Category talk:Suggestions

Page Discussion

Please put new topics at the top of the page.

Archives

Archives for this page are here

Discussion About Talk:Suggestions

As Talk:Suggestions was moved to Developing Suggestions, discussion about that page now takes place at Talk:Developing Suggestions.

Discussion About Category:Suggestions

Put talk about the page Category:Suggestions here

Suggestion Discussion

Put talk about the process of posting and voting for suggestions here.

Reworking of dupes

Changes in the game mean that suggestions which were unworkable before, may now be logical with the current game. To combat this, I suggest setting a limit on how long a suggestion can be considered a dupe, say 8 months as a starting figure. This will be long enough to prevent endless spamming of the system, yet short enough to try ideas again.-- Adward  12:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this wouldn't apply to Peer Reviewed suggestions, right? After all, there's no point in keeping a suggestion that has already been kept. Anyway, I'd be up for something like this. I'm not sure about the eight months, but the concept is good, since a lot has changed since those early suggestions were made. —Aichon— 13:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested this before, amongst other things, but for 12 months. Either way works really.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, this suggestion is itself pretty much a dupe (read further down the page). And no, Kevan decides what gets in and what doesn't – he's implemented stuff from Peer Rejected and from voting before, and there's plenty of Peer Reviewed stuff which is never going to make it in. I really don't think we need more pointless rehash suggestions which will never be implemented. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Kevan doesn't give a toss about the reviewing system, he implements what he wants and based off no merit other than his own approval. Let's put Suggestions up for deletion already? --

 

 

 

 

00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is a bit much, but given the abuse of the Talk:Suggestions page by certain individuals who have no clue of how the system works, I'd say looking at deleting that is feasible and having everything go straight to the main system. The suggestion system and the discussions it has generated have contributed to game changes, it's just that contrary to the views of some people the system is accurately named. It is a suggestion system, not a demand system, you could push through a suggestion with 1000 keep votes and it's still not getting through unless Kevan likes it and thinks it's relevant to the game at that moment in time.

The problem with limiting dupes is the fact that we'd have to deal with pointless shit again and again. We'd get chainsaws, flame throwers and sentry guns all back almost immediately. Kevan has never expressed any displeasure with the way the system works and is operated. The major reason for the dupe system is to prevent pointless crap from filling up the system, allowing Kevan to see the new/evolved ideas immediately. Usually the most vocal proponents of altering the dupe system are those who are so unoriginal that all their stuff gets duped and they take personal offence because they think they are the saviour of the game. Cue Zombie Lord in 10, 9, 8, 7....

You want to change something? Try getting rid of the sysop spam method, there's no reason to give a group of users massive powers when they don't actively participate in the process. Alternately codify the humorous condition, because that's enforced based on who puts the suggestion up rather than the content. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's an idea. Clarifying humurous is less required, as most suggestions that are humurous are pretty blatant.-- Adward  17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Votes

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

New Cycling Criteria For All Suggestions Pages

The purpose of Developing Suggestions is stated on the page to be as follows:

This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Recently a certain user has been abusing this page by using it for other than its intended purpose. Zombie Lord has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in adding any of his ideas to the main system to be put up for review by his peers, why then do we allow people who have no such interest in using the page as intended to disrupt it?

Case in point, if we look at the page in this form we can see how the overall existence of his contributions is disruptive and harmful to the purpose of the page. The proposals of other users that may be using the system as intended end up being buried under the avalanche of his spammed ideas that he admits he has no intention of ever sending to the main system.

To clarify, Zombie Lord has said he has no intention of taking his ideas to the main system (therefore having no reason to post on Developing Suggestions) and that he doesn't have to take his suggestions to the main system as Kevan reads Developing Suggestion (Kevan doesn't, the system is set up so he doesn't have to and Zombie Lord can provide no evidence to support his baseless guessing).

If he has no intention of using the system as intended, why should we allow him to bury the suggestions of others and continue to disrupt the suggestions pages? If he merely wants to list his ideas and work on them with select users then his user space will suffice for that purpose.

Therefore I propose to add a new cycling criteria applicable to all pages in Category:Suggestions and any sub category thereof, including discussion and talk pages. If passed:

Any edit made by Zombie Lord to one of these pages can be reverted/removed by any user without warning or a notice period. Placing the edit back from a rightful cycling will be considered a bad faith contribution and seen as vandalism.