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.

Suggestion Discussion

Suggestion Discussion Discussion

Suggestion for Suggestors

I would like to make a suggestion. NO MORE SURVIVOR ONLY SKILLS! Zombies are down to 35%(!). I'll discuss later. Andrew McM 21:25, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Suggestions Following Themes

If i may be so bold as to say this, it would seem that many of the skills/idea being shot down follow two themes: either they change the AP of users in some way or form, thus we don't need any NEW sugestions that deal with AP as a form of attack or bonus. They are all being shot down like clay pigons. And stackable combos. Anything that lets you hit hit hit or search search search seems to be very unfavorable with the masses. So i'd avoid this too. --Spellbinder 06:34, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)

In that case, shoot 'em down with Kill votes. Duplicate suggestions get deleted, so if we go through all the basic AP-gain ideas once, we don't ever need to vote for them again.
I did mention to people that the page would get crazy for the first few weeks as everyone threw their wild-eyed ideas back, but this is a good thing - if we get them out of the way early, we can delete any duplicates later. -- Odd Starter 06:37, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
We might want to definitively state somewhere WHY it's a bad idea to propose AP buffs and combo bonuses. Otherwise, posters may get the impression that, rather than dislike AP buffs as a whole, we're only waiting for someone to propose the right AP buff; in other words, if we don't specifically say somewhere why we're shooting these ideas down, the posters may take it as a challenge rather than discouragement. Gothgarion 06:46, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I would be all too happy for someone to organise a page off this page giving advice on making good suggestions. I won't claim how useful it will be ("Yeah, they said AP-boosters aren't a good idea, but this one will rock their socks off!!!"), but it would be useful to people trying to refine their ideas. -- Odd Starter 06:51, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
i must have no life, i'm going to try and do that. but not right now, as even i don't know what would be a good idea yet, only what isen't a good idea. also, i have an idea. move both the skill, and then all the coments made on THIS discussion page over to the reviewed/discarded page--Spellbinder 06:56, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
OK, i have an idea, but i seriously want to run it by others before i go and hack off the entire community. Moveing everything everbody said over to THIS page, this discussion page, and leaveing only a there vote on the main page. with names and timestamps and everything. also, seriously, try to make it clear that editing an idea should be a big no no, as that can really screw up the voteing (other then minor edits, of course)--Spellbinder 07:06, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I'm ok with people editing a suggestion if it's done soon enough, with, say, 3 or less votes on the skill, but for example body burning was changed with over 10 votes in... That IMO just causes confusion. So I'm with Spellbinder on this one. --McArrowni 8 nov 2005
Keep chatter on the main page; it's one of the basic tenets of this edition of Suggestions. People don't like to keep up with 2 pages.--Milo 19:57, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Or, perhaps, we state that "tiny chatter" can stay on the main page. Full discussion should happen here, but "tiny chatter" about clarification, or explaining your vote, should stay where they belong. Though perhaps if comments get too long, someone should cut them up and move them to this page. -- Odd Starter 00:40, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
not to sound concending or anything, but are you saying its too much for people to hit the Discussion button at the top of the page?--Spellbinder 23:50, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Seriously, is it only me or are the ideas getting more and more out there as the list grows longer? Odd Starter warned us that we would get a big rush at the begining, but HOLY CRAP!--Spellbinder 23:50, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Ok, what do people think about my Below list?--Spellbinder 17:56, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

May be a tad confrontational. I built something a little less so at Game Assumptions, if you want to peruse that. -- Odd Starter 05:37, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Moving Suggestions

Ok we have a lot of skills here with like 6 kills/spams and no keeps. Methinks maybe someone should just run through the list and remove the unlikely skills or move them. That way we don't have to go dumpster-diving for the good stuff.

Dude, that's what the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page is for. Suggestions don't stay here, they're here for two weeks and then they go off to their reward/punishment. -- Odd Starter 05:37, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
OH...*feels sheepish* didn't notice that. Thanks! --Vellin 21:02, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)

A Few Arguments

There's just a couple of really common ideas among voters that I'm taking issue with--first of all, server load as a suggestion guideline. The suggestions page is, by its nature, a page for what we think the game would be like in an ideal universe, how the game would be if we could make it ourselves with infinite time and resources. Suggestions should not be judged on the basis of how hard they are to code or how hard they'll be on the server. That's Kevan's job. We should suggest what we want to happen, not what we believe is actually possible. Even if something is completely impossible with the current technology, the servers will eventually be upgraded, yes? Why let the current reality confine ideas for the future? Second, people arguing against ideas that don't "fit the zombie movie genre." It's a hallmark of zombie movies that they end. The main characters either escape, die, or both, and the zombies either are vanquished, or stuck somewhere quarantined (without humans,) or take over the world. The atmosphere of the game, since it has the addition of possible return from undeath, changes the whole "being picked off one by one" vibe entirely already, so why let the rest of the genre's conventions limit the game? Think of it like reality--if it was impossible for either side to achieve victory, eventually an equilibrium would be reached, and people would do what they do, and advance. The railroad suggestion that was recently shot down seems like a move in this direction. If the people stay in a barely-surviving, on-the-run state of living in perpetuity, it would be a.) unrealistic in an IC sort of way and b.) boring in terms of gameplay. Things must change or eventually they'l get old, and stale, and not fun anymore. Thoughts?--'STER 02:35, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Well, i can't hope to coment on all of what you said without also creating a very large paragraph (years of fourm experence has taught me that such long posts are nearly allways ignored) but i can find issues with your last few coments. On the topic of things reaching an equilibrium, i think that this game is heading in the direction of a final win. The zombies will eventualy win, i belive, because of the zombie skill brain rot. No matter how overwhelming the numbers are in favor of humans, you can never remove the taint 100%. Such is not true of the zombies beating the survivors. With hoard tatics, it IS possable for them to reach a 99% morality rate, with the final %1 either new characters or a cockroach or rat like existance.--Spellbinder 02:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
To answer your question, upgrading the server would not do anything. Many suggestions are merely beyond the scope of the game. Not because thats the way kevan wants it, but because the game is created in a mixture of primitive scripting languages. What you're asking for is basically to remake the entire internet as state based. It aint gonna happen. Cookies and CGI scripts will only take you so far, and some suggestions just have a 99.999999% chance of never being in the game. Ever. How is it fair to the other suggestions to share space and the attention of Kevan with these? --Zaruthustra 02:59, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I disagree. These pages are supposed to be suggestions that we (as players) want Kevan to code into the game. Since he's running the server on a shoestring, or the nearest thing, if we want the suggestions we make to have any merit, we should consider the same factors that the person coding and maintaining the game will consider. A totally cool and awesome idea that's more suited for a World of Warcraft budget isn't helpful to Urban Dead, the game. Also, as a 'horror' genre game, it's most fair to both existing players (who're presumably interested because of the horror atmosphere) and new players (who would miss out on the original experience) if the game deviated from the original premise. Therefore, both coding/server issues and horror 'flavor' issues should be part of the vetting process. 'sides, i do software development during the day. Calculating big Oh for some of these routines is fun. ^_^ --RSquared 03:00, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I agree with the principle you are talking about RSquared, but I think practically speaking, with the majority of ideas I've seen posted, I think it's inappropriate for anyone but Kevan to be voting down an idea because of server load/coding issues. Even people who really understand what tends to be the bottlenecks in a web app, wouldn't necessarily know what might be able to be done intelligently/practically/quickly vs. what requires a lot of special case coding and poorly indexed searches in this particular application. And I imagine Kevan himself finds surprises in the performance of various parts of the server. Finally he would also be the only one to really judge how much work and server load an idea would be worth. I guess to sum up what I'm saying, if you are very familiar with web apps and this game, it's good to keep performance issues in mind, but everyone should give things the benefit of the doubt on the real cost and whether it's worth it. Thorbrian 9:17, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I dunno about most of this stuff, but I have noticed that people tend to whine about "server load" when there's not much to be had. Technically, nearly every suggestion will add some server load, but suggestions that involve, say, tracking an extra variable for each building are shot down. I reserve my judgments about server load when people suggest something that would require twelve calculations for one minor action, and the like. --LouisB3 22:45, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Bad Suggestions Guidelines

Moved to Suggestions Dos and Do Nots to reduce the size of this page. Continued edits there.

Page Discussion


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)

Daily archive guideline

IMPORTANT - The suggestions and relative discussions have been split by day. Please remember to copy both during the daily archive. --Seagull Flock 16:30, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

How the votes don't make the suggestions go in the game

HOW LONG DOES it take for the skills to be in the game after their voted on? Prognosis should be there allready its official the vote is unanimous thus demanding that this skill be present in the game right away.--THOR 20:07, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

  • hahahahaha, thor. i laugh at you. read my statement at the bottom of this page, or the coment at the top of the suggestion page--Spellbinder 19:02, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I understant what Spellbinder is saying. My question still remains as to how long players have to wait until they see the skills that get voted on in the game such as prognosis which seems a likely candidate. If their not in the game I question the relevance of having a suggestion thread on the wiki since the ideas could be discussed in the forums of groups who have moderators and without the vandalism or need for code cleanup as Odd Starter stated which can become a headache. THOR 01:03, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I admit something to you, but be careful not to spread it around - this page? Bupkis. There's no reason for anyone to post their suggestions up here, because there's no onus on Kevan to implement any of these things. People are posting their suggestions up here in the vain hope that Kevan will see it and say "Well! That looks cool. I'll add it to the list". But in reality, that's about it. We put it up here because people want to show their suggestions to everyone, and hell, Suggestions is currently accounting for at least half the edit traffic on this wiki, so clearly there's a desire for it. Also, it apparently makes people feel involved to be able to vote on suggestions, and say which ones are good and which ones are bad.
But as for Vandals and stuff - wherever did you get the idea that we need a designated moderator? That's not how wikis work. Everyone moderates everyone - We keep very clear rules up so that people know what needs moderating, and how to fix it up. There's no moderator required - anyone can do the task. As I noted, if even just one or two people clean up code as they go through their regular voting, there'll be no need to do full sweeps - it'll happen in bits and pieces and the same effect will be made. -- Odd Starter 00:17, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I know this seems redundent, but can we please have a clear sentence telling people that JUST because we vote on something, that dosen't meen its going into the game? like bolding that part of kevin's speach?--Spellbinder 21:24, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Heehee...this page really is next to worthless as far as changing the game goes. But it sure is fun kicking those ideas around, even if vastly superior ideas like healing 5 more HP in hospitals with power (/sarcasm) will always supplant them when it comes to actual implementation. --Sknig 03:43, 20 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)

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)

Who can delete stuff that breaks the rules?

It's clear that many people don't read the previous suggestions (the "look out of the window" skill has been proposed 3 times with different names!!!) before posting their one. I've read the second point of the Suggestions guidelines, but who's going to "delete without warning" the repeated suggestions? The mods or any of us? Please clarify. --Seagull Flock 14:50, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Anyone. Anyone can delete in accordance with the guidelines. -- Odd Starter 01:23, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Fire at will. --Zaruthustra 23:51, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Myself, i allways include a reason down in the Summary bar. Makes tracking easyer--Spellbinder 00:35, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
From the article: " Note is used by moderators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only moderators may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. Possible trolls may contest the strikeout with the moderator that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a moderator may remove a strikeout." Is this an inconsistency, or am I missing something? I've struck out a few votes or comments that were pointlessly aggressive; isn't that the point of a wiki? Also, who are the moderators, and how did a mod system come to be in place? --Dickie Fux 23:28, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT) is the link for the moderators. --LibrarianBrent 01:06, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
That probably should be an inconsistency - as little as possible on this page should only be able to be done by Moderators, since a single person moderating this page is going to cause burnout real quick. Group effort is what's needed. Probably adjust it so that anyone can strikeout, with defined reasons why they can strikeout. Then, you can appeal based on whether the defined reasons were met. -- Odd Starter 01:16, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

34 KB!

Does anyone care that this page is really long? I'd archive some stuff myself, but I'm not sure how to break it up. --LouisB3 02:36, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

If you're referring to the Talk page, you can probably archive the Mock-up discussion, since that conversation is mostly over and done with. You can probably also drop all the empty headers - if people need to discuss a suggestion, I'm sure they can make a header up, and if they don't, no need to put in empty space.
If you're referring to the main page... Well, there's not really much that can be done. Perhaps we can start setting subheaders according to date to break it up with - I suspected that we'd get a large flood of suggestions, but I hadn't realised exactly how many would pop up this quickly. I was expecting about 10 or so suggestions/day, I hadn't expected 24-28 suggestions/day. -- Odd Starter 04:24, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
As an addendum, I may have been inadvertantly exaggerating my point - we're not actually getting 24-28 suggestions per day. Currently, the average is about 17 suggestions/day. It's quite a bit more than I had anticipated. I still expect that within the next few weeks this will die down considerably, at the very least there's only so many unique suggestions that can come up, and we'll be freer to remove duplicates. -- Odd Starter 10:27, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Perhaps a shorter voting period would be in order? --Lucero Capell 18:41, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I'm in agreement with most of the other people here- if it's a clear verdict in either direction, just put it into Peer Reviewed or Peer Rejected immediately, with maybe a three day minimum or so. Leave the longer voting for the more controversial ideas. Slicer 01:05, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I was at the time referring to the talk page, but a few minutes later I realized how ridiculously long the actual page was. Perhaps we should create subpages again - alphabetization or something, if not real categories. --LouisB3 19:38, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
as deaply this goes against my inner judgement, why don't we wait out the storm a little bit. i meen, right now nothing has reached the two week limit, lets see how things are once it becomes a daily suggestsions in/suggestions out kind of a page that was intended. besides, with ALL of the bad ideas being submited, again once the two weeks are up, we can have full athority on deleating resubmited ideas--Spellbinder 22:54, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I think that the voting period should be made shorter but only for skills who only got kill or spam votes. If after one week, there is no Keep vote, an extra week is probably not going to help it. Would that be too complicated?McArrowni 02:58, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I actually agree with both points - If the page doesn't go down significantly in size once Suggestions start moving out the door en masse, we may want to shorten the vote time - maybe halve it to one week. We should probably keep an eye on vote dates, as a note - if it turns out that after a week no vote seems to make a difference on the final tally, we'd have no reason to keep the voting at two weeks, and we'd be able to speed up the process a little. -- Odd Starter 04:15, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
We're quickly approaching the dreaded half-megabyte size. It's going to be death to dial-up users pretty soon, if it's not already. --Lucero Capell 00:11, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Ok, that's it, I can't even access the suggestion page anymore... only the first part shows up. I think something must be done, maybe just separating the suggestions on two pages--McArrowni 16:53, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I suggest separating every day into a separate page. That way, the older stuff is archived, and the main suggestion page will be cut down to 1/6 of its size right now. --Fixen 03:27, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
That was a possibility I'd thought of. Of course, stuff doesn't get "archived" as such, it gets dropped into Peer Reviewed Suggestions or Peer Rejected Suggestions. I think I'll start putting suggestions onto date subpages - it's going to be the only way to keep the page size under control. Also may have a neat benefit of giving the PRS pages an easy first indexing system...
I hate to say I told you so.. well, okay, that's a lie, I love it when I'm right. So.. "I told you so." Of course, this current solution is hardly ideal either, because now potential submitters, at least those who would follow the rules (which are probably the preferred submitters), have to go through 8 separate pages to see if their submission has already been posted. To say nothing of all the discussion about ideas being moved to this page, making it unwieldy at the same time. I still think you'd have better luck with a suggestions listing consisting of a single description line, and then all discussion/voting on a linked page for each suggestion --Kwil 19:00, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
You'd really need a script for that at this point. I think we have at least 100 suggestions. --Fixen 00:55, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Well, In theory, the page is supposed to be self-correcting, so when people do make a suggestion made previously, someone else should be able to identify it and remove it.
As for a separate page implementation, that has a problem of possible lack of participation. This system makes voting quite easy, so people are more likely to vote and vote often. A separate page implementation, where every vote needs to go to it's own page, might cause voters to restrict their voting. Neither system, I think, is superior to the other, unfortunately, they're just superior in singular areas. And I think even a Separate Page implementation would have have scaling issues - At least with this implementation there is a few indexes near the top that people can skim (the Table of Contents on each page). Eventually, the forest of links would get just as unwieldy.
But, hey, we've barely been at this for a week - let's see how the system works when everything's running, as opposed to just one page... -- Odd Starter 01:22, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)

This talk page is now upwards of 61 KB. Isn't there ANY way to shrink it? I have difficulty editing and viewing the damn thing. - KingRaptor 15:12, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

124 KB?!?!?!?!?

It's a little insane, considering this is just the talk page. May I suggest (geh!) a further breakdown: 1. Move "Previous Days' Suggestions" to a new page. 2. Start shifting Talk related to suggestions to their appropriate daily pages 3. Clean up this lower section - as amusing as "The th0r show" is, do we really need it on the talk page? 4. One page for discussion of suggestions themselves (this one) and one page for discussion of etiquette/procedure?

Update: Moving the previous days' listings to a new page got the original down to about 48 KB with a full day's worth of suggestions on there. This seems imminently reasonable. Hope nobody out there is going ballistic wondering what the heck I'm up to.

--RSquared 00:49, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

The problem is you moved today's suggestions out of today's suggestions before today was over! I put it back. I know it might take dial-up users a few extra seconds but better that than than nobody being able to find them. --Jon Pyre 01:38, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
GMT. GMT. :P --RSquared 01:42, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
In other words, jon, it might not be the 23 where you are, but by the clock that this wiki is going by, its the next day. sorry if you were confused--Spellbinder 02:29, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Let's archive the discussion of the current page format, and create a separate page for the Bad Suggestions outline. What do you all think, eh? --LouisB3 01:44, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Suggestion "Ownership"/Resubmitting

What is our policy on "ownership" of suggestions? For example, a user recently wanted to retract his own submission, should he be allowed to do so without a kill or spam vote?

Additionally, it doesn't seem we have a uniform resubmission policy. Should a user be required to delete the submission and resubmit entirely, or allowed to edit his suggestion as he goes along. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that editing mid-vote is very confusing. --Lucero Capell 01:00, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)

In my oppinion, people shoudn't be allowed to edit a submission majorly after a day. Otherwise people might not notice it, and keep or kill votes will stay what they are, even if the idea is now bad/good. --McArrowni 01:46, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Any editing of the submission should include deletion of all votes. Jirtan 23:58, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I can't agree with that; the people with the very killed suggestions will keep editing to remove the bad publicity (and hide their shame). Slicer 22:52, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
What about my idea? After a day, if any major modification is made to a suggestion, other users are to edit it back to what it was. No I-changed-it-so-your-kill-is-gone, and no I-changed-it-so-your-old-keep-now-applies-to-something-totaly-retarded --McArrowni 00:49, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
A day is too long for a wiki as active as this one. Forcing people to delete and resubmit on every edit might be the best way. Slicer 16:17, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Ok, we are already seeing some revisited/edited/enhanced/whatever suggestions around("Gunsmithing" just for one example). What do we do with previous versions? Delete with extreme prejudice? ;) --Seagull Flock 14:14, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Having myself just removed SIX duplicating suggestions, gun the f@%&ers down--Spellbinder 04:39, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I've gotta ask - the previous version of 'Degrade Barricades' got shot down pretty good and obvious, and I'd like to submit my version without waiting two weeks for what is, in this case, pretty much a formality. There's some support for the idea (from people who re:ed at it) and I'd like to put it in for peer review. Any thoughts? Should I just call it "Weathering" or something slightly different than the original name? --RSquared 02:30, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

MYSELF, and as such i speak for no one here but me... myself i would just remove my old sugestion, and provide a link to the new one. if its truly updated and not a minor revision, then yea.--Spellbinder 02:32, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Voting for Your Own Suggestion

Is there any policy on this? Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the idea, as no suggestion creator is ever going to vote anything other than keep. This is also open to abuses, since a creator can flood the board with ridiculous suggestions, voting 'keep' on each one, and thus preventing them from gaining 3 unopposed 'spam' votes. --G026r 20:10, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I honestly don't think putting up a ridiculous suggestion, then posting your own keep, is going to keep any self-respecting person who has managed to figure out the history button (thus, allowing them to see who made the original suggestion) from dumping it hardcore into the trash can. Not that i'm dissagreeing with you wholesale, i just think your fears are a little unjustified.--Spellbinder 21:00, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Remember that the system is meant to work on the basis of suggestion/suggestor separation, as much as possible. Who suggested isn't as important as the suggestion itself. So, taken to that level, if Suggestions are supposed to have no owners as much as is possible, you should be able to vote for your own suggestion, since it's just another suggestion. -- Odd Starter 05:14, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
As long as we can still remove the suggestion for spam if the only keep vote is the author of the suggestion, I don't really care much. --McArrowni 04:22, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Voting for your own suggestion DOES NOT protect it from the unopposed spam rule. --LibrarianBrent 04:26, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Note this definitive tidbit was added after I said it was missing from the rules. Someone incorrectly said I should have read this before I spoke, but this was here after I spoke. -- Amazing 21:08, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Amazing. Assuming this wasn't here, I dont really know, or care, this is common sense. What is the point of having the uncontested spam rule if your own vote counts? --Zaruthustra 00:04, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Can you think of any other reason to let people vote for their own if not to break a Spam vote before letting them counter it? Let me know if you can come up with a valid reason why a suggestor can vote for his/her own idea, since it will always be Keep. Might as well save authors the trouble and add 1 keep vote to all listings. -- Amazing 05:55, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Since we are using a small representative pool of voters to simulate the greater player base of UD, it is important to let people show support for their own ideas. But it is obvious that this can't preclude your idea from being deleted, or else the entire spam system would be pointless. I support letting people vote for their own suggestions because it gives them a place to explain WHY their idea is good without filling the whole suggestion with praise for itself (very boring and a waste of time for all parties involved). --Zaruthustra 21:28, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Meh. Not to be contrary but really Suggestor votes are useless then. When was the last time you saw a really good Keep vote from an author that changed anyone's opinion of the suggestion itself? I now see that the whole idea of an author voting is bull puckey. There's no reason to vote for your own idea when you can use "RE:" to defend and explain it. -- Amazing

why, because REing every single vote is an abuse of the RE function, while on the other hand you can edit your own first keep vote for small replays to what others post.--Spellbinder 20:23, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

For when suggestions start getting moved to to the Peer pages

Hey, when the deadline is up for the first day's suggestion, and so on and so forth for the rest of the weeks ahead, i'm wondering what we do with one problem that just poped up. The endless revised/new versons of old shot down suggestions start begining (and oh, they will come, do not doupt) what should we do? I know some people are going to swear up and down that there suggestions are different enough, but when a basic premis has been shot down, what do we have to say about that? what goes, what stays? i feel confident about getting rid of the obvious copys, but what about the boarderline suggestions?--Spellbinder 01:10, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • note: this comes from being very on the fence about this one and this one. Very simmiler, and i don't know if the first one is just a rehash of the second one.--Spellbinder 01:30, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I'd say a seperate page for suggestions that where edited during voting, or failed to reach a reasonable majority would be good in this case. I don't know about you guys, but I think anything that won or lost by one or two votes probably doesn't deserve to go on either of the peer reviewed pages. --Raelin 04:34, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Clean Up Some of the Crap Suggestions

There were four (edit: hahaha, scratch that. NINE.) suggestions that got voted spam today. That sort of thing does not make the Suggestions page look good. There ought to be some sort of system in place to ban people from suggesting who get a certain amount of their suggestions voted spam. --Sknig 03:38, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Ten, actualy. 6 were suggestions that had previously been suggested, 4 were removed by pure spam. No, people shouldn't be punnished that hard for being an idiot. We don't like it, i know, but don't stomp on the rights of the idiots, lest you find YOUR rights stomped out by people who think that you shouldn't have a voice either. Remove the suggestions, and we are fine.--Spellbinder 04:17, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Be careful about the removal due to SPAM votes. Make sure that the SPAM votes are valid and the people posting the SPAM votes are not, themselves, imbecils. I recommend leaving the SPAM votes visible after suggestion removal. --Squashua 21:36, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Shouldn't votes that get spammed due to duplication not go into the peer-rejected page? Perhaps another page should be set up for spam. --LouisB3 22:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

mabey, LouisB, but i'm afraid that will be viewed apon as a special place to put really really bad suggestions, not Spam suggestions. a link is allready provided to the older and more established suggestion, and voters that put keep/kill on it can redirect there votes onto the linked page. A simple deleation is enough, link provided. Spam votes send the really really bad ideas to peer rejected. troublesome ideas go to the middle ground page, ones with flaws and merrits--Spellbinder 01:21, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Change votes will be deleted

SERIOUSLY. Change votes do not count! Your change vote WILL be deleated, as par the clearly spelt out rules! Also, all you kill/change and keep/changers, you votes will ALSO be delated for two reasons. One, you encourage others to do it, two, this is also not a valad vote. tomarrow, when you wonder where you vote went, you now know.--Spellbinder 23:45, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I see no reason to delete keep/change and kill/change votes. Just count the valid part of the vote and ignore the chage part. Maybe we can use the /change as a flag marking comments that should follow the suggestion to the peer review pages. --Raelin 00:14, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
thats what i was starting to do. just move the change part outside the ' ' ' part. but when someone who votes early puts that in, every joan dick and marty feels they need to do it too. but your right, just take the change part out and leave the keep/kill part should be enough. i'm properly chastised--Spellbinder 00:41, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Questions about Peer Review

I noticed that the first bunch (Nov. 6th) were moved today. Speed Loading (19 Keeps to 9 Kills) and Paralytic Bite (14 Keeps to 12 Kills) were not moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page. Any reason? --Squashua 21:48, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Yeah, I had the same question. Granted, I only skimmed (shame on me), but there doesn't seem to be a guideline on this. So, what is, as they say, "the deal"? Bentley Foss 22:15, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

psss.... we're waiting on Odd starter to do it. if he hasen't done it by tomarrow, feel free to do it yourself--Spellbinder 23:40, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Uh, why are you waiting for OS to do it? You guys are fully capable of doing this yourselves, you know. That's kinda the point of a wiki. --Raelin 00:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I'm going to check those two pages, add to the plus side. Someone else can do the minus side. I'll start now. --RSquared 00:18, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Yea... i know. but i actualy felt like i'd be kinda in honor of him putting all this together. but i'm rather sentimantal. and lazy *smirks*--Spellbinder 00:38, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I think he'd be more honored if you made it seem like this no longer needed his help to run smoothly. ;)--Raelin 00:46, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Yeah, that's kinda why I haven't been touching the page. I'm hoping that there's enough people who know how to run the show that I don't need to. That, and I'm lazy/busy... -- Odd Starter 09:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I would consider speed loading in limbo waiting for a new proposal - it was 16-12 if you count straight up and down (keep/change as kill, since they all suggesting rather major alterations), but almost all the Keeps had something to change about it. I'd rather see it resubmitted after some tightening up. Same with paralytic - it was up, but not by the 3 Keeps that I remember seeing as the guideline. Feel free to correct me though. --RSquared 00:42, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools