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.


I've got an issue with a number of one-word votes. In my opinion a vote should only count if it also provides a viable, intelligent argument/reasoning along with it. The reason should be required before the vote is counted. --Squashua 13:15, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Good thing this is under STUPID since what your saying is the very meaning of the word. Its a vote not a debate! We also have this discussion place for people to discuss their reasons or propose changes. --THOR 13:15, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
damnit, squashua, you made me agree with thor--Spellbinder 16:56, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
The problem I have is that we're "peers" reviewing, but who is everyone and other than likely being a player of the game, what's their qualification for being able to lay down judgement? --Squashua 19:27, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
ah, so you have this idea of there being some kind of a ruling elite that hand down suggestions from on high? little hint: if there is such a circle of players, your not in it.--Spellbinder 20:38, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Squashua, it works the same way as democracy. You hope the smart outweight the stupid. And even if some people don't consider our leaders to be real bright (whichever country you are from), the system itself has worked ok for centuries. We're in our first week, so that might leave us a good many years before we start our fall :p McArrowni 03:07, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Unsigned Votes

New issue: Unsigned votes. Do they count? Should they be eliminated? --Squashua 19:27, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Unsigned votes can be eliminated, I think. Shadowstar 19:38, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Unsigned votes ARE eliminated. If you see one, give the user a half an hour or so to correct his mistake (lord knows i forget to timestamp my posts all the time) but if its there for a couple of hours, go ahead and deleated it. --Spellbinder 20:38, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Question. In my n00bish start here, I didn't know how to timestamp correctly. So I just entered the link to my user page with the date. Is this valid? And if it isn't, can I make a new timestamp, since it's several days later than when I posted it? McArrowni 01:09, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
i'm not 100% sure i know what your asking... If it has a time stamp on it, and its on the main page, i'm sure that someone will be willing to cleen up the minor errors, just as long as the time is right. i meen, a couple of hours either way i don't think is going to make much of a difference, its just the date and general time that we want. Post some linkage in my user discussion area and i'll do my best to help. :) --Spellbinder 01:33, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Is there any reason why most suggestions that are posted here attract such rudeness? Just because you consider a suggestion to be bad doesn't mean you need to abuse the person who writes it. A simple kill vote should do the trick. Gilganixon 07:59, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)

You have a point. I know I've crossed that line some times... Then again, some suggestions just break nearly ALL the rules of decency... But yeah, I'll try to be nice McArrowni 14:40, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I can't really speak for everybody, but I've been here about 3 days voting and I'm already bitter. People make the same suggestions over and over without reading ANY guidelines. 90% of the stuff posted is total excrement, and quite a few couldn't pass as fourth grade grammar. If you can't be bothered to read two paragraphs after having your stuff deleted the first time, you probably shouldn't expect me to be nice. Have a nice day! --Zaruthustra 16:19, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I like to think that I'm more than cordial in my suggestions and my votes and my posts. I try to keep the grammar proper as well. Your != You're. --Squashua 20:36, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I got no problem with people omitting the occasional contraction. They're tools of oppression anyways. What Im referring to is people who just have a blatant contempt for the english language, and transfer that into their suggestions. --Zaruthustra 22:10, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I see your points... the vast majority of these suggestions are just appalling and I don't think this system of suggestions is working very well. Would it be possible to get some kind of statement from Kevin about what sort of suggestions he may be receptive to, then have some of the more active wiki contributors use this list to filter out some of the worst suggestions before they hit this page? Or, you know, just filter them out anyway? I haven't been here long but it's painfully obvious which suggestions are just going to be rejected because they're terrible. Gilganixon 23:48, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I disagree that it is not working. This is only the first two weeks, and it's going to be hell all the way to that landmark. But soon, we'll have a peer rejected page, and will be able to delete suggestions that have already been suggested there. View those stupid suggestions as extra ammo later to shoot down their later incarnations (provided they aren't changed substancially) --McArrowni 13:55, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)

(Restarting indents) Heres to hoping. The problem being that people don't seem to be even reading the current suggestions already up, much less the ones on another page. Perhaps it should be stressed more to read before posting? Historically wikis have been able to destroy static faster than it is created, but this seems different. I stand by my suggestions for stricter moderation. --Zaruthustra 22:55, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Well i dunno about stricter, but i'm doing my part. Spam votes for the horrable ideas, i'm deleating the copy ideas (which is harder to do then i thought) and editing all the mistakes and little wiki errors. (like forgetting a ' here and there) But i'm no spelling guru, so if that bugs you feel free to edit all my mistakes, but u will n3v3r f1nd m3 p0sting lik3 thius--Spellbinder 00:09, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Modding votes?

I was wondering if there is some way to moderate votes. Not in a fascist "I dont like this so I think I'll just delete is HAHAHA" way but for those votes that seem to have no basis in actual fact. It just seems unfair that just because somebody can't be bothered to read one paragraph another person's idea is going to be killed (very probable with the volume of props and number of people voting now). Example:

  • Kill If zombies are able to put speech on walls that is stupid! Zombies are dumb brainless creatures and should not be allowed to artisicly express themselves. whats next zombie operas? Books? Encyclopedias?--PooBear 23:38, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Re: There is no mention of speech in the suggestion. Please revise if you still want to vote for a kill, otherwise I don't think it counts due to not being based on the suggestion. -- Amazing 19:55, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Fortunately this idea wasn't in any danger of being deleted due to PooBear's deep insights, but I'm sure there will be others that won't be so lucky. Discuss. --Zaruthustra 22:32, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • No way, for multiple reasons
1. That would be censure, pure and simple.
2. It would also likely lead to misunderstandings and thus possibly bitter edit wars. It's a part of communication that many people understand what they want to understand from what others are saying/writing, and tend to disregard the rest. This is true both for people reading the suggestions as it is for people reading the votes. Also, people tend to assume the other side is populated by morons and don't try to understand whatever they're trying to say.
3. Votes aren't the place for discussion. I'm pretty sure people try to be brief in their explanation for voting, and that means sometimes they'll be hard to understand and look stupid.
4. People have no obligation to write why they vote what they vote, and shoudn't be punished for expressing themselves.

In other words, IMO, you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater most of the time --McArrowni 05:19, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Yeah, hopefully everything can be cleared up with a "RE:" but sometimes I think there may be a danger that others will get the wrong idea of they read through votes more carefully than the suggestion itself. The key is for suggestors to keep up with the votes and respond to anything errant right away. The real question is this: Does an errant vote count? I hope not, because otherwise one could theoretically vote 'Kill' on every idea because "Zombies can't fly!" even though it has nothing to do with anything. Heh. -- Amazing 18:22, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
One could theorically vote 'Kill' on every idea giving no reason, either. Or simply because they are idiots, or have little or no understanding of the game, or how games develop. That's the drawbacks of a democratic voting system. But we allow these people to vote because we haven't got an alternative that works better. No system is perfect, and I think it would be too much of a risk to allow people to mess with other's votes, unless those votes are blatant attempts at a disruption of the system. --McArrowni 20:48, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Indeed one could vote 'Kill' with no reason -- and that would be fine, of course, because it doesn't mislead others or present the possibility of clouding the view of other voters. I'm not saying it dang-sure-hell needs to be moderated or struck through, just a suggestion. At least we have 'Re:' :D -- Amazing

This was moved in from a different area. I didn't realize the discussion was already going on when I started this post. -- Amazing 18:22, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It's me again. I had another thought.. I am encountering some errant voting in that a couple (very few) people don't read my suggestion correctly, if at all, then vote to Kill based on something that isn't even in the text. For example, voting against "Defile" and saying Zombies can't write. If you read "Defile" you will see it doesn't mention writing at all. My proposal is that ANYONE be allowed to use Strikethrough on the vote of someone who is misunderstanding or not reading the suggestion. That way the vote and the text get to stay put without being deleted, but it'll look like this:

Kill The suggestion of having people wear hats is stupid becuase people don't have heads! You're an idiot. -- Sample Guy 05:47, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

See? It's there to display WHY the vote was crossed out, so the writer of the comment as well as anyone else browsing can see that it wasn't merely removed for being negative. (IE: No one gets accused of removing votes they don't like.) There could also be a RE: follow-up explaining the strikethrough. -- Amazing 05:47, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Hm, you're making me reconsider all of my unexplained votes. At any rate, this is a decent idea, but if other people think the reasoning is legit, they should be allowed to uncross it.--Milo 14:32, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Why are we having this discussion at two places at once? See above under the "modding votes". What I said there apply here. This is an horrible idea. Judging a that a voter is "misunderstanding" or "didn't read" doesn't seem like it can be done objectively to me. This rule will end up being used left and right for no good reason. Add to that that it needlessly complicates a simple system. --McArrowni 16:48, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
You know.. I didn't realize I had been quoted until just now! Sorry about that, I guess I was lax in not reading the entire page through. Also, the thing about not being objective was kind of why I was thinking strikethrough instead of total deletion. That opens it up to public opinion, people could see what the vote was and decide if they think it should count or not. But yeah, no reason for two discussions on the same thing.. thanks! :X -- Amazing 18:17, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Sorry if I was rude... first week of the new suggestion page was hell. I understand you'd like the "errant" votes to be voted on? What about people who have a good idea but did not express it properly? And woudn't that clog up voting areas fast? McArrowni 20:57, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I like the idea of strikethrough. Any further contention over a vote could be in discussion. I really think theres a difference between censorship and quality control. You're not getting kept down by the man if your post has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It just means that you aren't capable of participating in the process. Also, when I proposed this I was thinking about mods, not wiki free for all. Obviously letting everybody decide what is a bad vote is just begging for anarchy. Perhaps the strike out system could be used and mods could have the final word in it? That way a balance is struck between mods having to slog through endless votes and every user being able to do whatever they want. --Zaruthustra 22:43, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Discussion of current page format

To make it official, The new Suggestions system as now officially been put in place. Let's see how this one fairs... -- Odd Starter 03:21, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Placing suggestions

A hint whether you should add your new suggestion at the top of the page or at the bottom would probably help... I decided to stick mine to the bottom, but was not sure, so I had a quick look at the dates... apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't know ;) Madalex 21:34, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)

alphabetical would be an organized method to prevent clutter and make it easier to navigate. Is there a way to make the list automatically alphabatize itself? .--THOR
well, it kinda is in an order. if people put there's on the bottom, then its in cronological order. MY issue is now that people are falseifying the timestamp. i meen, what the hell for?!?!?! i think mabey there is a little misunderstanding? do people think that if they rush there sugestion into the peer accapted fourm, then their skill is going to go into the game?--Spellbinder 01:21, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
They probably just copy and paste other suggestions, and forget to replace the date with ~~~~~--Milo 15:37, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Its the Th0or show

Obviously, Recoil and Thor are the same person.--Milo 15:41, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)

you think so too? --Spellbinder 17:10, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
buh? did someone take recoil out, or did thor do it willingly?--Spellbinder 21:21, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I took out Recoil wherever Thor also voted.--Milo 21:26, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Unheeded lessions? (in other words, he's back)--Spellbinder 19:02, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Hey, as long as he doesn't multi, it's all cool.--Milo 18:45, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Now is that Thor, THOR, or Th0r
I think he's back again, with new names, LOL... I don't know why certain people take this sh*t so seriously, as if Kevan will automatically implement whatever goes in the Peer Accepted section. Geez. --Seagull Flock 15:02, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I'm positive there are some people (maybe not him) using multiple accounts to vote. Either that, or there are people who always seem to vote the same way as others, and have the same distinct lack of courtesy and reading comprehension. --G026r 19:21, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

welp, God of games is one of them. I just became the victim of his little attack.--Spellbinder 23:42, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I think you mean User:GodofGames (if you're refering to the vandalism of one of your comments on here earlier). --G026r 23:51, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Yes, i know who edited it. Its thor, under a different name. no random poster would have edited my coments like that. it was directed right at thor, and nobody else would have changed it.--Spellbinder 00:12, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I banned this account too. If you see him make any other accounts, post 'em here! --LibrarianBrent 00:37, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
HamChoi mabey. only votes in support of Godofgames, never votes on anything that dosen't allready have a GoG vote, and the vote times are too close together for a person to read.--Spellbinder 00:47, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
What a waste of oxygen. Usually people like him aren't even worth banning. They just keep coming back and waving their fists like a little puppet show for the mods. Just keep deleting his crap. --Zaruthustra 01:18, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
$#!+ - I hope he didn't edit my votes - I make sure that mine are well-thought-out and are all potentially suggestions in and of themselves. I am trying to have one vote per suggestion; gotta go check now. Saw the God of Games thing. Bleh. Can we ban his IP? --Squashua 04:35, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
If you can find his IP, then yes. I was able to ban HamChoi though. :P --LibrarianBrent 05:48, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Boron and PooBear--Spellbinder 23:45, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Got them. Bans are one year now because this is such a repeat offense.
*yawns* AllStarZ, but i think he's behaving himself a little better (for thor) this time. why don't you let him have his original thor back, and we can end this silly game.[[--LibrarianBrent 01:35, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Question - should all of Th0r / Hamchoi / GodofGames / Recoil votes be removed or scratched out? --Squashua 15:03, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
No. Only multi votes need to be deleted. He's anyway an user like all of us and got the right to express his vote. But only once. --Seagull Flock 15:05, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Oh man, I just stole this link from Spellbinder's personal discussion page - it's actually kinda funny, tho immature: --Squashua 15:07, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

On comments placed with a rejected suggestion

Just a new suggestion. Maybe when a skill gets to peer-reviewed, or peer-rejected, a small notice could say how the voting went for that skill. Like a category depending on number of votes and how close it was. Or just the number of votes for each side. I don't think an unanimous decision is the same as one who barely passed. --McArrowni

See, I hold the opposing view - if it was entered into Peer Reviewed/Rejected, does it matter what the degree of entry was? There's only two possible outcomes, why muddy that up by claiming degrees of entry? It's there, that should be all that matters. -- Odd Starter 03:37, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Gotta back Starter on this one. It dosen't matter if it passed by an inch or a mile, right? the idea had merit.--Spellbinder 06:11, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Some of us who don't check the Suggestions page often would like to see why an idea was accepted or rejected. Hyperbolic example: we don't erase information on why people voted for a politician once they get into office or are defeated. --LouisB3 02:36, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Some might claim that we should! But if we accept your view we get into another whole can of worms of how we compress that information. A vote summary doesn't tell us why people voted, and a summary of comments doesn't seem to tell us much either, since we can't really state the intensities of each comment.
And since people moving suggestions are supposed to timestamp it, people can go through the Suggestions history and locate their suggestion, read the remarks there. Nothing ever disappears on a wiki. If we wanted to make it more accessible to people, kind people could include a link to the section from the Suggestion page's history, I s'pose. -- Odd Starter 04:31, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Personal tools