Talk:Developing Suggestions

How is it that Five people run this section?

Why is it that every suggestion may have like one random person but like five of the same people ridiculing every suggestion? Does anything ever get passed here? I request a new more democratic way to do these developing suggestions. More people should be allowed to pass through if these five just ignored.--Dontaco2000 10:50, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Umm... what?

Firstly, developing suggestions is just that, developing suggestions. These suggestions are never put to a vote, and are never archived (they are deleted off the page after a week of no discussion.) If you mean the actual suggestions system, that's different, but why are you posting on the developing suggestions talk page?

And yes, in the real suggestions system, things do get passed.

I suspect what you are really complaining about is the lack of civility shown by some members here - that's fine, ether IPAT and be civil yourself (no one likes hypocrites) Although the main suggestions system does have a "civility" policy (which is really just saying that obvious trolling should be removed off the page,) while the wiki as a whole (which includes this page,) has no civility policy. If you want one, suggest it, but be aware, that it's failed a few times before (this is for many reasons, which I'm not going to go into here.)

Also - you seem to be under the impression that Developing Suggestions is controlled by a user, or group of users. No one controls this page. With the exception of obvious vandalism, which is dealt with by regular users and sysops, no one has the right to censor comments, or "control" this page. There is no developing suggestions cabal.

Secondly, by definition, democracy isn't censoring views you don't like - even when they are annoying and may not seem to be constructive. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:16, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Music! Music! Music!

So where did it go? It was a good suggestion and was on it's way to being peer reviewed...does anyone know what happened to it?--S1leNt RIP 04:44, 8 May 2009 (BST)

It got there. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:49, 8 May 2009 (BST)

Cool, thanks. I never noticed it.--S1leNt RIP 20:22, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Justification of votes

Okay i wasn't sure whether or not this counted as policy discussion so i brought it here, basically i think it's time to remove the need for justification on suggestion votes. Take Sonny's vote here, now while not a technical justification it is clear from that exactly what Sonny's opinion of the suggestion is. If "Spam - bad idea " is legitimate justification why isn't this? I didn't destrike Sonny's vote because Mid is right, technically he didn't justify his vote.

Anyway the whole need for justification is stupid. People can bullshit justifications if they don't like you or whatever, that can't be worked around. So yeah, opinions? Do i go through policy discussion or just leave it here and see what people think? --xoxo 06:42, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Wiktionary defines Justification as "A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.". Sonny clearly states "this shit" in his response, this is his belief of the suggestion and therefore justifies his Spam vote. I'm therefore unstriking Sonny's vote. There needs to be some sort of clear discussion about this, as anything after the actual vote in question can be considered to be a justification. Deciding if something is a good or acceptable justification is an act of moderation and therefore disallowed on this wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:03, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah. I agree. However i don't really see how we need such a policy. I mean a vote of "Keep" should be just as valid as "keep good idea!". Dupe votes obviously have to reference the previous suggestion but other than that the whole thing is stupid.--xoxo 10:05, 23 October 2008 (BST)

I like the idea of keeping the justification portion as it gives instant community feedback to a suggestion. I am opposed to anything that demands an acceptable or good justification due to moderation concerns. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Since we're going with hair-thin distinctions here, I'd say the # justification ~~~~ means that "justification goes here", not that "anything that's located here is a justification". --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:29, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Correct, however Sonny did justify his vote. He voted Spam as he thought the suggestion was shit. By the guidelines he is not required to justify why he thinks it is shit, he must only justify his vote, which he did. Your removal of his vote was incorrect. While "The weasels told me to!" may not be a helpful justification, it is still a justification as required by the guidelines. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:40, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Well, if you really want to get technical about it, just because Sonny thinks it's "fucking shit", doesn't mean that he voted Spam because of that ;). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 11:03, 23 October 2008 (BST)

The reason I called him on it and said it wasn't justification was because he didn't explain why it was spam. If he thought it was shit, he should have voted kill, not spam. Spam is for duplicates, frequently suggested etc, not for ideas people don't like. If he wanted to call it shit, he could, but should use kill, not spam. Yonnua Koponen 16:39, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Hang on, wait a minute! This wasn't even the response I was talking about!

"Spam - Cause it had Crucifixes in the title--/~Rakuen~\" is what I was talking about. And I said it because the word 'crucifix' doesn't make it spam. Yonnua Koponen 16:41, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Justifications are important, as suggestions aren't like policies or deletions. They don't get implemented just because they get over two thirds Keep votes. I'm pretty sure Kevan reads the votes, and they provide helpful information when properly justified. If it was up to me, I'd require better justifications than just "bad idea", but as it's not up to me, I just strike those that are unjustified. Excessive aggressiveness isn't helpful in any way, and takes extra effort over "bad idea". And if you want to make a policy about suggestions, you go here (actually, this discussion should be there, not here) and then here, not A/PD. Also, removal of mandatory justifications was attempted about a year ago, and failed. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:26, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Page Move

So the old T:S page got moved? Yay! Linkthewindow ^Talk 21:30, 20 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah so now its the same mess as before but with a better name D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:52, 21 October 2008 (BST)

Sounds like kevan rudd's policies.... *ba doom chi* --xoxo 05:54, 21 October 2008 (BST)

So true... Linkthewindow ^Talk 06:10, 21 October 2008 (BST)

My god, your Malton's own Bob Hope! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:17, 21 October 2008 (BST)

Discussions moved from Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions

Decrease time for deleting abandoned suggestions

As of the right now I would gladly delete what is very likely at least 80% abandoned suggestions. However, due to the week mark I cannot and hence, I request that we change the time for deletion to 4 days to save space, preserve neatness, and get rid of the insane annoyance I have with dead suggestions. No one even bothers to check more than the top five most of the time anyways.

--Diablor 22:54, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Discussion (Decrease time for deleting abandoned suggestions)

Maybe it's just me, but I consider all suggestions. I prefer leaving the 5 day thing as it is, as anyone who hasn't been around for even a couple day will need that time to catch up if they need to. Besides, 5 days goes fast enough.--Kolechovski 21:19, 2 September 2008 (BST)

---

Reworking Suggestions Heading

Currently, the top section of the suggestions page is very cluttered. I'm assuming that is because small additions and changes of 'How to' over time has just sort of messed it up. I'd like to get it cleaned up, as we have huge level two headings marking small statements. I think we could get the archives, overflow, and further discussion put into the same category, as well as other small adjustments. This would make it easier for new users to understand the page better. I'd have no problem with working out a format, and putting it here for review. - tylerisfat 12:50, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Alright, I'm starting work on it here. This is the first version. If you make changes, please make note of them on this discussion page. Thank you.

SuggestionsTemplate

- tylerisfat 16:07, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Discussion (Reworking Suggestions Heading

Fair enough. Create yourself a sandbox page, and make an example of what you want, and well work through it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:19, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Well, putting the whole page under a single level-one header is a bit pointless. Also, the information on how suggestions are cycled should not be under "Further Discussion". How about something like this? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:58, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I'm still working out a few kinks of my understanding of headers and what not. I've revised it, based on some of your own and some of Ross' suggestions, take a look. - tylerisfat 18:14, 8 August 2008 (BST)

---

Rewording How To Section

I made this suggestion on the wrong page, so have moved it here.

I'd suggest the removal of the word 'friendly' from the following text in the 'Suggestions: How To' page:

"If this is your first time making a suggestion, consider taking it to the Talk:Suggestions page before starting in on the voting process as described below. The friendly people there can help you avoid formating errors and will let you know if the suggestion stands a decent chance of passing a vote, has glaring problems, or (good or bad) has been made and voted on already in the past."

Obviously, all online communities develop their fair share of aggressive gatekeepers who want to piss their angry musk over newcomers to dissuade them from further contribution, but as this is meant to be a friendly introduction to chipping in - often made by more enthusiastic newcomers to the game - the name-calling, self-righteous rage and blanket assumption that people have an agenda to simply serve their own characters are pretty shitty. Assuming you want new contributors, of course.

Discussion (Suggestion Tolerance)

Replace with "friendly" --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:27, 27 July 2008 (BST)

HAHAHA! This is one of the best suggestions that has ever been made. Tylerisfat 22:44, 27 July 2008 (BST)

This is not a Urban Dead suggestion and as such does not go here, and constitutes as spam.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (BST)

"Assuming you want new contributors, of course." - We want new contributors, we just don't want you. Go away. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:19, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Indeed. I endeavor to remain neutral in terms of suggestions, but I have no problem with attacking blatant morons who stick their two inch high soap box in the wrong place because they think it's clever. Shape up, Leave, or get banned when you eventually cross the line.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (BST)

The suggestion is genuine, as is the justification for why it was made. It wasn't made in order to make me feel clever, but in the hope of altering the text so that new people wouldn't be suckered into thinking that their first attempts at contributing would be met with warmth or helpfulness. 'Friendly' real does seem inappropriate. And which 'line', Techercizer? Apart from misplacement, what have I done wrong?Ned-kogar 00:35, 28 July 2008 (BST)

That's not the place for it, Talk:Suggestions is for game suggestions development, not proposed reworkings of the system, that goes here(on this page). Other than that nothing, but if you ask me it doesn't seem like you care, just that you wanted to poke the bear or complain to someone, which is a great way to cause drama and get trolled all across the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 02:29, 28 July 2008 (BST)

With respect, you're mistakenly second-guessing my motivations. I really like this game, I like the ethos of Kevan's projects, and I was surprised to see the level of hostility by some individuals, particularly given that the Suggestions Development page is meant to be a place to try stuff out and get used to how things are done. I genuinely think it makes the community you have unattractive to newcomers. Removal of 'friendly' would at least make for less of a bruising surprise. Ned-kogar 11:09, 28 July 2008 (BST)

Problem is that we have been in operation for a really really long time. As a result almost every conceivable change has been discussed to death. There have been over a hundred postings of gun suggestions (probably 200+) on this wiki, in both the main system and on the development page. Every single trenchtastic upgrade (Military weapons! cars! etc!) has been shot down so thoroughly that they have the same effect on the suggestions community as an infection. Suggestions has become a swarm hive, with at least three different swarms nesting there, and a number of others periodically sweeping through. Predictably, we wouldnt have this problem if people thought their suggestions through, read the do's and do nots as well as frequently suggested, and searched the damned archives (It takes 10 minutes people!). --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:43, 28 July 2008 (BST)

Ok. Fair enough - it seems you have to know the game (and the accepted way(s) of playing it) pretty well before making a suggestion, even in the preliminary suggestion area. Always hard to join a long-established community. Nice terminology, btw.Ned-kogar 11:57, 29 July 2008 (BST)

---

Wiki Suggestion Suggestion

The mockery suggestions are getting out of hand. Suggestions made clearly to mock other users (Gardenator's 2 suggestions making fun of me, and Zaphod Beeblebrox's 1 suggestion making fun of DrPain) should belong in a different section, like one for Humorous Talk:Suggestions.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a suggestion is being made for trolling purposes instead of as a genuine attempt to talk something out before bringing it to a vote. If these most recent mocking suggestions are serious and not humorous, put them to a vote now.

There is a definite difference between a suggestion which some people might think is dumb, and a suggestion which is made clearly to mock and ridicule, or as a pure joke. The latter has no hope of ever going to a vote because the author did not intend for it to ever go to a vote when they made the 'suggestion' but rather for griefing and flamebaiting purposes.

It's bad enough this is happening with sigs (people making long sigs as insults instead of the intended purpose of a signature). Now we have have entire suggestions dedicated to slamming other users (in Gardenator's case, slamming me). As it stands, all the mock suggestions serve to do are to overload the talk:Suggestions page faster. I'd like to see this change happen as a minimal attempt to have some sort of civility, unless the wiki is meant to be another 4chan. --Tselita 18:41, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Historically, its a place where all suggestions can be developed. Humourous or otherwise. I mean when the people who remove these suggestions put themselves up for vandalism, you can see the problem. A few of the older (longer) users of the wiki develop suggestions on their own pages/ ask for direct feedback from other users they value the opinion or knowledge of. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:27, 3 June 2008 (BST)

In these cases though the only purpose is to directly insult another user. By doing it on the talk page for developing suggestions they just make it that bit more likely that people will go straight to the main page and a valuable method of refining the good bits from shit suggestions is lost. I don't think putting them up should be treated as vandalism (even though it could easily be argued that it is) but really; funny though "toolboxes" was its just not what the page is for!--Honestmistake 19:39, 3 June 2008 (BST)

So? Suggestions? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:43, 3 June 2008 (BST)

It is a humorous suggestion and we have a page for those.... its tucked away in a dark corner and barely worth visiting but it is there. The problem is that the nailgun and toolbox suggestions were deliberate (and funny) parody of something on the page they were posted on and would not have worked elsewhere... maybe a rule that such postings can only stay for 24 hours before you must move them to humorous? By then the point has been made and a simple link from the parodied suggestion to the new location would make it easy to find for those who might care but would not SPAM the page and detract from its real purpose.--Honestmistake 19:50, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Fair enough. I guess a policy or decision may have to be made. You don't want people getting treated diffrently. [[1]]--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:56, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Parody is allowed humor, just because someone gets butt-hurt doesn't mean we have to indulge it, the suggestions were funny, they were funny because they were parodies of crap that was actually suggested. Whether they were meant to be insulting isn't as big of a problem as that Tselita would have been insulted anyway.--Karek^maps?! 03:46, 4 June 2008 (BST)

---

The page is screwed up now. The box on the left that's supposed to be an outside is smashed very narrow and very long, and that's screwing the positioning of everything else. It looks horrible. I use IE though, not sure if it matters. It wasn't this way a month or 2 ago (was normal then).--Kolechovski 20:28, 29 May 2008 (BST)

The table of contents is in a table with the Archives, Further Discussion and How To sections in the cell next to it. I'm guessing this is so that the table of contents doesn't squish the suggestions themselves. And it looks the same in IE and Firefox. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:46, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Changes?

Is it just me, or is UD getting... played out? We need some new elements to the game :( --Haliman - Talk 02:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It could do with something entirely new, and not zombie or survivor focused, just something that can be enjoyed by both sides. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree. However, I think the game's only half of it - I came for the zombies, stayed for the community. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Too long!

The page is getting too long and it's tearing itself apart! The line on the left is broken (it starts halfway down the page) and some kind of mysterious "Media:Example.ogg" has appeared at the bottom of the page and the rest of the stuff at the bottom has been devoured! Whatever do we do!? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:22, 30 March 2009 (BST)

It's happening again. Also, the "Suggestions up for Voting" at the bottom was eaten a long time ago and hasn't been restored. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

It still exists (unless someone else restored it), it's just empty because people are doing it this way now, which I think is better anyway. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:33, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Why do people hate new flavor?

I've been looking over past logs, and a lot of entries seem to be shot down simply because it was 'too complicated'. Case in point is about a clothing bloodied status getting killed not because it makes the game unfun but because it's 'too complicated'. Bullshit! It's entirely flavor text that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. How could they possibly whine about how complicated it is?--Parakirby 07:23, 27 April 2009 (BST)

It would help if you linked the actual suggestion you are talking about, however if you are talking about the clothes get bloody 1 layer at a time its worth pointing out that it made very little sense and added nothing but a slight complication on the current situation anyway. As for flavour in general its always going to be a matter of taste and if it adds nothing to the actual game it almost certainly will not get added anyway. That said purely flavour suggestions usually do better than those with actual effects so I can't say I agree that they are always shot down. --Honestmistake 13:38, 27 April 2009 (BST)

You do understand the amazingly flawed logic behind the suggestion at hand, don't you? In real life, how often do you bleed on the outside layer of your clothes and not the inside layer? Most users voted against it because it made no sense, not because it was too complicated. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:02, 27 April 2009 (BST)

See, I voted for that suggestion and it seemed to me that what you were getting was other people's blood. Never thought of it the other way around. -CaptainVideo 00:06, 28 April 2009 (BST)

It's also about the fact that Kevan has precious little time (as do we all) and people would rather see him implement other things instead of using his time to code something that amounts to pretty much nothing. Additionally, how many people are going to notice "oh my clothes appear to have gotten bloody on the outside/inside first," really? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:10, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Haha, sorry, I posted this after 36 hours without sleep and staying awake on 2 litres of coke.--Parakirby 14:28, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Reworking the Intro Again

Just here to get some opinions on another, not too major, rework of the current header. You can see the proposed example at SuggestionsTemplate and you can discuss it on Talk:SuggestionsTemplate. --  RoosterDragon  02:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)