From The Urban Dead Wiki

Contents 1 Development 1.1 Types 1.2 Scopes 1.3 Ideas 1.4 Example 1.5 Moving Ideas Around 2 Front Page Discussion 3 Votes 4 TEMPLATE WORKSHOP

Development

This page is intended to replace the daily insanity that is the current suggestions system. Here's the idea:

Types

There should exist categories on this page for various aspects of the game - modifications to survivor skills, adding survivor skills, adding zed skills, game mechanics, etc. Hereafter this is referred to as the ToC (Table of Contents), and the items on it are "Types".

A sample Type tree:

• Class Addition: Survivor
• Class Alteration: Survivor
• Class Addition: Zombie
• Class Alteration: Zombie
• Game Events
• Game Mechanics
• Location Alteration
• Skill Addition: Survivor
• Skill Alteration: Survivor
• Skill Addition: Zombie
• Skill Alteration: Zombie
• User Interaction
• User Interface
• Item Addition: Melee
• Item Alteration: Melee
• Item Addition: Range
• Item Alteration: Range
• Item Addition: Equipment
• Item Alteration: Equipment

Scopes

Beneath each category will be LINKS to new pages created for each kind of suggestion. Each new "Scope" page will be created to modify an aspect of the game, rather than be based on the suggestion's name. That is, rather than "Dual Wielding Knives", the new page should be "Knife Skills Modifications". This (hopefully) will prevent two potential problems:

1. Lots and lots of new pages being created
2. Duplicates in everything but name

In addition, naming conventions in this way provides a single forum for changing aspects of the game. Some people may prefer to increase Knife damage by 1, while others might rather see a two-hit system (I use this as example because I've noticed both of these on the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page, which is redundant). Having both of these suggestions on the same page allows for easier navigation of competing suggestions.

Ideas

Individual new suggestions will be added in a similar template to the current system on the appropriate page, though the increased page count reduces the need for some of the headers (Type and Scope). Voting will be enabled in a similar way as the current system. If the author feels that there is no appropriate Scope page for his suggestion, he is welcome to create a new one and add it to the ToC. After adding an idea to the Scope page, the author is then responsible for including a link to it under the appropriate Type and Scope in the ToC with a timestamp. Examples will be provided for the following:

1. Adding a new "Scope" page and putting it on the ToC. These can be things like "Automatic Weapons", "Grenades", etc.
2. Adding a new suggestion to a Scope page and adding the listing to the ToC. These can be things like "SMG v1" "Battle Rifle v428", etc.
3. Voting on a suggestion.

Example

Ideally, the ToC looks like this:

Item Alteration: Equipment (header)

SUGG_Flak Jacket (link)

Flak Jacket Works Against Headshot (link to anchor on page "SUGG_Flak Jacket") [Timestamp]

Flak Jacket Decays (link to anchor on page "SUGG_Flak Jacket") [Timestamp]

SUGG_Spray Can (link)

Allow Longer Messages (link to anchor on page "SUGG_Spray Can") [Timestamp]

Colored Spray Cans (link to anchor on page "SUGG_Spray Can") [Timestamp]

Item Addition: Range (header)

SUGG_Spray and Pray Guns (link)

SMG (link to anchor on "SUGG_Spray and Pray Guns") [Timestamp]

Assault Rifle (link to anchor on "SUGG_Spray and Pray Guns")) [Timestamp]

Assault Rifle v2 (link to anchor on "SUGG_Spray and Pray Guns")) [Timestamp]

A Better SMG (link to anchor on "SUGG_Spray and Pray Guns")) [Timestamp]

...etc. The Scope link will link to the top of the appropriate Scope page, while the idea link will go to the suggestion on that Scope page, which is easy enough to write that hopefully it won't be broken too often by newbies. At worst, the Scope link should still be there, so that one can navigate to a suggestion by knowing what it affects and searching that page. This seems far easier than the current system in that regard.

Moving Ideas Around

Marking suggestions with * and � is an excellent suggestion, IMO. Here's a quick and dirty version of the rules:

1. An idea must have at least 15 votes.
2. Two thirds of those votes must be Keep for it to get a *.
3. Two thirds of those votes must be Kill for it to get a �.
4. Spam votes no longer exist. Dupe votes will be unnecessary, as there will be talk pages for slight modifications to existing ideas. Even stupid suggestions have their place, and can be edited to return them to contention.
5. ANY MODIFIER OF AN IDEA MUST RESET THE VOTE SECTION AND UPDATE THE TIMESTAMP. This is crucial, as the timestamp will let visitors to the main page know what suggestions are new and need votes.

It seems to me that, under these guidelines, there shouldn't be a need to move suggestions - debate and discussion can be ongoing - as a wiki should be - and Kevan can peruse the ideas (and the vote counts/comments - one of the complaints about the current system) at his leisure.

All thoughts above are mine, please include comments below this line -RSquared 01:11, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

Front Page Discussion

• Seems like a good way to reduce suggestion redundancy, and it should also help categorize the giant omni-pages in the suggestion history that seem to be the cause of so many issues. My only real suggestion would be to keep links ALL suggestions that are made on one Table of Contents, and when they are accepted or rejected just append a little symbol to the suggestion title in question (my own personal suggestion would be an asterisk* for reviewed suggestions a dagger� for rejected ones) and then change their associated links over to the appropriate ToC for each of those categories. As the Suggestions page seems to be the one wiki newcomers filter to for their first posts, and few if any review the previously-voted suggestions, it'd be good to make sure that the format forces a review for redundancy upon them. This may result in too many links eventually, perhaps? I'm not entirely sure. I hate seeing so many things having to be killed for duplication, though, and if you move concepts off the top page people won't check the old ones before shooting off with their own. --Drakkenmaw 01:48, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• I like the one-page, multiple markers...but the markers require updates (which requires updaters), don't they? If the suggestion voting is open-ended, a vote on a suggestion marked as * or � could change its status...Wouldn't be hard, but would people bother to make updates to the ToC when they voted? --RSquared 03:45, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Oh, please don't tell me you plan to make voting purely open-ended. If it is, people could effectively troll by getting a gang of forumites or friends and stuffing the ballot box on really dumb ideas that the active wiki population has already universally Kill-voted out of existence. My reasoning on including the symbols was to keep the suggestions on which voting had ended still on the front page, so that they could be reviewed by new suggesters to prevent repeat postings of the same concept, but to easily-note that the voting on those same suggestions was concluded (and also note how the voting went). My intention was to prevent the situation that occurs now, where people post duplicates that exist on other pages because they don't think to check those alternate pages - I really don't want to do away with the review/rejection system itself, for the reason I stated above.

Oh, and just so you're aware - I have absolutely no problem with resetting the voting by changing the idea. That encourages people to revamp their concepts instead of just deleting them when the voting isn't positive. But I do think there needs to be some limiter on the voting's scope, so that it can't be abused. --Drakkenmaw 19:38, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• I see your point, I'm not sure how dangerous a drive-by trolling of the kind you describe is - couldn't someone do that now, on the 13th day of voting for something stupid? I'm not advocating getting rid of the Frequently Idiotic Suggestions list, but I'm not sure why we should limit the voting to just those who notice the entry within two weeks - this format leaves a bit to be desired in terms of finding a specific idea that has just been updated/submitted. --RSquared 19:44, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• This is actually one of my problems with the current voting system - that there's no controls on voting to promote discussion of content. People can blanket Kill or Keep votes for any reason from political protest to just having a bad day, without ever having to explain what it is they do or do not like about the actual suggestion or what they'd see as making it better. --Drakkenmaw 19:49, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• i'm slightly leaning towards a one week cap on voting for a suggestion. most people only check the current days suggestions for time reasons, and most suggestions that i've noticed (from when i first found the suggestions page and went back to vote on everything that was still open for voting) stop receiving votes after about a week anyways (save the one or two random votes from people just discovering the suggestions page). i am not absolute in my feelings on this - but with the amount of votes a suggestion receives after a week, it's usually sufficient to decide if the idea is accepted or rejected. and in regards to people blanket voting - yes, some people do that; and some people don't add reasonable justification for their vote. for blanket voting - i don't see a way to prevent that, though that doesn't mean that there isn't a way. however, i think that some people don't add justification for their vote in terms of discussion because the voting guidelines discourages it. i think that you should add a reason why (and i do it myself, as do most people), but i think some might be concerned that the voting comments aren't the place for discussion and that may be why they don't do it. --Firemanstan 20:58, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• I honestly think a cap of some sort is important. It allows a sort of generalized-consensus to be formed, and most aspects of the skill to be discussed in one way or another. If each change in the suggestion itself restarted voting, it would also not be as permanent as the Suggestions page is now, where a zombie Headshot was voted down once several weeks ago and must never be mentioned again. If someone thought there was a better implementation available, or an alternate line of thought to be talked over, they could simply edit the suggestion and restart the voting again. --Drakkenmaw 21:09, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Enforcement seems a problem. If voting can be (and should be) restarted by a substantial edit, then the page shouldn't be locked (and might have other suggestions on it, as I've set up the pages above). But if you want to stop voting on an item, you have to rely on voluntary self-control. Therefore, I propose that the * or � be added after a week but that the page remain open. A tag like "Voting Closed (timestamp)" is appended to the suggestion. More people can add votes, but they don't "count" - they'll just be for recommended edits or new features. If someone edits the suggestion based on the feedback, then the */� is removed when the timestamp is updated and the voting section is cleared. --RSquared 21:43, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• This seems to be an effective solution to the problem, and would prevent people from having to change the */� tagging for newly-included votes constantly. --Drakkenmaw 21:52, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Don't link upper tier suggestions. Just link each suggestion itself. Avoid sub-suggestions. For example, you've linked "Flak Jacket". Don't do that - it requires too much maintenance. If you DO want to link to the Flak Jacket description, do "Flak Jacket |Definition|" where Definition is a link that goes to the Flak Jacket description. Sort of like how the mods have a link to their own talk section (see the Moderations/Protections page for an example). --Squashua 02:40, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• As I'm the guy who moves the Peer Reviewed material, I recommend taking from Peer Reviewed first (it's clean!), then going to Undecided and then insert the rejected from the furthest Previous, upward. Name each individual page something like "sugg_TYPE_NAME", like "sugg_NewWeapon_BlenderGun" or somesuch. I dunno. Just do me a favor and keep a reference to the Motorcycle Nuns. :-) --Squashua 02:45, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Well, I'm thinking that the pagination occur at Scope level, rather than the suggestion level. As above, I think that'd force redundancy checking better and reduce the page count a bit. Dunno exactly how big a small wiki page is, but multiply it by the hundreds of suggestions we seem to have and we've got a bit of an issue - aggregating at the scope level might make navigation and choice between similar suggestions easier. --RSquared 03:45, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• You have it a little mixed up in your descriptions: "Firearm" and "Range". The traditional gaming opposite of "Melee Weapons" is "Ranged Weapons", which generally covers firearms, bows/arrows, and throwing. I recommend chaning "Firearms" to "Ranged". --Squashua 16:10, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• wow. *wipes a tear from his eye* you know i half expected everyone to piss on my proposal for organization. you guys are awesome for running with it. and i really do think this will help with duplicates and the sense of overwhelming disarray that new people to the suggestions page feel. i am certainly willing to help in the organization - i wouldn't have posed it if i wasn't. i have to go over what you've worked on so far to see where you are at... but in the mean time - bravo on recognizing a problem and being willing to work on solving it, rather than just wanting to bitch about it and not back it up with action. --Firemanstan 20:33, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Take a look at the pagination I've created, and feel free to start on any one (or more) of them. I think that I've managed to make a scope page that fits each of the Peer Reviewed suggestions. Eventually it'll need a Template:SuggestionsInRevision to make it work. Use [[scopepagename#suggestionname|suggestionname]] for the links to suggestions within the scope page - note that the scope pages have different names than the links to them, though. I'd really prefer to go back and get the original (with votes) version of the Peer Reviewed Suggestions suggestions, but I'm not that picky and I understand the pain and suffering that might cause. --RSquared 21:43, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• • I made some changes to the very large links and I removed the generated Table of Contents (leave the __NOTOC__ line alone at the top of the page). I cleaned up a few categories as well and gave Forts it's own sub-category as... damn, there's like 5 Fort suggestions reviewed. Let me know what you think. Great work so far! --Squashua 23:08, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Nice, nice, I didn't know you could get rid of the generated toc and it'll help when these pages fill up. I'd like to see from 1-5 suggestions on each page, each dealing with the specific topic - modifications to, say, newspaper headlines are sufficiently like each other that they can easily go on the same page. Also, hopefully forcing people to state what they are modifying will force them to check redundancy. I think I'd also like to add a tag for undecided, more revision ideas that have hit the 1 week point - maybe ~.

Then:

Keep > 2/3 Total Votes = *

2/3 > Keeps > 1/3 Total Votes = ~

1/3 Keeps > Kill = �

Gives an indicator of both age and popularity ^_^ --RSquared 00:31, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• A percentage of votes (1/3, 2/3, etc.) does not necessarily mean popularity. Two-thirds is great, but when you have three votes and two of them are keeps, that's still THREE votes; not popular at all. Take one of the Undecided Suggs I put on the page yesterday - it had 1 more Kill than Keep, therefore it technically does not belong on that page, but I read the votes. It had 33 very passionate votes and the ideas were there for change. I say we scrap or redo the voting system, or instead of 2 weeks, we require 2 weeks and at least 20 total intelligent votes from users who actually have information on their "me" page (they show up as a green link, not a red link). --Squashua 03:36, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Well, the good news with this system that is being set up is that anyone can reset the voting merely by altering the suggestion along their thought-lines. All the suggestions will remain aggregated on the one Suggestions page, instead of being shuffled off to alternate "accepted" or "rejected" pages, and the only purpose of the symbols is to show whether the concept at the end of the voting period had lots of positive commentary or negative criticism. If everyone likes it, Kevan might want to take a look at it - but even the � suggestions will still be viewable, editable, and thus resubmittable for review if someone thinks of a better way to take a crack at the thing. I'm personally for short voting times, because the turnover on suggestions is high anyways, but whether a suggestion is accepted or rejected on this new system doesn't mean much other than the symbol and perhaps some more motivation to give it a second draft - functionally, if the concept keeps being shaped and rearranged to fit the criticism being given, the voting on it may not truly "close" for months. --Drakkenmaw 03:58, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• i am so impressed with how this is looking. nice job everyone. i see what you mean by 3 votes doesn't insure a suggestions popularity even if all 3 are keep (or kill, respectively). perhaps some vote number requirement would be necessary. the only thing i am thinking (and this may have already been addressed, and i missed it) is to have the current days suggestions still be a separate page - like it is now, at the end of the explanation of the voting process - so that people see new ideas as they are introduced. after the first day (current day) ends, they go into the organizational system you have created. i say this only because i am concerned about people not voting on things because they don't have the time to go through all the different categories to find new suggestions. this would end up creating a new problem. if they don't have the time to check everything existing, they wont find the new suggestions to vote on them - and having a simple easy to locate place for the fresh ideas (as it is now) will keep those with little time to spare in the voting process. those with more time to spare can navigate the old(er) suggestions in the system you created. --Firemanstan 16:30, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• to further clarify, have the part that asks people to check the previous days suggestions (how it is now) have the link to the organizational system. people then can check by specifics there (and vote on things as well if they have the time to do so). that solves the problem of people not bothering to check because they are overwhelmed, without creating a new problem of people not voting because they only have a little time to spare. if it is set up that way, we can have things go through a vote number requirement as opposed to a time limit requirement (ex: 20 votes resolves a suggestion as opposed to 2 weeks resolves a suggestion). --Firemanstan 17:20, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• So far as a matter of "3 votes is not consensus" goes, that's actually why the current voting concept requires 15 votes before being considered "decided" and the little tag added on. As for ideas being separated, I really don't want that. The central fact that the new suggestions are separate from the old ones is one of the reasons why people keep posting duplicate concepts on the current board. Perhaps it'd be better to just have a heading on the top of this new suggestions page where suggestions with active voting are linked as well as their remaining in the set categories, so that anyone searching by concept can find them that way too? I don't see that linking to new/open ideas at the top of the page or something would cause that much of a problem. --Drakkenmaw 17:29, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• I have no problem with having a second page like Latest Suggestions that has links according to date (heck, it'd look a little like Previous Days Suggestions, but with links). That page could be wiped "clean" each day and started over. However, this requires the suggestor to edit three pages in order to post a suggestion - the scope page, SuggestionsInRevision, and Latest Suggestions. Adding the copy-paste link helps (as in the template below), but (not to insult anyone's intelligence in particular) are the general population of wikigoers smart/thorough enough? Perhaps Drakkenmaw's idea is better, though it might crowd the page a bit to have ALL active items (maybe just the last day's worth?) --RSquared

• Idea! How about we just have an appended tag of some sort for open ideas? Something like (Open), or a different symbol indicating that the voting is still going on. Then we don't have to sort out the open concepts at all. Everyone's browser has a "find" function - they can just put "(Open)" into it and it'll drop them on each one that still has voting in sequence. No extra page editing required. --Drakkenmaw 17:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Indeed, I agree...probably better to have it before the link, and I'm tired of doing � by copying and pasting. Then (OPEN) for open voting, (UNDECIDED) for undecided, and (ACCEPTED) and (REJECTED) for the others? Yeah, I like this. --RSquared 18:00, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Votes

I'm not really sure that votes are all that necessary this time around. The original concept I read and understood for these pages was that each submission had it's own page and in traditional WIKI manner, anyone could edit the submission to refine it to a really good state, rather than apply a "vote" to it. I'd dare say that anything even resembling votes (or notes) would be placed on the talk/discussion page for said suggestion. Recommend putting some sort of template for discussion on the talk page for each of these. The very large (ACCEPT) maybe need to be refined to [[ACCEPTED SUGGESTION|�]] so they read like this: �. If you change it from ACCEPTED to ACCEPTED SUGGESTION, or even "Accepted Suggestion" (not all caps - shouting), you don't need to have the redundant title at the top of the Accepted Suggestion page. --Squashua 19:05, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• You make a very convincing point, though I think having a larger, more visible tag denoting accept/reject/open/undecided is actually better when scanning the page. One of the problems with wiki-development is that there's no set way to resolve a dispute except mutual agreement. This is easy on matters of fact, but on matters of opinion (I think the game should go in this direction...) it's more difficult. Perhaps votes themselves should be absolutely limited to Kill/Change/Keep plus the signature? Then all the discussion and edits can go into the talk (as it should be?) and people who like the idea, but want to suggest an edit can vote Change. Kills count as -1, Keeps +1, and Changes 0.

• The problem that I see with forcing votes onto one page and discussion onto another is that, basically, people are lazy. There is a lot of "mute voting" that goes on with the suggestion page even as it exists now, and those don't actually help develop the suggestions at all. When people don't explain their reasoning for a vote it removes any chance to alter the suggestion to satisfy their concerns, and in this case I think forcibly removing the discussion from the votes will only increase that. --Drakkenmaw 19:31, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Mute voting serves a purpose - it shows the number of people who agree with the suggestion as it is written. The first change vote should create the talk for the suggestion, and after that, anyone can make a mute change vote as well. That would signal half-hearted support for the suggestion and support for further edits. Since the change votes counts towards the 15, but not towards an accept, it encourages reworking to improve. BTW, in about fifteen minutes I will be taking the weekend off and won't be around to further discuss - thought ya'll helping with this little project might like the heads up. --RSquared 20:11, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• • At least we've got one thing going for us so far: we all seem to be agreeable, restrained, and non-spastic about this whole thing. :-) --Squashua 20:19, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Spastic works too. Is it just me, or is there an uptick in suggestions that could be really cool if they were tweaked a bit recently? I'm doing a bit while I should be working my "real" job, but it'd be sweet if people would help me do some moving and make some pages so that when it's practically live and I put this up in the suggestions page (oh, how deliciously ironic!) it looks all sexah and harder to resist? --RSquared 20:22, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Busy, busy. Comment - don't think you really need the [High Level/Starting] X Classes pages; recommend keep each sugg on it's own page, and that includes each class. --Squashua 22:39, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• My argument for doing it by Scope (and making Scope more specific to say exactly what skill, item or location is being modified) is to reduce the number of pages created. Deleting a page (for a Dupe, for instance, or merging two pages together) is a PITA, while scouring a page of a suggestion only requires an edit - and the Scope page can be used for other suggestions. I fear that lazy Suggestors will make crazy numbers of new pages for slightly different suggestions without checking for Dupes - a feeling exacerbated by the current system's 'broken' aspect. Also, there are a good number of suggestions that are linked, similar or short - it's a time-waster for someone perusing the suggestions list to have to access a new page for every two-line "I wanna ______ class to start out as!" suggestion. I'm open to counterarguments though. --RSquared 14:36, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

TEMPLATE WORKSHOP

This is the Template workshop. This is where we're going to work on a guideline template for use in the the actual suggestion. Though I am a web developer, I do not know the wiki system well enough to code this. This is where ANYONE ELSE BUT ME comes in. Anything else? --Squashua 22:47, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

This template should include the following:

1. The name of the suggestion
2. The type of suggestion
3. Automatic insertion of the date of the suggestion (no write ~~~~~
4. Automatic insertion of the username of the original author
5. Automatic generation of a cut-n-paste-able link to the page that the suggestion resides on. This link could then be easily copied by any noob to use on the main suggestion housing page.
6. A section for the description of the suggestion
7. A "COMMENTS" link to the talk section of the page the suggestion resides on.
8. A section for votes.
9. A place for "Voting ended, all votes below this line are nonbinding (timestamp)"

• Type should be the same for all suggestions on a given page, so probably isn't necessary. I like the idea of a link for noobs, and a link to the talk page. --RSquared 23:50, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Working model from template:suggest...still haven't gotten the User bit working quite right.

• Formatted a bit, but I don't care for this template - we should do something new.

---

{{suggest|
 s_name=Suggestion Name|
 s_signature=~~~~|
 s_description= Suggestion Description|
 s_keeps=<there are no keep votes for this suggestion>|
 s_kills=<there are no kill votes for this suggestion>|
 s_change=<there are no change votes for this suggestion>|
 }}

Template:Suggest