User talk:MHSstaff/Projects/TestingGrounds

Test of a good classifier

If we are going to adopt one of these nominations, it should be able to handle all of these groups. If it has difficulty or would be open to interpretation, then we're no better off with the changes than we were before them. Some of these are obvious, of course, but others of them are perhaps not quite so obvious, depending on how you try to draw the lines. Please keep this list in mind as you evaluate each classification system.

1. 404: Barhah not found - A ghost town reclamation group that specializes in repairing ruined suburbs.
2. Big Coffin Hunters - PKs the Dulston Alliance on the grounds that they are bad for survivors.
3. The Big Prick - Goes around mass-reviving zombies.
4. British Broadcasting Corporation - A news organization.
5. Cobra - A PKing group.
6. Escape - A group with no objectives other than to survive for a certain number of days, then commit suicide.
7. Dead Air - A zombie group that works to destroy the cell phone towers in the game.
8. Feral Undead - A group of loosely aligned zombie players.
9. Illuminati - A bounty hunter group.
10. Malton College of Medicine - Is known for their organized lectures and first aid runs.
11. Malton Telephone - Works to maintain the cell phone towers in the game.
12. Organization XIII - Fights for whichever side is in the minority.
13. Philosophe Knights - A group which tries to benefit and educate survivors by using PKing as a teaching instrument.
14. RDD - A death cult group that has career zombies and PKers in it as well.
15. The Ridleybank Resistance Front - The zombie group that defines zombie groups.
16. St. Ferreol's Hospital Noise Abatement Society - A territorial zombie group.
17. Soldiers of Crossman - A survivor group.
18. Urban Anonymous - A nonsensical zombie-human alliance group.
19. Z.A.L.P. - A life cult group.
20. Zerg Hunters Unlimited - A zerg hunting group.

(From Aichon)

Discussion

Neutral Heading

As this is a poll, it may be best to have what is essentially an abstention heading (If 5 people are in favour of change, only 1 is against, but 30 abstain, it might be sensible not to carry out that course of action). On pages like Policy Discussion, where abstentions are irrelevant, they aren't needed, but here, where it's only a case of gauging public opinion, it may be best to have a neutral header. i.e. "I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied".--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are thinking about the first question? -MHSstaff 19:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How would that work? Am I satisfied? Yes. Am I satisfied? No? Am I satisfied. I don't Know? Surely that falls under yes? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

e.g. I don't care what system is used for the group box. I'm not necessarily satisfied and I'm not necessarily dis-satisfied. It could be misleading without a neutral header.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My take is if you don't care, than you are ok with the status quo and should poll under "I am satisfied." Abstaining = Yes in my mind.-MHSstaff 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with the current system? Yes, or indeed don't care, is also my reading. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll make that explicit then. -MHSstaff 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That'll work. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Or change the question. "Do you wish to change the blah blah etc." --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

These are good ideas and I have made the changes. I am going to randomize the nominations at some point later today, and throw this up in the Poll discussion area. We'll have a about a week to iron out any more changes, and then I'll open it up for polling to the community. -MHSstaff 19:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding conflict resolution and types of changes

I don't think this poll would be complete if we didn't address the desire by quite a few individuals to address conflicts that arise from the current system. The new statements aim to gauge the public opinion of the reasons people want change.

I also attempted to categorize the nominations into a few different types. Feel free to expand on this. ~ 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I can see exactly what you were alluding to earlier, I really like where this is heading. This should give us a better idea of where everyone stands, and what criteria are actually important to the community. I'll think some more about the new stuff, but to me it makes sense and seems solid. -MHSstaff 03:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad you approve. I didn't do anything with the preamble at the begining of the poll but I do realize it doesn't exactly mesh well with the changes I made. Let me know if you need some help with that or if I added enough to get you going. Or just tell me to piss off :P ~ 04:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To expand on this a bit, should this poll include statements on how best to deal with conflicts that will likely still arise? I don't think any system will completely stop them. I still think that conflicts should be handled by the users but perhaps there is somewhere besides Arbitration that these conflicts can be resolved. I don't know what that might be exactly but perhaps it can be discussed. Maybe this isn't the place to do it, though. ~ 18:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is well beyond the scope of what we are trying to do here. -MHSstaff 18:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)