion is spaminated, a note will be included along with the removal, with the purpose of summarising the votes.

#The spaminated suggestion, comments included, be moved to the discussion page for that particular day, in order to maintain a record of the votes (this in addition to the current procedure of moving the suggestion minus votes to Peer Rejected Suggestions).

In other words, every suggestion, however terrible, would spend approximately a full day on the main suggestions page. (It's approximate, because suggestions are moved according to what date they were posted, not what time they were posted, and the time of the move varies from day to day.)

The following would not be effected, and could still be removed at any time:

  • Vandalism.
  • Humorous suggestions.
  • Duplicate suggestions.
  • Incorrectly formatted suggestions.
  • A second suggestion by the same author on the same day.

Reasons for the change:

  • There are already many methods (see list above) for quickly removing suggestions that do not belong on the page.
  • Spamination currently doesn't keep a record of the votes, and this solvescompromises on that issue without cluttering up the main suggestions discussionPeer Rejected Suggestions page. (ie this page).
  • Early spamination is controversial and causes bad feeling amongst the wiki contributers, and this addresses that issue with a compromise.

Text of the change:

  • The rules for removal already contain the instruction List or summarize/paraphrase the comments/reasons made on the Spam votes., so that doesn't need changed, just adhered to.
  • The paragraph that begins Eligibility for Spamination could have this sentence added to the end: No suggestion may be spaminated unless it has been up for voting for at least 6 hours.

--Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


NOTE This was removed from voting, against my wishes, by A Bothan Spy/Cyberbob (one of the Spam voters, you'll note). His opinion is that it's not been discussed already for 24 hours. My opinion is that it has. As he's a moderator, I have no alternative but to go along with his opinion, as I don't want to partake in a messy edit war. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I like your passive-aggressive style. Why don't you ask Gold Blade how effective it is? Cyberbob  Talk  17:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone that disagrees with your heavy-handed approach, you compare them to Goldblade? That's pretty pathetic, you know. There's enough drama around here without you adding to it, thankyou very much. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm only enforcing the rules. You think you're above them? Go right ahead. See where it gets you. Cyberbob  Talk  17:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, you're clearly trying to goad me into doing something that gets me banned by you. I'm not going to fall for it. Go play with your banhammer somewhere that it's actually needed, you silly little boy. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not goading you into anything. You can take what I say however you wish. I am, in fact, warning you away from that path. Not my fault you take everything that comes out of my mouth with a grain of salt. Cyberbob  Talk  17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Yes/Author - I think it's time for a change, to stop all the bickering (and I include myself in that). --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes - It's a great idea. The main problem I've had with the spam vote is that it can potentially remove a suggestion before a significant portion of the wiki community has had a chance to vote on it. If you have a whole day to vote on a suggestion and don't, then that's your fault. --Reaper with no name TJ! 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Horrible. This still allows people to spam the main suggestions page. This doesn't solve the problem at all.--Gage 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re Well, it depends what you define the problem as. If it's "I didn't get a chance to vote on that suggestion that got spaminated by three people at half past four in the morning" then this does solve it. If a suggestion is totally ridiculous (eg Flying Donkeys) or abusive (eg Gage Sucks Zebras) then it can be removed as either humorous or vandalism. Really, what's the problem with a crap suggestion sitting on the page? Or ten? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Voter fatigue. Do you want to read all that shit?--Gage 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    If I see 10 spam votes and 2 keeps, I won't bother. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Fuck no. Unneccessary red tape FTL. Cyberbob  Talk  14:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes - 24 hours is long enough for most of the votes to be cast anyway. The Mad Axeman 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - The whole point of the spam vote is being able to get rid of a shitty suggestion so that a significant portion of the wiki doesn't have to waste their time with it. --Xoid 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re - The problem with the spam vote is that it stops a significant portion of the wiki from making up their own mind. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Re: I reiterate; that is the point of the spam vote — to remove crap quickly. –Xoid MTFU! 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    That's crap in your opinion, Xoid. You (or you and three other people, or seven other people) are not the wiki. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    And the one or two or even three people who like a shitty suggestion are? Cyberbob  Talk  17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well, we all are - which I think is the point I was trying to make. What's your point? That you've learned to type? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    I'm pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of your assertion. If seven people aren't the wiki, how can fewer than seven be? Cyberbob  Talk  17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    yes but the seven SPAMMERS can stop the seven of us who are willing to be constuctive from doing so! If you think something is really crap then go ahead and vote SPAM but if someone else thinks it is a worthwhile thought and the SPAM brigade got there first his vote doesn't count. All we want is the chance to have our say, so really is that so bad?--Honestmistake 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    If you want to have your say, and a suggestion got Spaminated, bring it up on the talk page. It is, after all, what it's there for. Cyberbob  Talk  18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. keep i just added something almost the same to the 'Strong Kill' section above so having read a detailed version of the same i am hardly going to vote no!!!--Honestmistake 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC) EDIT. Xoid do you really think that the SPAM vote is working so perfectly that it should not be changed? This is not a democracy but those of us who disagree have a right not to be spammed of the page for not being on your side! Thank you FUNT for trying (and i think suceeding) to find a fair compromise.
  8. YES This is perfect. Everything gets a fair shake, then if it doesn't make the cut straight to limbo with it. Now that authors can only make one suggestion a day spamming things super quick isn't that important. --Jon Pyre 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yes I like this policy. --Axe27 18:10, 18 December 2006 (PST)

Look Funt, I understand the sentiment. Can we negotiate on the 24 hours thing? What do you think of 6 hours? You can't tell me that this belongs on the suggestion page for 24 hours. I think 6 is fair, don't you?--Gage 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely we can negotiate. I actually like the current system - I just want to end all the bickering - it's doing my head in. 6 hours sounds fair. What say the rest of you? (I suppose a summary of the votes would suffice instead of retaining the votes - which is the other issue that gets brought up all the time. Are you happy with providing a quick summary along with your mod-spam, Gage?) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
See? Isn't it nice what discussion can achieve? Cyberbob  Talk  18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Would the summary be provided on the {{prejection}} template or on the suggestions page blurb about why it got spaminated?--Gage 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I imagined just in the removal note. There's no point in cluttering up Peer Rejected, I think. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Gage 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the proposal in line with the suggested alterations. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
My goodness!!! whats this a compromise, never I demand the full 24houts!!! Only joking, I would strongly prefer 12 hours as that would give some leeway to people who sleep different hours but 6 seems a good point to start with and the fact that we are being reasonble again is enough of a miracle to sway me...--Honestmistake 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I also would prefer at least 12 hours. Remember, not everyone who votes here is in the same time zone (or necessarily even near a given time zone). If it was only 6 hours suggestions could be submitted and spaminated in the time between a person going to bed and waking up. And I really don't want to get in an argument with Gage, but the example he gave of a suggestion that doesn't deserve to be on the suggestions page for 24 hours was in my opinion very deserving of at least that much time (possibly even the full two weeks). And that's really the whole problem: eligibility for the spam vote varies for each person. What one person considers reasonable another might consider ridiculous. So if we want to keep spamination but make it fair, we're going to have to give everyone a fair chance to vote on it. Besides, how much spam would this really create? A user can only post 1 suggestion a day, and vandalism can be removed immediately. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
My assumption is that the Spam system was brought into life when there were about 20 suggestions a day, so there is a point to be made about it being less necessary than it once was, in terms of clearing away the dross. It's also true that people sometimes chase the Spam - that is, they post things like "c'mon, only one more Spam to get rid of this one". Plus, there's the example of when a suggestion was removed within half an hour of it being posted - but when that removal was reversed the suggestion went on to almost make Peer Undecided - it was another of the very controversial PK-limiting suggestions. Having said all of that, I think the 6-hour limit would soften the "urge to spam quickly" somewhat. Certainly, if it's something that people can agree on, it's a good starting point. Voting against on the grounds that 12 hours is better would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. 6 hours would be a step in the direction you want to go. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a kill vote would be stupid but we are kinda discusing vote integrity here. Would anyone mind if someone (not me I would break the page... again!) put a vote or even just a new heading for the prefered duration, i know this is getting tedious but thats negotiation for you and at least it would help make sure we only need to vote once? A simple 'duration' followed by a signiture will do for the vote and yes "no change" (ie 0 hours) would be a valid vote as would "no removal" (ie 14 days)--Honestmistake 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Learn to indent, you scuzz-funk! ;) (People can have their say here about the duration - if tons of people turn up saying 12 hours, I'll change the policy text.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll vote Yes for 6 hours. Maybe make it eight though just so it's an even third of day? But whatevs, I'll suport this however it's proposed. --Jon Pyre 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It is an even 1/4 of a day at 6 hours.--Gage 07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, but 1/3rd is somehow more...filling. Like a bigger piece of cookie. But I'm good with either, my Yes vote is already down. --Jon Pyre 07:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This policy now up for voting, below --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy Votes

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

Spam Removal Alteration

This policy proposes that:

  1. No suggestion may be spaminated (or mod-spaminated) until it has spent at least 6 hours on any Suggestions page.
  2. When a suggestion is spaminated, a note will be included along with the removal, with the purpose of summarising the votes.

The following would not be effected, and could still be removed at any time:

  • Vandalism.
  • Humorous suggestions.
  • Duplicate suggestions.
  • Incorrectly formatted suggestions.
  • A second suggestion by the same author on the same day.

Reasons for the change:

  • There are already many methods (see list above) for quickly removing suggestions that do not belong on the page.
  • Spamination currently doesn't keep a record of the votes, and this compromises on that issue without cluttering up the Peer Rejected Suggestions page.
  • Early spamination is controversial and causes bad feeling amongst the wiki contributers, and this addresses that issue with a compromise.

Text of the change:

  • The rules for removal already contain the instruction "List or summarize/paraphrase the comments/reasons made on the Spam votes": so that doesn't need changed, just adhered to.
  • The paragraph that begins "Eligibility for Spamination" would have this sentence added to the end: "No suggestion may be spaminated unless it has been up for voting for at least 6 hours."

--Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Please vote Yes, No or Spam

  1. Author/Yes - Even for those who think 6 hours is too short a time, this is a step in the direction they wish to go. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes - I would like a little more, but this is a lot better than nothing. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. 'Oh alright Yes' i am voting yes because i know that a lot of people who hate this idea may compromise for 6 hours but probably wouldn't for the 12 i think would be ideal.--Honestmistake 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC) EXTRA THOUGHT to help the mods out if this becomes policy it should specifically allow whoever does the daily page refresh to remove SPAM even if its only been there 2 or 3 hours! I am sure it would be a real pain to have to come back to a previous days page just to remove it then!--Honestmistake 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    You misunderstand - each daily suggestion page is an extension of the main suggestion page. Everything from a single day gets cycled, and may thereafter still be spammed. Hell, a suggestion up for 13 days of votes could be spammed on the last day. It doesn't matter where the suggestion is up for voting, just that it must be for at least 6 hours. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yes - Sure, it makes sense to me. - JedazΣT ΞD GIS S! 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes Definitely makes things better. The speed of the spam vote was designed when one author could write 10 crappy suggestions in one day. --Jon Pyre 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Yes I think 8 or 12 might be better. But, as Funt said this is at least a step in the right direction.--Pesatyel 03:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yes - 6 is fine.--Gage 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes - As gage.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Spam Yes - Its fairer this way, and anyway if it really is spam it will get removed after 6 hours anyway. --MarieThe Grove 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC) --MarieThe Grove 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Er... are you for or against the policy? Your vote says you're against, but your comment suggests you're for... Cyberbob  Talk  16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Ohh dear... The suggestion was about spamming and I typed it in by accident. My Bad... --MarieThe Grove 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Spam, spam, spam, spam, spaaaaaaaam, spammity spam. As the Vikings say. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Seems OK to me. Cyberbob  Talk  16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes - Very good point. Whether or not a suggestion gets spaminated has everything to do with who is on the suggestions page at the time.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Not really. It has everything to do with the quality of the suggestion. Cyberbob  Talk  17:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    To be fair, it depends on both. --Toejam 20:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to say quality doesn't matter, I'm saying that (For example) an anti-PKer suggestion is very likely to get spaminated if there are 12 or so PKers on the page at that time. Quality plays a minor role.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 04:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    I've seen PKers vote to keep a number of PKing-related suggestions. It's a bit rich for you to be harping on about this, isn't it? Cyberbob  Talk  05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    I think Labine's point is well made - and of course there's a key example to back up his point, where a suggestion was mod-spaminated within half an hour of being posted, but was then de-spaminated and went on for the full two weeks of voting. Of course, it never made Peer Reviewed. So, as Toejam rightly points out, the truth lies somewhere in between, rather than this being a black and white issue. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    You may be right, but the emphasis is definitely on the quality of the suggestion. Cyberbob  Talk  04:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    "Compromise" is in the dictionary between "cock" and "c*nt". --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    "Funt" is one letter away from "Cunt". I still don't get your meaning. Cyberbob  Talk  07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Which Letter?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    F, which also happens to start off "Fuckwit". <3 Cyberbob  Talk  10:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Oh me oh my! "Funt" rhymes with "c..." Oh lordy lord! I never imagined...I never thought that...whatever shall I do? etc. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yep, though I'd rather see 10-12 hours.--_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 17:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Yes A good solution! --Burgan 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yes - As above. --Toejam 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Yes - Would also prefer longer time period.--Nosimplehiway 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Yes - Meh, a lil' short, but no biggie. I reckon about eight would be ideal. –Xoid MTFU! 10:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Yes - Sounds Good. Pillsy FT 12:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Yes - Makes sense. --Dead Man Wade 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Yes - If you're only allowed 1 suggestion a day, it really does piss you off if it gets removed in less than an hour. Regardless, so it's all fair. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 04:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Yes - You got my vote. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 13:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Yes - Someone could later suggest 12 hours, and see if that gets accepted as well. Untill then, 6 hours is better than nothing. -- BzAli 18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Yes - The current system is too prone to voting fluctuations. Six hours should smooth things out without cluttering up the page too much. --IrradiatedCorpse 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Yes - An excellent solution.--J Muller 03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Yes The Mad Axeman 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Yes - Looks good to me. --Zap 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Yes - I've seen several suggestions as of late that are spaminated after just 3 spam votes. -Schizmo 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well, that could still happen even with this change - it's just that the moderator would have to wait for 6 hours. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Why the Hell Not. - Make the would-be contributors feel good about themselves for five minutes before we spaminate them. Daniel Hicken 19:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. No - So we have to leave zombie head exploding suggestions on the page for at least 6 hours before removing it. NO. FUCKING. WAY.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    A nice, reasoned response there (considering that humorous suggestions can be removed immediately). Still, it's nice to have at least one 'no' vote. Go, General! --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 20:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. No - Junk is junk, and giving it 6 hours to shit up the page isnt going to make it any less junk, nor will it change the outcome of the vote in the slightest. If people really wanted to see the suggestion after it is removed, they can check out Peer Rejected. Forcing retarded drivel to remain on the page for a period of six hours, regardless of how many spam votes it has recieved serves absolutely no purpose except to frustrate voters. If the purpose of this is to see the comments made about the suggestion, then make a rule change to make the paraphrasing of the spam votes mandatory on the peer rejected page, instead of forcing users to wade through ill thought out garbage. --Grim s-Mod U! 04:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    Grim does have a point here, i just re-read this and realised it bans removing all spam for 6 hours, I thought the intention was to give a larger number of voters the choice to decide? if something has 7 Spam votes out of 10 in 3 hours it almost certainly deserves to die... that said my vote remains unchanged but i do think we should bear in mind that some spam really should die ASAP and its mostly pretty obvious which it is! --Honestmistake 11:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    The entire point of this proposal is that those 7 people are making a decision before the rest of the community has a chance to make theirs. I understand completely what you're saying - some stuff is so obviously spam it's not even funny - but you can't quantify that. What I mean to say is, you can't have a rule that says obvious spam will be removed in under 6 hours but non-obvious spam won't be, because what's obvious to one person may not be to another. So, in voting Yes to this proposal you're agreeing that you can cope with stupid suggestions remaining on the page for at least 6 hours. The bonus is that a controversial suggestion can't be removed by three voters (using mod-spam) within 5 minutes of it being posted. You don't get something for nothing with this proposal. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, not according to the suggestion above. No suggestion may be spaminated (or mod-spaminated) until it has spent at least 6 hours on any Suggestions page. Controversial is NOT the same thing as vandalism.--Pesatyel 06:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Yes - if the spam vote wasn't so over-used this wouldn't be necessary -- boxy T L PA DA 04:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. No Yes - it's true the spam vote is over-used and that should be changed but this suggestion doesn't address the problem. People just need to be more stringent about deleting spam votes that belong in kill or are invalid. Not to point fingers or hold grudges but coincidentally the author may be guilty of that (and I'm sure many others who have commented--I'm just referencing my last suggestion). --Wfjeff 08:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    This proposal is not trying to address any issue surrounding use of the Spam vote, partly because there's no solution. What I think is ridiculous, the person next to me thinks is salvageable, and the person next to them thinks is great. People can't go around deleting other people's votes because of what they think the other person should think - that way lies chaos and madness. What this proposal is attempting is to give all suggestions a fairer crack of the whip, by allowing more people a chance to voice their opinion. Whilst it may make no difference to where the suggestion in question ultimately ends up, the suggester may feel less hard done by in what is quite a harsh system. Less drama is a good enough reason, in my opinion. And opinion is what this is all about. Cheers for your vote, any road. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, I can support that. I've always thought there is a serious shortage of good will toward men on the suggestions page. Sparing some feelings is a good enough cause for me. I'm not sure fixing the spam vote is a hopeless cause though. I think some clearer guidelines for when to use it would do wonders. Right now it's used mostly as a strong kill, which exactly what it's not for. --Wfjeff 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yes - Sure, might as well. - JedazΣT ΞD GIS S! 11:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the support, Jedaz, but one vote each, eh? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    Oh whoops, I forgot that I've already voted on this. Thanks for picking that one up. - JedazΣT ΞD GIS S! 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. Yes - Sounds good to me, even though there is some complete crap from time to time. --Mnbvcx 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. yes this is a start, anyway. Asheets 03:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Yes This is great! When is it going to be implanted? Danny lee
    It should be implanted after two weeks of voting - which would be at around 6pm today. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting Closed. Result: 32/34 yes/total. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools