The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

	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.

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

These suggestions are currently at vote. Please hold any extended discussion about them here.

Look out a window V2

new version Curently being voted on

V1 comments

Personally, I'd prefer to just let this drop but because several people seemed to feel strongly about it I guess its at least worth talking about if for nothing else so those againt it can say why they feel it is a really bad idea and those who like the idea can explain why they feel its a good idea.

(The original sugestion and votes was accidentaly deleted and I'm not sure how to recover it. little help please)

The idea, in sort was that tall buildings with windows you can jump out of would allow you to look out that same window and see what is outside that building. after I saw what Grim said, and after I checked the links provided I understand this may unbalance the game.

But I am sure there has to be a way to fix it. and if anyone can come up with a that way I'd love to hear it. --Teksura 20:23, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I honestly thought it was a good idea - however, it might just need some more refinement in tune with what people have pointed out and some better clarification as to where exactly it would. There would be a work around suggestion to make the game realistic though - all of the windows have been blackened (painted over) due to the zombies to keep them from seeing light coming from inside. PS - I did some reading in the archives about why binoculars are a bad idea --Darkstar949 22:42, 6 May 2006 (BST)
I thought it was a great idea. Limited to the square you occupied and limited to buildings with a second floor. The logic is there for the concept and as far as the argument of realism goes, realism smealism, plain and simple it is a tactical option that I would like to have. As stated if there was any realism in this game at all I wouldn't be allowed to carry the resources that I have on my characters, or to be able to jump from building to building 50 times in day. To those people who stated that this is X-Ray vision again you are not reading the suggestion. In no way shape or form did the suggestion state that he was attempting to look through walls, look through the barricade or anything else. While in concept it may closely resemble what Grim pointed out, again I stress it is limited to the square in which the building is located. In my short experience with Zombie Sieges (I have been only playing since Feb), they seldom pile up on the building in which they are getting ready to siege. They are normally piling up a square or two away, or a new experience on my part is that they are starting to pile up in revive points near major resources to get their spies into a building and then attacking. --Steel Hammer 05:02, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Secondary Rooms

Spam SSS. What Zaru said. Mattiatior, stop voting as if you've made valuable contributions to Suggestions. Because you haven't, and you're a newbie until you do. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 22:19, 14 May 2006 (BST)

re good suggestions by me? Lets see... Oh! Advanced Blunt weapons Training, Peer Reviewed. Flamethrower (Revised). Soon-to-be Peer reviewed. Mattiator 22:33, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I removed the comment by Mattidor and put the discussion here as 1- we don't need illegal Re replies turning the page into a flame war and 2- I hoped that CyberBob would apologize. --Karlsbad 22:48, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Neutral Junk Items

Kill - he didn't say anything about "let Kevan decided". He stated that "Only Kevan knows the actual odds of success at barricading" and then estamated the bonus with the information limited to everyone but Kevan. He also said "what you're voting on is the criterion, not the number." All that aside, I find that its a good idea. You are able to use items that are otherwise very useless. I'd also like to ask Jedaz how many baracades he has built. It sounds like he's only clicked that 1 time. the the Text also includes less bulky items such as "some junk", "some tyres" and "some planks of wood" --Teksura 04:24, 14 May 2006 (BST) Grim does have a point, Although that Crowbar in the doorway is a trip hazard for zombies I still have to change my vote because not all buildings have doors you can lean something small like that against --Teksura 08:06, 14 May 2006 (BST)
We at the foundation for better drunks would like to thank you for your comment. Please b awar e that in the future, ypying will become harder. Thank you, and enjoy the sky. For a limited time only. -User:Mia Kristos 04:26, 14 May 2006 (BST) Not necessary --Teksura 04:32, 14 May 2006 (BST)
Sory, i wasm't thinking. --User:Mia Kristos/sig 04:41, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Re - (Reing because I was direcly asked) I've built many barricadeds but I decided just to use that as an example. But let me ask you a question, how many times have you seen anyone carry around "some tyers" or "some planks of wood"? They would just be too bulky to be carrying around during a Zombie apocalypse and hence because everything else that could be used to barricade effectivly is too bulky to carry around there wouldn't be anyting in your inventory that you could realy use. Also I feal that it's a "let Kevan decided" as the suggestion could have just said "I imagine an increse of 2.5% or 5% to barricading would be appropriate" instead. But I didn't kill because of that just for your information. Also to Wyn, if you could use a crowbar like that then Zombies wouldn't be able to get in at all because the doors wouldn't be able to open! - Jedaz 05:02, 14 May 2006 (BST)Author Re's only. If you were asked directly, answer on their talk page. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 07:42, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Fire Zombies

Can you please take the hint that people don't like this particulour idea?--The General ^{W! Mod} 22:33, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Two Words, General: Spell Check. Mattiator 23:23, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Two words, Mattiator: You're a fucking idiot. --Undeadinator 23:59, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Two words, one template:

	Oh Snap!
	Someone just got served!

OH.SNAP--Mpaturet 00:03, 13 May 2006 (BST)

I did spell check, I just couldn't for the life of me work out how to spell "particulour". Anyway, the point still stands, however it's spelt. Why do you keep resuggesting this idea when it's obvious people don't like it?--The General ^{W! Mod} 11:34, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Aspellfox for the win!out of interest is correcting other users spelling mistakes/ typos vandalism--xbehave 13:48, 14 May 2006 (BST)

No, it counts as good faith.--The General ^{W! Mod} 14:17, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Toxic Miasma

Karlsbad 17:24, 11 May 2006 (BST): Okay, it seems from most of the comments, their is a confusion about how the skill works; admittedly I attempted to answer all questions about the suggestions and in doing so found out I had answered none.

So, Does this skill "Mess with Health"? No- it only makes infections more likely to happen; 30% more likely, to be exact.
Is it a multi-step skill like a Sniper Rifle [Brace/Aim/Fire/Re-aim/Fire, etc.] or a super-complex programming like Temp Stat boosts or Conditional Survivor Bonuses? No- it is actually only as complicated as an attack against barricades; one RNG check to see if you hit, then a second, automatic non-AP check to see if you either Infect or Bite the victem.
During the effects of a grasp, the hit rate of a zombie to the "to-hit" is shifted up 10%; this means that this attack would hit 70% of the time but after the RNG check you will do 35% Bite and 35% Infect rather than a 40% Bite attack.
This is not a Bite nerf; you still do the 4 damage at 30% like you always do, but your attack has an additional 30% chance to do 1 Damage Infect as well.
This is not an over-all Zombie Boost, either; the average damage is equal to non-tangling claws and less than the max Grasped Claw damage per AP; it is only more damaging than the normal Bite attack, which is weak anyhow.
To attempt to split the attack types up, you would probably nerf in comparison the Bite even more, or you would have to develop an very strange, low-damage but likely hitting attack: a 100% 1 damage Infect would do only 1 damage per AP, well below the Claw max, or possibly a 2 damage 75% attack to get to 1.5 damage and 1.7 during Grasp- making it far better than the 1.2 and 1.6 Bite attack.

But

This skill would help zombies, which some folk are against in the current balance.
You could create a seperate 60% 2 damage attack that would be equal to the bite but less equal than a bite in Tangling conditions; the debate would then be if Digestion and high damage is worth a higher rate of infection.

Any questions and suggestions about the suggestion? Add below.

comment Overpowered. Brings bite damage on par with claw damage (and exceeds it's accuracy, which is important in certain cases), before factoring in infection, digestion and tangling grasp. With this, my zombie would deal 4 damage 30% of the time when biting (1.2 damage/AP), and another 30% of the time, I'd deal only 1 damage (0.3 damage/AP), for a grand total of 1.5 damage/AP. There is a reason that only claws deal that much damage in melee. Bites has other benefits.--McArrowni 23:11, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Laser Sight / DC Adaptor

Withdrawn by author --Dan 16:20, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Fight Back

My suggestion Fight Back was spamminated a little while ago. I noticed that it wasn't liked that much. Is there anyway I could improve it or is it dead in the water? Krazy Monkey 21:02, 6 May 2006 (BST)

No, there is not. Autodefense/attack suggestions are never supported. First of all, you would either be giving free actions to a person when logged off OR you would be wasting a person's AP while logged off.--Pesatyel 21:28, 6 May 2006 (BST)

If you haven't yet, please read the Suggestions Do's and Don'ts, the Frequently Suggested Ideas, and the Game Assumptions pages. Also try lurking around the suggestions page for a while, you'll pick up what works and doesn't work. If you have any further suggestions, it's recommended that you post them on this page in the developing suggestions section. --CPQD 23:14, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Note that "what works and what doesn't work" refers to the voters, not the game. There's not much connection. The bartender class (gets to heal an extra hp with alcohol, leaving it entirely inferior to FAKs) "works"; a suggestion that would add any significant new element to the game does not. A totally underpowered weapon "works"; a balanced or even nearly-balanced weapon does not. However, any auto-attack suggestion I can imagine doesn't work in either sense. --Dan 00:32, 16 May 2006 (BST)

I've posted a suggestion on the same concept right now. If that one doesn't get accepted, no variant ever will if you ask me. By the way it was just an idea I thought I'd try. I don't care if it gets keep or kill... infact I'd rather it get killed for that would be so annoying to my Z... --Certified=Insane 23:48, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Well it's getting spaminated. Kinda surprised, but don't really care, for reasons i pointed out abive. --Certified=Insane 23:58, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Default Group Affiliations

Kill - SSS. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 14:18, 6 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - ? - Jedaz 14:37, 6 May 2006 (BST)
  - Re - It's a new acronym of mine. It stands for Seriously Shit Suggestion. Helps to save time and energy, while still communicating my feelings. It's only used in the most extreme cases. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 14:39, 6 May 2006 (BST)
    - Re - See, it doesn't realy help anyone when you just go "SSS", it's very ambagious phrase. I'ld have to say it's a SSI of yours (just poking some fun at ya!) - Jedaz 14:58, 6 May 2006 (BST)
      - Re - Ah, but if I use it enough all people will come to know the true meaning of SSS. And in doing so they will take another step on the road to perfection. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 15:01, 6 May 2006 (BST)
        Re - So you want to live in a perfect world? Do you know how boring that would be, chaos is far more interesting. - Jedaz 15:03, 6 May 2006 (BST)
        Re - All people strive for perfection; only a select few achieve it. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 15:06, 6 May 2006 (BST)
        Re - Do you know how wrong that statement actualy is? No one has or ever will achive true perfection. The simple reason is because it instantly contradicts its self. You can't be the best at being the best and the worst at the same time. In other words, you can't be perfect in winning and perfect in loosing at the same time! Hence the contradiction. - Jedaz 15:15, 6 May 2006 (BST)
        Re - Actually, you are wrong, I have achieved true perfection.
        Re - Said the man who forgot to sign his statement. Sorry, had to be said :P --Sirens^{T RR} 23:44, 7 May 2006 (BST)
        
        Re - Quick question: are you taking me seriously? I hope for your intelligence's sake you're not... --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 15:18, 6 May 2006 (BST)
        Re - 50/50, I just like intellectual arguments about random crap. It's much better then getting into an argument with someone whos just going to flame you no matter what you say. It's even worse when the other person has lost and they start throwing insults because they can't win, they are truly sad, they should realy learn to accept defeat. Well thats what I think any way. So yeah, in final response to your question, I'm just arguing for fun realy - Jedaz 15:26, 6 May 2006 (BST)

First of all, the acronym sucks if you don't explain it FIRST. Secondly, if your going to vote Kill, you have to give an ACTUAL reason why, especially since a Kill vote means "try again."--Pesatyel

First of if your going to get involved in an argument with cyberbob you should know its not gonig to achive anything. Secondly a kill vote means, "i dont want this in the game" not "try again".Thirdly you are right that there needs to be a reason other than you think its shit, you need to explain why its shit!--xbehave 22:03, 6 May 2006 (BST)

We view it differently then. I see Spam as the "I don't want this in the game" and kill as "try again." Not that big a deal really, but I see Cyberbob's SSS...thing as something applied to a spam vote. If it is "seriously shitty" why would you vote other than spam?--Pesatyel 23:11, 7 May 2006 (BST)

*ignores xbehave's comment* I have explained it many times. It's on my user page, as well on the first 3 or 4 times I've used it in a vote. Most of the time when I use it, all the reasoning has been already stated. So it's kind of like a strong "see above" vote, except cooler ;) --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 08:09, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Cooler? Um...okay.--Pesatyel 23:11, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Well, I for one am sick of the endless "See *insert user here*'s vote" type of comments. This replaces them. If not many people have voted, then I can add a reason. Maybe not cooler (didn't need the little insult, but whatever), but definitely easier. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 16:34, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Double-barrel

Okay, I just had a brainwave, but I need some help with the math...What if there was a skill that let you shoot a zed with both barrels of a shotgun at once, for one AP. The catch would be, it'd do less than 20 damage (though still more than 10, obviously). The idea is that it'd actually do less dam/AP than single-barrel shotgun use when you average in reloading and finding ammo----maybe a lot less--to counterbalance the obvious tactical advantage of being able to deal a lot of damage quickly. What amount of damage would the combined blast have to do to get the required damage/AP?--'STER-Talk-Mod 22:15, 30 April 2006 (BST)

16. What about the possibility of hitting TWO targets, one with each barrel for less damage?--Pesatyel 01:12, 1 May 2006 (BST)

you'd come into trouble with the comparabilty of flares--Vista ^W! 08:42, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah, but flares weren't meant to be weapons primarily. If something is more powerful than flares, that's fine... flares were supposed to be for survivor signalling Timid Dan 19:25, 1 May 2006 (BST)

(edit conflict, written without seeing timid's message) flares aren't weapons. I'm sorry, but it's just that simple. Theyre' not designed for weapon use (the game mechanics of them aren't, I mean). Trying to use flares as weapons is designed to be a trap for newbies, an AP and search-time sink. This would have full 65% accuracy and maybe 15 damage. But clearly not so many people read the developing suggestions area, so what the hey, I'll just put it to the main page. I'm sure someone will run the math and see whether it's feasible at 15 or not.--'STER-Talk-Mod 19:27, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Flares are indeed weapons. You find them while searching for real ammo, or for gas cans, so they don't contribute anything at all to your search-AP expenditures. Then they do .15 * 15 = 2.25 average damage when you fire them off, or .15 * 12 = 1.8 against a target with flak jacket. Even with the flakjak, that's much better than the 1.2 average damage you would otherwise be doing with an axe when you run out of ammo. --Dan 21:23, 5 May 2006 (BST)

I don't see why it'd have to do less damage, but I can see it being less accurate (greater recoil, etc) Timid Dan 19:25, 1 May 2006 (BST)

(From the suggestion votes) Making it a 2 AP action would just neuter it completely, Pesatyel, but I think I would like to see the hit percent come down a hare...I dunno...--Xavier06 11:23, 2 May 2006 (BST)

I think you might have misunderstood me. What I believe he wants from the suggestion is the ability to fire 2 shells at the same time and do extra damage for it. The player presses the "attack with both barrels" button (as example) and 2 AP is deducted the same way 20 AP would be deducted were he to hit the "manufacture syringe" button. Thus, for 2 AP, the player has a 65% chance to do 15 damage or 2 65% chances to do 10 damage in a row. It seems to me a lot of the kills are thinking it is "something for nothing" by only having it use 1 AP.--Pesatyel 01:40, 3 May 2006 (BST)

um, no. not at all. the rp reason for the less damage is that a shotgun's damage isn't only the physical damage of a bunch of metal pellets ripping through your body. it's also the medical shock and the blowback from the blast. shooting with both barrels thus causes les damage than shooting two shells individually, though it's exactly the same amount of action. the reason i want the mechanics to work that way is so that there'll be a way to deal lots of damage for few AP if you have the ammo.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:53, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Who says shotguns have two barrels? The way I always thought of them is as a pump action with only space for 2 bullets in them for wathever reason. --Certified=Insane 23:52, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Attempting to think about it logically I guess. It makes more sense that the UD shotgun is a breachloading, double barrel. But then the pistol would more accurately be a revolver (what pistol clip only holds 6 bullets?), simply change "pistol" to "revolver" and "clip" to "speed loader."--Pesatyel 23:17, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Okay, so; the current "damage rate" is about .65 per 8/10 damage, or 5.2/6.5 average damage per attack; the "double barrel" suggestion would be harmed by a flak jacket if it is over 15, meaning it would be 12/15 (Avg.Dam; 7.8/9.75) damage. When you include the cost of firing and reloading the firearm, the average comes out to 10.4/13 and 4AP to fire & reload creates a 2.6/3.25 damage per loaded fire-arm; the double barrel creates a look of 7.8/9.25 and 3AP to 2.6/3.083 per loaded fire-arm.
You would be loosing in average damage against flak jackets and breaking even against non-flak targets by firing the weapon double-style, but you would be able to unload all your weapons in half the normal AP; a 10 shotgun volley would deal an average of 52/65 damage, while the double shot would deal 78/97.5.
In comparison to the pistol, the average damage of a full clip of ammo from a pistol is .65 per 4/5 damage, or Avg.Dam 2.6/3.25 coming out to 15.6/19.5 per 7AP spent, or 2.23/2.79 per loaded firearm.
However, over 10AP the damage is done at a rate of 26/32.5. This looks terrible, until you consider that a shotgun can only find half the shells on average in comparison to a pistol clip. The greater damage is invested by twice the AP on average spent searching. --Karlsbad 01:05, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Engineering Skill

"Chance of barricading 2 levels for one ap? thats a free action, and Spam." says Grim. No, that's a half-cost action. --Punchkin 15:58, 12 May 2006 (BST)

You say "half off," I say "buy one get one free;" mathematically they're the same.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:07, 13 May 2006 (BST)

It really makes no difference. ANYTHING that boosts barricades is going to die. The manufacturing portion has a little potential, but the author needs to read the past suggestions on the subject.--Pesatyel 03:42, 13 May 2006 (BST)

I was thinking, as I posted a suggestion on that, maybe to balance it out, make a zed Memories of Life subskill to allow you to use crowbar to weaken barricades? Last I checked the motorics involved iun wedging a crowbar between objects g and o is far less challenging than operating a doorknob.--William Raker 19:05, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

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

Revive/Do Not Revive flag

I am a low-level player (still at level 1), and as such I keep getting killed by zombies. When, as a zombie, I hang around buildings, even NT buildings, I get killed by a zombie hunter. I view this as an abusive zombie hunter, killing far lower level zombies who clearly want to be revived. I suggest that something like a "Revive/Do Not Revive" flag be available, and that zombie hunters who are clearly killing those who want to be revived be considered some form of PKing, and hunted down and eliminated by other players.

Mstcrow5429 09:56, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Not a suggestion. Use the template provided at the top of the page to create one. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 12:01, 9 May 2006 (BST) Moved from suggestions page.--Vista ^W! 13:03, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I think it sounds like quite a good idea but make it like an item you find, maybe a t-shirt or label and you can choose what to write on it, like graffiti but on a t-shirt or label. That way you could have "Please Revive" if thats what you want or you could have something advertising your groups tinyurl or something. Krazy Monkey 13:06, 9 May 2006 (BST)

While I sympathize with you on the "wanting a revive" and cursing the jackass zombie hunters who use revive points as XP farms, this suggestion could present issues to zombie anonymity, depending on how it was implemented. I'd have to see a fleshed out version of this before I could comment for sure.--Mookiemookie 13:58, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Getting a revive is supposed to be difficult. Its what makes death matter, and its what leads to human players cooperating. This would greatly increase the ease of getting revived, and thus make death less meaningful than it currently is, and also likely reduce survivor cooperation, as a lot of them dont do it any more than they need to to survive. My survivor likes death being as meaningful as it is now as it adds a sense of fear into the game, and my zombies enjoy the fact that at present, when people die, it matters. If you dont want to spend a while looking for a revive, dont die. My survivor hasnt died in almost one and a half months, and he only died the first time because he couldnt find an open building in 15 ap (I was then shot twice by roving zombie hunters before i caught a revive myself, its a setback, deal with it. Dont whine). FYI: That survivor was a level two scientist when he died the first time, and spent the next two weeks alive without free running. --Grim s-^Mod 14:16, 9 May 2006 (BST)

With this you might ruin the balance, the zombies are currently managing to keep survivor numbers down because the revivers are afraid to use ap reviving the wrong people. This will just say look a revive needed, no more worries as I can easily see he hasnt got brainrot. And he isn't a zombie spy (well he could be, but more likely a survivor wanting a revive). Also because I am a zombiehunter I should now be hunted and killed because I attack zombies that are low level, come on I cant see what level they are (just addingthat I dont attack zeds at revive points). Whitehouse 14:33, 9 May 2006 (BST)

What hasn't even been mentioned is that my Death cultist ALT could put ANYTHING she wants on her flag. "Whatever are you talking about? I'm NOT a death cultist, please revive me, I'm just a frightened person who got unlucky, I'm NOT going to spy for the rest of my horde, I have NO intention to PK you or anyone else. If each user could pick whatever they want for it, the flags become meaningless because you don't know if the person with the "Revive me" flag is an unlucky person, or a Zombie spy. There are many tricks to get your name out there for a revive Try this as for those bad people who hunt zombies waiting for revives, That is their choice and there are going to be people who are fanitic about "All Zombies must be blown away" so its something we have to live with.... well you get the idea. --Teksura 00:35, 10 May 2006 (BST)

This isn't a bad idea - but it would have to me limited. For example instead of a permanent way of setting the flag let only those below level 2 or 3 set the flag and once you advance past those levels you no longer get the option of setting the flag. As a counter to people farming XP with a low level character they level calculation could be based upon the amount of XP the individual has. --Darkstar949 20:17, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Vomiting

Timestamp:	01:38, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombie
Description:	Needing a Rotted brain, the organs of a zombie begin operating at minimal functions, but with major malfunctions in the brain on how they act, and how cells reproduce. The zombie begins to show it as well. REQUIRE LEVEL 10 TO PURCHASE. Vomit-The zombie's digestive track has malfunctioned, and now ejects stomach acid, mucus, and meat from the zombie. -'~~Zombie now may attempt to vomit on a human with caustic acid damaging his/her Flak Jacket (if they have one) or a random item~~. Has a 20% chacnce to hit, and deals 2 damage upon impact with a human. The damage may be uprgaded with a diffrent skill (or just up it) increasing the acidic qualities of the vomit. Anyone with Kill votes please tell me as to why, and I will try to fix any bugs that may be in the suggestion. This is my first suggestion. Major EDIT- Flak Jacket melting is gone now.Please review your votes.

Votes

Keep-Author vote. -Zombie
~~Kill~~ Dupe Evidence here. -Wyn ^(talk!) 02:52, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Spam Don't edit your suggestions after they're posted--Mpaturet 02:48, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- Re-Sorry. I'm new to suggesting, so I am not really sure how some of the rules go. But, since this is my most promenient one, I am gonna keep it. Sorry for editing. :( -Zombie~9:51 EA
Sparn - What would the world be like without Captain [Spam] Hook? Interestingly enough, upon reading this suggestion rny brain rnalfuntioned and I vornited on the keyboard and now I can't use the letter that comes before n and kind of looks like this rn.-Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 02:55, 3 May 2006 (BST)
~~Spam~~Dupe This has been tried innumerable times, and never gets through, also, I recomend reading the suggestions doos and don'ts; this falls into the "don't mess with other peoples inventory" guideline --Bermudez 02:57, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Spam - Violations of the suggestions page rules, including multiple major edits to the suggestion post submission (It was originally three times as long and broke the template). --Grim s-^Mod 02:57, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Spam - Sounds sexy.--Wifey 02:58, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- - Suggestion moved from page due to rule violation --Grim s-^Mod 03:15, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Would Kill - This suggestion would only make sense if when I vomit, my toilet melts. Tokakeke 04:19, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- Are you a zombie with a malfunctioning digestive system? If not, what doesn't make sense is your comment. :P -Wyn ^(talk!) 04:20, 3 May 2006 (BST)
  - No, but not only does that not make sense, don't mess with my inventory. Tokakeke 16:36, 3 May 2006 (BST)
    - I'll accept the second half as a valid argument against it. :P -Wyn ^(talk!) 16:39, 3 May 2006 (BST)
SPAM - First of all, any suggestion that needs brain rot is crap. Second, please don't mess with my stuff. If you have seven loaded shotguns and a flak jacket, you don't want some "freak accident" where all your guns and jacket disappear. Think about people, even if you play zombie. People are people too. 343 07:34, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- Any suggestion that needs Brain Rot is not crap - it seperates the 'casual' zombies or the flip-floppers from the people who are hardcore zombie players. -Wyn ^(talk!) 07:54, 3 May 2006 (BST)
  - why on earth should you draw a line between people playing as zombies and, harcore zombie players? any suggestion that needs to be limited to a few zombies is overpowerd--xbehave 18:07, 5 May 2006 (BST)
    - Lots of skills have prerequisites. That's why it's called the skills tree, instead of just the skills list. Nothing wrong with having Brain Rot be a prerequisite, when there's a reason that makes sense. Of course, this suggestion is still digestive-tract effluent. --Dan 19:58, 5 May 2006 (BST)
SPAM - SSS. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 18:09, 5 May 2006 (BST)
Kill - I, personally, don't have a problem with the "vomiting" idea as a new zombie attack (there aren't a lot of options for zombie attacks), but it has to be significantly different. This not only doesn't it do it, it wouldn't be used at all, unless the attack was VERY high (70%). Bite is low hit% but has the added benefit of both Infectious Bite and Digestion. Claws are the standard attack. What benefit does THIS have?--Pesatyel 02:05, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Half-zombie

I recently ran into this page entirely by accident--it was apparently missed in the purge at the start of the current suggestions system. Something I posted there waaaaay back in October gave me an idea. A new zombie skill after Infections Bite that allows you to, by biting an already-infected survivor or some other means, have a percent chance of causing a "half-zombie" state. Half-zombies get to use axes (and other melee weapons) and shotguns at 3/4 their human accuracy, including skills (pistols need too much aiming for them). They'd get claw attacks at the player's normal zombie accuracy but at only 2 damage, but not bite--they're still human enough that that idea is repulsive. They'd get 100% XP from attacking anyone at all (counterbalanced by the fact that the state is difficult to attain or maintain), could use simple items including FAKs but not NT equipment, can't freerun but can bypass barricades of Quite Strongly or less. They'd stop losing HP, as the infection is now part of their body rather than an invader. Death makes them a full zombie and a syringe makes them a full human. What do you think?--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:03, 1 May 2006 (BST)

comment would descourage lower level baricading. the human you bite isnt killed wo this doesnt make sense real. this would have been a much better solution to combat revives than 10AP syrynges, but unforunatly its too late.--xbehave 01:28, 1 May 2006 (BST)
to many people would try to aim for this half state, and at the moment you make crossing over very easy,it would be a dream for pk-ers and most of all i think the line between survivers and zombies is blurry enough already.--Vista ^W! 08:47, 1 May 2006 (BST)
Instead, make EXP gain the same as TKing - half. Also, I would suggest that the player would turn into a full zombie after 50 AP have been used, if not treated with a syringe. That would mimic the effects of zombie infection from movies. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 11:18, 1 May 2006 (BST)
This would really unbalance the game, as it'd go from Survivors vs. Zombies to Survivors vs. Zombies vs ??? I think that the balance is difficult enough to maintain when you just have two major factions. Introducing a third completely changes the genre. Timid Dan 19:27, 1 May 2006 (BST)
- I like most of that page, If the non-insant kill parts were suggested, I would vote Keep --Lord Evans ^W! 07:23, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Powered weapons

I'm thinking of suggestion a weapon (or set of weapons) which would initially be fairly useless but upon getting a skill they would become more effective than most melee weapons (probably even Axe), the catch is they have to be used in a powered building.the catch being the items do very low damage (1,2 or maybe 0) when not plugged in. this is a general concept, I'm good with maths so i could sort out the hp/AP and the sort but want to check the general idea before i suggest it

also there are a few more complex features Ive been thinking about, however I'm not sure what to do with them, IMO if something is more complicated it means that your in less control and the game doesn't just role out the same way over and over, however as i found out with my altered wanted! suggestion, some wiki users prefer simple mechanics? is it worth suggesting the more complicated parts of the suggestion or should they be left out all together and maybe referred to in my vote or a later suggestion. for this suggestion i was thinking about:

making them destructible a small chance that if plugged in when a generator is destroyed
it costing AP(probably 1) to plug the item in
a nail gun that requires ammo to use

i was thinking about this since before the last update but there are still a lot of buildings that the power bonus doesn't effect, i.e the ones with nothing in them, the buildings power bonuses do effect, such as malls, hospitals and NT buildings could remain unaffected by this "you find nowhere to plug you <item> in"

Just as a friendly note, there is on way that any suggestion that makes a weapon have to be used in a powered building would pass. With the exception of Syringes theres not one item that has to be used in a powered building to get the best out of it. - Jedaz 01:09, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Makes sense to have siege weapons. I'm not sure zombie players won't whine about the idea of a railgun setup once they enter a building. --Theblackgecko 07:08, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Molotov cocktail

This is a developing idea of mine - so there is no math involved so this is more of a discussion of practicality in terms of the game mechanics as opposed the mathematics of the idea.

This suggestion is two fold, there is a skill that allows you to make and throw the molotov cocktails, and a new item that would need to be added to the game (i.e. rags) The skill would fall under either the military or civilian skill tree and would enable the player to make molotov cocktails for XAP by combining one fuel can with one rag. The molotov cocktails would be thrown with a 15% chance to hit and on impact would do between 10 and 15 damage to the target with the odds tipped towards the lower end of the scale.

The rags are just an idea that I have been kicking around - in short a way to both add another survivor-ish item to be found (and one that can be used as well) it is fully unnecessary if you have to spend AP to make the item after you find the fuel for it.

What follows is an example of a way of processing the cocktail so that it may be in compliance with the multiply it by a billion rule. This psudocode is focused solely on the damage dealing and disregards anything else.

... Item use preprocessing - same for all items
1. If the item did not hit, the jump to the post processing
2. Get the first three zombies in the room
3. Generate the damage to be dealt to all three
4. For each zombie
4.1 Apply damage
... Item use post processing - same for all items

Without knowing what language and database the game is written in I cannot speculate as to the exact number of operations would be, however it could be kept minimal.

Two words for you Flare Gun - Jedaz 01:11, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Hasn't this been proposed - and shot down - half a dozen times? -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:14, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Last I checked you make a Molotov cocktail with a bottle of an achololic beverage such as a bottle of wine or beer. My thoughts on this are accually to make it an area attack that would hit 5 zombies each for 1 damage. Buy sadly I can't explain anything like that. --Teksura 01:51, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- The Molotov cocktail can be made out of a number of different things (ref. Wikipedia, the fuel cans make the most sense though. --Darkstar949 02:51, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- Actually, true Molotov Cocktails (and the ones that work the best), are typically made with vodka and petrol, with the majority being the vodka. --Prisonner of Today 12:03, May 3 (GMT-7:00)
All things considered, it could do two damage to five zombies, so long as it took the same amount of AP to make and throw as it takes to find and load a shotgun with one bullet. Maybe an AP or two more, because of the multiple targets. It wouldn't be too horrible that way. -Wyn ^(talk!) 02:25, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- However, if it affects more than one player then it breaks the AOE rules. I need to start working the math on just being able to create the molotov w/o needing to find an extra item to see if it can even be passed in that regard as a non AOE item. It would take alot of math to make it as even as an AOE item. --Darkstar949 02:51, 3 May 2006 (BST)
  - Throwing a Molotov in Caiger and it only hitting one target is more ludicrous than firing a shotgun in Caiger and only striking one target. -Wyn ^(talk!) 02:59, 3 May 2006 (BST)
    - True, if the molotov where to be added it would most likely be used for crowd control during seiges so we encounter the by a billion rule. However, I can think of some ways as a programmer to make it a simple implimenation, so I'm not too worried about that (outside of the knee-jerk spam votes due to the rule). --Darkstar949 03:07, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Upon a search, this is what I found. Grenade (Nov 10), Item_Combination, Grenade (Nov 13), and Fire_Bomb (Jan 19; spamminated and not transfered). there was a Hand Grenade listed for Jan 25th, but I couldn't actually find anything.--Pesatyel 03:07, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Already peer reviewed, but I'm too lazy to find the link. Mattiator 03:00, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Alphabetical Names

This is a suggestion i put over a week ago (voting on it ends on May 6th i beleive).

Lately i have been working on getting support skills (healing) and to get in spirit have been spending time at a mall healing. While there i have noticed it can be a large hassle finding and healing someone who needs it. First you have to find someone who needs it on the big view name lists and then track them down on the drop down list. I frequently get lost and have to verify their location and try again. What i suggest is that there be an option in the edit profile screen to have names sorted alphabetically. This wouldn't force people who like the current system to change, but it would give those who'd like a choice something. I can't really see this hurting or helping zombies at all (unless they have a bizarre hatred for names that begin with the letter M or some such.) so that shouldn't be a problem. Thank you and good night.|

It got two or three keeps and then several kills. The problems most people had was that either survivors with letter a names would be screwed and always attacked first, or that it would massively nerf zombies. I had a bad feeling that people would not see that it is an option, and even tried to bolditize the line that it was an option but i am new to the wiki's coding system. It seems like all of the zombies would feel the option would hamper their abilities and therefore wouldn't choose it, and then the people with the letter a wouldn't be in any trouble. It would mainly help out healers in large buildings who otherwise have to do double the work (find it on list names and hten track it down on the scroll-down list). So I want your opinions now before i contemplate puting it back up with a note attached. Would you vote keep for it? Is there something else i should add/change to it to make it better or is it just not worth it in the end?

It's completely not worth it. If the zombie doesn't care who they attack, Aaaaaaaaaaaaaalice will get screwed, while Zzzzzzzzzmobieluva55 will be fine. If this ever passed, expect names with multiple Zs at the beginning to start showing up. -Wyn ^(talk!) 03:01, 3 May 2006 (BST)
The reason the people in a building are listed in the way they are is because they are listed by activity, with the most active being at the bottom. It works better that way. Also, if you wish to do healing, why would it matter if people are alphabetized? I honestly don't see how alphabetizing the names would help in any way at all. Instead, I'd try for an option that listed people in order of health, with the lowest health at the top. Even zombie players couldn't complain TOO much about that.--Pesatyel 05:21, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- As a zombie player, I'd be howling for blood if it didn't go through. As a survivor player, I'd be howling for blood if it even made it into Undecided. If it eventually comes up, I'm going to kill it just on the basic premise that it gives zombies too much of a bonus, unless zombies in stacks are also sorted from weakest to strongest. -Wyn ^(talk!) 08:09, 3 May 2006 (BST)
  - My idea or the suggested idea?--Pesatyel 22:10, 3 May 2006 (BST)
- Zombie players whould have kill-gasms. but what would be the need for diagnosis and scent blood? wether or not it would be more harmfull for survivors I don't know but It would invalidate skills, bad thing.--Vista ^W! 18:16, 3 May 2006 (BST)
  - Well, the same way that Diagnosis invalidates Scent Blood. I don't see it as invalidating skills TOO much. If you don't have Diagnosis or Scent Blood, you would know that the person at the top of the list is at the lowest HP, but not HOW low (49? 1?). With the skills you would know the same way. But in large sieges or just any building with more than 50 people, healers/attacks can't reach those 51+ people period (unless I'm mistaken).--Pesatyel 22:10, 3 May 2006 (BST)
Personally, unless there's a wounded survivor right there, my zombie goes for the character whose name pisses me off the most, but that's just me. Any arbitrary method of stacking runs into problems, since the ones on top have done nothing to warrant all the attention besides making a poor choice. By health or by activity means that everybody gets a fair shuffle since statuses like that are always changing. Besides, I don't want see names like "ZZZ" and "ZZZZ" cropping up...I'd attack them on general principle.--Xavier06 19:47, 3 May 2006 (BST)
I'd like to see something that allows sorting by anything available in game information. That includes name, level (for survivors), class, or activity. It's all available, but would cut down hits through less clicking on names, and just make things less of a hassle.--Theblackgecko 07:13, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Triage

[Ed. Note: I know there was a Peer-Reviewed Suggestion called "Innate Class Abilities" with a section called "Medic: Triage", which is nothing like this suggestion. If for some reason both suggestions get implemented (assuming this one makes it to peer-review), a suitable alternate name might be "Combat Medicine"]

Type: New skill

Description:

Triage

Your experience in many makeshift emergency-rooms has taught you how to more efficiently prioritize the wounded by need better.

Appears under Diagnosis at 100 XP. Reorders the stack by button and/or by entering a building by health, from worst off to best off. Survivors with lower hit points are higher on the stack than those with higher HP; Those with infection are higher on the list than those without. It would be considered in that order, as well, so someone with 20 HP would be higher on the stack than someone with 25 HP and an infection (but not higher than someone with 20 HP and an infection). In case of ties, it would stack by the normal method (activity). Obviously not a crossover skill, since this would make things too easy for zombies. Let me know if any of the above needs clarification.

Comments
Completely unneeded. If someone has diagnosis, all they have to do is select the dropdown box, and hit the first letter of the name until the right name shows up. -Wyn ^(talk!) 03:10, 4 May 2006 (BST)
id vote keep because it makes being a doctor easier, however people will say what wyn said, i dont see how a little feature for doctors is a bad thing tho, its no less usefull than alot of peer reviewed ideas--xbehave 18:12, 5 May 2006 (BST)
How about a skill that makes wounded survivors (or the 20 most-wounded, if there are too many) show up without having to spend an extra IP hit on zoom? I would spend the xp to get it before some other skills on a new character. --Dan 19:48, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Now that would be an interesting addition to the skill. My intent with this skill was to help career-healers get to their subjects faster (especially during attacks), but seeing that none of my characters is a career-healer (casual at best), I would like some feedback from those that are. I was just thinking this would be helpful to someone that did a lot of healing, especially in densely-packed buildings (100+), would want something that help them prioritize better, so they didn't have to scroll down (or letter-then-scroll) all the time. But, hey, I don't even have diagnosis (though my zombie does have Scent Blood, hehe), so what do I know?--Xavier06 20:23, 5 May 2006 (BST)

I did breifly have a medic and it was hell to search through a list of people over 50 for someone to heal, Especially when most of them don't need it... --Lord Evans ^W! 07:38, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.

New Page: Obsolete Suggestions

Purpose: To shorten the Peer Reviewed Suggestions list and make it easier to read. -Biscuit 04:55, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Timestamp:	11:55, 2 May 2006 (EST)
Type:	Wiki Improvement
Scope:	Suggestion Page Readers
Description:	Hi Suggestions. I was curious as to why obsolete suggestions are kept in the Peer Reviewed page? I like to check in there to see if anything clever has come up (and might be implemented), but it's cluttered with suggestions that will now never be implemented due to changes in the game. There's plenty of other crap in there too, but of course there's nothing to do about that. So, anyway, if the whole point of this section is to generate ideas to improve the game, you really ought to make the "Good" list easier to read, and moving obsolete suggestions to a new page would be a good start.

Votes
Obsolete suggestions? Like what?--Pesatyel 05:22, 3 May 2006 (BST)

There are some suggestions that refer to changes that have already been made in the game, but done a different way. The syringe nerf suggestions made before it got nerfed (did any of those get reviewed, by the by?) could all be considered to be obsolete, as they were made with an entirely different set of game mechanics in mind. The game has moved beyond them, as it were.--Guardian of Nekops 05:51, 3 May 2006 (BST)

I'd just get rid of the obsolete ones completely, but I'm kinda a heartless bastard. Maybe give the author a chance to pick it up and put it on their user or talk page before it gets obliterated. Just because we have a wiki and got tons of space to play around with doesn't mean we have to save or archive every little bit of ephemera.--Xavier06 14:27, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Even better is if we just went and put all of the accepted suggestions onto different pages for each section. And on those pages have obsolete and non-obsolete suggestions. But I had a look before and I found it hard to even find one truly obsolete suggestion. - Jedaz 15:19, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Look for any suggestion that mentions 'headshot' and 'XP'. Good chance it was written when Headshot dropped the XP of zombies, and so it's obsolete. -Wyn ^(talk!) 15:24, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Ok, this is what I found, Revamped Headshot XP Calculation and Separate Zombie/Survivor Levels. I can't find any more that are obsolete, and even the separate levels isn't realy obsolete. Thats a grand total of 2 out of 167 suggestions! It's not worthwhile having a whole page just for those two suggestions if you arn't going to go and have all of the other suggestions sections on other pages. - Jedaz 11:00, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I'd say a page for 2 suggestions is silly, too - but I think our definitions of "obsolete" differ. I'm thinking of the several suggestions that have significantly less (and sometimes now negligible) merit as a result of game changes - what Guardian of Nekops was talking about. Some examples:

"Dead Flesh" is obsolete after Necronet Access - since zombies can be revived after brain rot, there's no danger of being "shut out" from jackets. Well, it's not *entirely* pointless now, but has now has such less merit that it's not worth reading. Same with "Preserved Ligaments".

"Warning when purchasing Brain Rot" is superfluous, for the same reason.

"Enhanced Scent" is obsolete after introduction of "lights on" messages outside of buildings. Same with "Scent Life", and "Sense Prey".

"Toggle Headshot" is also kind of silly after headshot change, as are "Headshot not automatic" and "Axe Headshot".

I'll admit I thought there were more truly obsolete ones when I suggested this, and I still haven't read through the whole list. You can't deny, however, that the number of "decreased-merit" suggestions will just keep growing over time, and so why not set up the page now? -Biscuit 05:32, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I don't mind the truly obsolete ones being moved. However just because something has "decreased-merit" doesn't mean that it shouldn't be there. Any way I don't think Kevan would be silly enough to go and implement a suggestion that is so out of touch with the game at the moment. He could still get ideas from the suggesions with "decreased-merit". - Jedaz 12:42, 12 May 2006 (BST)

How about we move the stuff INTO peer-reviewed section from all of the prior day voting that hasn't made it in first? What's the protocol on that, anyway? --Timid Dan 15:07, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Well mods are supose to be the only ones who can move peer reviewed suggesions but I do it any way. Basicaly you determine if the suggestion is peer reviewed or what not and then add it to it's respective page. I think the instructions for moving peer reviewed suggesions need to be updated as the page has changed a bit. Probably all of the instructions need to be updated actualy... - Jedaz 04:52, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Suggestion Guidelines By Type

Not going to restore it because it'll add to the clutter, but do you (oh readers of this page) think we should put a link to it onto the main suggestion's page? Either it's own link (under Making a Suggestion) or as a subset of the Do's and Do nots. It still needs a little work, but in its current form it could help to improve bad suggestions before they get put on the page. Velkrin 00:23, 2 May 2006 (BST)

The more I think about it, the more I think I should have made it as a subset of the do's and don'ts. So I'm in favor of that --McArrowni 02:31, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Well since no one else wants to comment, I'll just go and do that. Velkrin 09:47, 8 May 2006 (BST) Edit: I put it under Recommended Reading as it seemed the appropriate place. Velkrin 23:02, 8 May 2006 (BST)

I like it, but a bit of a delayed response from me... I'm happy to have it stay there so good job - Jedaz 08:31, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Make No Additional Comments

And I quote from the rules:

Spaminated - If the removed Suggestion has become eligible for Spamination, you must:
1. List the number of Spam Votes received and the total number of votes.
2. State that the Suggestion was Spaminated.
3. List or summarize/paraphrase the comments/reasons made on the Spam votes.
4. Move the suggestion to Peer Rejected Suggestions page.
5. Sign the removal.
6. Be Polite and make no additional comments.

The rules for Duplicate and Humorous were so similar and bulky that I decided not to include them.

To put it simply, I know that those who process the spaminated, duplicate, and humorous suggestions have all been here a while: they've read the rules, figured out how to move stuff where it belongs, and attained a level of Wiki prowess that I have not yet bothered to attain. I thank you for your work, I really do.

However, the fact that only those who actually think a while and do some research about how to process these suggestions actually do so leaves them with no excuse for posting such things as, "This suggestion was Spaminated with 8 Spam Votes and 1 Author Keep because it sucked to high heaven," or "This horrible suggestion was Spaminated with 8 Spams, 1 Keep, and an Author Keep. This was the stupidest idea ever!" I know how tempting it can be to be petty that one last time, but that's what your votes are for.

In short, I think that if the general consensus is that we can't be polite and make no extra comments to those making bad suggestions, we should remove that line from the rules so people know to expect us to be jerks. Truth in advertising and all that.--Guardian of Nekops 22:39, 3 May 2006 (BST)

I think it should remain. It gives the creator of a spaminated suggestion a right to complain about their harsh treatment, as well they should. As someone who does cycle spaminated suggestions, I generally follow this rule. Except in the rare case that someone made a comment in their vote that was either extremely witty, pertinent to current and repeated abuses of the suggestions page, or that I found very funny. The presence of the rule serves to keep me from breaking it too often. --CPQD 22:47, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Keep it. If need be, someone else can always edit out any extraneous comments if they are found to be distasteful. – Nubis ^NWO 22:50, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Keep, the fact that its ignored a lot doesn't make it a bad rule--Vista ^W! 23:03, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Keep it the same. While we may chastise people from time to time, it's all in good fun, except for the ones which go overboard, hence keep. Velkrin 05:56, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Keep and enforce rules 3,4 and 6 more--xbehave 12:41, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Rule 4 needs to be enforced even more then 3 and 6 I reckon. - Jedaz 12:35, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Keep and ENFORCE THE RULES. I don't think that the general consensus is that we can't be polite. --Reverend Loki 22:45, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Spam Voting getting out of hand

Things are getting out of hand. People are abusing the spam system to shit upon users who, the majority of whom are simply trying to improve the game. WTF Centaurs, Snakes on a plane, and any of the other inane comments posted in the voting section are abuses of the system. Suggestions are being left on the main suggestions page long after they should have been moved to peer-rejected. While this allows some users to blow off some steam, and allows other users to keep their precious witty spam comments on the page for a little while longer, it has to stop. I know we're all waiting and hoping for the most recent hurricane of spam to pass, but as a community we can't treat users this way (including Aushvitz and Mattiator, who either don't care what you say or get their jollies from pissing everybody off). The end result of this behavior is, the spam keeps coming and we all look like a group of assholes. So what do we do about this? I'm not a fan of more rules and policies, so I won't offer any. I think we all need to step back for a few moments and think of the culture we're creating and fostering here. --CPQD 19:50, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I agree, i was thinking of making spam votes less effective kills, so that if spamming a suggestion fails, they dont count as much. However the majority of the spammers are the long term users who will vote on the policy. im not saying that all spam votes are unjustified, but alot of the time certain users vote spam because they dont like the idea, not because it has no merit at all, whats worse is that they then fail to justify thier spam vote at all. Perhaps the best anti spam meassure would be to enforce the 'valid vote must be justified' rule on spam votes properly!--xbehave 22:14, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Yes, well this is why you don't count the votes which arn't votes. If someone wants to put that WTF Centaurs crap instead of keep/kill/spam, let them, but it doesn't count for anything and just makes them look like an idiot. Velkrin 03:52, 8 May 2006 (BST) Edit: Alright, I'm getting really tired of Centaurs. I'm going to start crossing out the little bastards if they don't vote properly. 22:51, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Actually using WTF CENTAURS is a breach of copyright law, and is being arbitrated by Hagnat right now--Mpaturet 03:56, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Well "names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection" under US law. Not sure how it works in Rio Grande do Sul however. Mind you the whole thing may fall under British copyright rules. Velkrin 22:51, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Centaurs can't be a breach of copyright. Simple reason is because it's the name of a constalation and a mythical being. - Jedaz 12:33, 11 May 2006 (BST)

"Copyrights! We don't need no stinking copyrights!"[1] --Dan 15:21, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I think we just need to change the current spam-vote definition from "for the most ridiculous suggestions" to something objective and concrete, so that we can enforce it and strike out spam votes that are opinionated strong kills or personal attacks. At the moment any abusive spam vote can be defended with "but I thought it was ridiculous!" --Punchkin 04:39, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Strikeout of Invalid Votes

Vista says that only mods can strikeout the invalid votes (apparently includes the ones which are not actually votes). This is something of an oddity. Now not being able to strike out valid votes (even the obvious troll votes) I understand and support, too much power to be abused. However this is an issue of being able to strike out invalid votes which doesn't really make sense that regular users would be unable to do. How is striking out WTF Centaurs, or I AM A MONKEY, or that sort of thing, which is in place of a regular vote (keep/kill/spam) rather then in the description area any less valid then striking out an unsigned vote? Seems a bit off. Now we go to Vista for his comment if he's still on. Velkrin 23:14, 8 May 2006 (BST)

I dont have a problem with it, and i wasnt aware that people couldnt strike them out. This silly vote stuff is a new phenomenon though. I dont believe there is anything in the rules forbidding the striking out of such votes. --Grim s-^Mod 06:16, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Well there is the fact that it's forbidden to alter another one's vote or any portion of it. striking a vote out counts as removing it. The fact that it isn't mentioned as allowed means that it is illegal as we made the fact that you can't alter other persons votes in any way shape or form the baseline. The rules state the only exceptions to that. and there is a rule for dealing with invalid votes, The invalid part of votes is simply ignored, such as change/keep is counted as a keep vote, I'm a monkey/spam is counted as a spam vote and WTF centaurs/nothing isn't counted. Now if invalid votes were allowed to be striken out E.A. removed, there would be no guideline for that nesserary. It isn't in the rules because normal user aren't allowed to alter the vote of another user, striking it out, AKA removing it is such an edit. if that wasn't the case there would be no need to to include every time a strike out is allowed be mentioned in the rules as it is now.--Vista ^W! 07:57, 9 May 2006 (BST)

So your argument is that 'removing' a vote, via strikeout so it's still actually there (as opposed to outright deletion), is bad because invalid votes are still votes, despite not being counted? Perhaps I'm interpreting that incorrectly. It's not in the rules (or anywhere in the archives for that matter) because as Grim pointed out, it's a new thing. We didn't have this nonsense before, or at the very least not to such a large degree. The argument of 'It's not in the rules so it's illegal' is hardly appliable to a system in which the rules are changed and updated as the situation demands. We didn't have the suggestions per day limit before, so was everyone who made multiple suggestions a day breaking the rules? The rules don't say the users can cycle the daily suggestions, use the Tally function, or do illegal REs to point out to users that they shouldn't break the rules. Remind me, who pointed out that last one? As I stated previously I am not talking about the ones which include an actual vote, I'm talking about the ones which don't. Example follows:

WTF CENTAURS/Spam - Voter is an idiot, but vote is valid (spam).
I Have A Huge Penis!' - Voter is an idiot, vote invalid (no vote).

I'm talking about striking out the second type. The ones which do not include a vote at all. Note the emphasis. Velkrin 21:42, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Personally, im agreeing with Velkrin here. Striking out a vote is neither removing the vote (Which has always implied deletion), nor is it altering the vote. It is merely a notification that the vote is not to be counted, for the reason stated at the end of the strikeout. Illegal use of strikeout would be considered vandalism, according to the spirit of the rules. (Such as: ~~#Keep - Great -- Example User 21:53, 9 May 2006 (BST)~~ Example User is a faggot --Example User 2 23:51, 9 May 2006 (BST)). Abuse of the strikeout would, likewise, be considered vandalism. Honestly, there is no problem with what velkrin did. --Grim s-^Mod 21:53, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I also see little problem with what velkrin did, but point is: if we allow people to strike out votes when they are invalid people will also begin to strike out votes when according to them the reasoning behind it is invalid, argueing serverload, spam without a reason given, etc. That was actually a small problem back before the spamvote change. While I find little problem with removing WTF Centaur, people striking out votes however usually leads to drama as according to one the vote is invalid and the other it is not. It's almost never a clear cut case. Even here, the bold WTF centaurs was followed by normal case spam. It is arguable that might have made the vote valid. Now here it didn't really matter and had little effect, but that will not always be the case. Now I have little problem with not striking votes out and just letting it stand as is as. It doesn't interfere with anything and closes an entire avenue of potential drama. Why do otherwise?--Vista ^W! 22:51, 9 May 2006 (BST)

There is a very big difference between striking out votes where votes are not stated, and striking out votes when you dont feel the reason is valid. Such actions can, and will, be submitted to vandal banning, and those responsible will learn swiftly that such actions are not tolerated, unless, of course, someone wants to undermine the whole thing by ruling good faith. *glares at The General* --Grim s-^Mod 02:03, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I think that if a vote is invalid any user should be allowed to strike it out. It is a wiki after all.--The General ^{W! Mod} 21:55, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Worst comes to worst when it comes time to count the votes the ones which are invalid won't be counted. It stops the people with the invalid votes from complaining but doesn't give them a voice because they were too silly to actualy vote properly. - Jedaz 15:27, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal policy discussion concerning policy votings to be opened on the subject of the suggestion page, as per the rules for changing the rules

Vandal Banning for people not moving suggestions

I purpose that if someone removes a suggestion off the suggestions page because it's spamed/duped/whatever AND does not move it to the peer rejected they should be able to placed onto the Vandal Banning page for Vandalism of the suggestions page. The reasoning is that although there are bad suggestions being spaminated and what not they arn't being moved onto the peer rejected page. The very page that was designed to absorb those bad suggestions. It is also technicaly valdalism as they are just deleting the suggestion without following procedures properly. If people don't remove the suggestions properly then we are going to see the same old spam-worthy suggestions. - Jedaz 07:31, 6 May 2006 (BST)

i think links are also needed, but completly agree--xbehave 12:37, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I'm not terriably fussed about links because it's just as simple as going to the right date in peer rejected for it and looking for it's name. (ps I added a colon infront of your sentence so that the talk would format better, hope you don't mind) - Jedaz 13:09, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Dupes are not peer-rejected, most of the dupes are peer-reviewed. Dupe votes are only to remove suggestions that already have been reviewed and are thus obsolete There is a very good reason not to move duped but to remove it permanently. If suggestion 1 is found to be very close to the original suggestion. that original suggestion whould cover enough of the meaning for the duped suggestion 1 to be obsolete. but if you let the duped suggestion 1 stay, it will be used to dupe a suggestion 2 that is closer to suggestion 1 then the orginal suggestion. then suggestion 3 duped by using suggestion 2, bares a resemblance to suggestion 1 but is markedly different to the orginal suggestion. we remove the dupe text entirely to avoid dupe creep, were the resulting suggestions that get duped have little to no resemblence to the orginal suggestion that started it all.

while I think there needs to be more actention to the moving of spammed suggestion, giving people warning and bannings is a bit much, lets just try to put in more attention to it, and let people know that they forgot to move the suggestions.--Vista ^W! 14:14, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Ok, well I was kinda over reacting with including dupes and I do see your point. How about a strike system where if after being reminded 3 times in a month to move the spaminated suggestion to the peer rejected page then their name is put up for vandel banning. This wouldn't hurt anyone who occasionaly forgets, however it would wake up the repeat offenders. I don't belive that it would be too harsh. (I kinda over reacted a bit before...) - Jedaz 14:55, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I'd have no problems with that.--Vista ^W! 15:14, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Ok, I geuss that if we want it to be offical policy then I better do the final write up, leave it here for 24 hours and then put it under the voting section presuming that during that time period no one objects to how it is worded.

Often when a suggestion has been Spaminated it is not moved off to the peer rejected section of the wiki. In order to curb this I purpose we have a strike system, where if a user forgets to move the Spaminated suggestion three times in one month then they are liable for vandal banning. However suggestions not directly relating to the game which are not moved to the peer rejected page are exempt as the suggestions system is not the place for them. The user will have to be notified each time they forget as otherwise it is unreasonable to expect them to change if they aren't told. This would not hurt anyone who occasionally forgets but it wakes up the repeat offenders. Failing to move the suggestion correctly is actualy vandalism as the suggestion is deleted off the wiki and no record of it exists. It is also stated in the rules for moving spaminated suggestions to "Move the suggestion to Peer Rejected Suggestions page"

So yeah, thats basicaly what the wording would be, if anyone objects to how it's worded let me know and I'll see what I can do about it, however if no one objects I'll put that under the Policy Votes section when the time comes. - Jedaz 04:29, 7 May 2006 (BST)

There is still the issue of the suggestions which are not meant for this page which get spamminated. For example we had a merchandise suggestion a while back, and the humorous suggestions which still pop up on here, and this one. None of which went to peer-rejected. Velkrin 03:55, 8 May 2006 (BST)

I see your point. I made some changes to the text which are now in bold. Tell me what you think about it. I think that the humorous suggestions do need to be moved to peer rejected regardless though so I didn't include them. - Jedaz 11:54, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Hell, why stop here? We should vandal ban people for editing just about anything. In fact, I think we should enact a system whereby some people are granted the authority to edit pages in general, and anyone who edits a page who isn't part of that group should be automatically put up on vandal banning charges. We should take a hard, hard line against vandalism. We shall, of course, have to suspend a lot of basic wiki philosophies in order to do so. For example, we should assume that all edits are "bad faith" unless proven otherwise. There's a whole lot more, though. Thoughts?--Jorm 09:47, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Did you actualy read it properly? - Jedaz 11:54, 8 May 2006 (BST)

@ Jedaz: Yes he did. Very thoroughly.

@ Jorm: Absolutely. Hell, why stop there? Let's just perma ban everyone without waiting for them to make an edit. If the edit's going to be vandalism, we should put a stop to it before it even begins. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 12:04, 8 May 2006 (BST)

@ Cyberbob240: So you are saying that he thinks that warning someone 3 times in a month for not following the rules and then putting them through the Vandle Banning system (which the probably would only recive another warning) is harsh? If you arn't going to do the job properly then don't do it at all. By not removing suggestions correctly it creates more work for others. - Jedaz 07:25, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Suggestion one-day delay

After watching numerous suggestions made this wiki be shot down in three hours or less, despite posessing interesting concepts or mechanics, It is my oppinion that there should be a new sub-section, where users can post their suggestions and have them be reviewed, constructively or critically, without the immediacy of a kill-vote system. After 24 hours, during which the submitter can make whatever revisions he sees fit, the postings could be moved to the "today's suggestions" page for voting.

Consider Suggestions go through the Wiki so quickly, there is absolutely no time for casual players to pop in and check up on them. While many bad suggestions (the grossly imbalanced Hand Grenades, the rampaging "horde skills" that would make zeds unstoppable), there are the infrequent few that are instantly spammed off the boards because they present a new, often original take on a subject previously discussed (such as uses for wirecutters, crucifixes, and other "useless" or underused objects). Please take your time with this vote, it might not be terribly important, but it could serve to make this Wiki a much friendlier space.

Spam - Developing Suggestions, this is the place to develop a suggestion. Also this is NOT the page for changing the wiki policy, I'm not going to remove this because I don't think I'm alowed to but I'll wait for a mod to. (and in future for you vote/comment use four ~'s to sign your post) - Jedaz 15:11, 4 May 2006 (BST)

If you want to remove it, please do. You have the same power as a mod in this.--Vista ^W! 15:15, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Spam that why there is the talk page, project welcome, and user talk pages. This page is only for finished suggestions, incidently, the Talk page is also for POLICY DISCUSSION. Like this suggestion is. move it to the right place, pretty please? and next time people say any thing like "that are instantly spammed off the boards because they present a new, often original take on a subject previously discussed (such as uses for wirecutters, crucifixes, and other "useless" or underused objects)" I want fucking proof in the form of links otherwise I'm going to call it bullshit. In fact I'm calling it bullshit right now. NEVER EVER FUCKING HAPPEND.--Vista ^W! 15:15, 4 May 2006 (BST)

SPAMMY - Three words. Seriously. Shit. Suggestion. SSS, bitch! (hey, that could be my new catchphrase!) --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 15:27, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Spam What they said. This isn't the place for wiki suggestions, just game alterations. --Jon Pyre 15:57, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Spam - Boo hoo hoo... --Mookiemookie 16:04, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I've moved this off of the Suggestions page, but can't be bothered to do much to change the format. Oh well. – Nubis ^NWO 16:08, 4 May 2006 (BST)

"This has been moved to the Talk page, as it's not a suggestion. – Nubis ^NWO 16:07, 4 May 2006 (BST)"

No. It's far worse than any Suggestion could possibly be. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Please don't say that. It's going to spur Mattitator & Auschvitz to new heights--Mpaturet 22:40, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Actually, I believe Aushvitz has seen the error of his ways. But as all people know, Nature abhorrs a vacuum. Enter Mattiator to fill Aushvitz's place. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 08:13, 5 May 2006 (BST)

More of an escalation effect really. We struck down the one who kept making bad suggestions only to have one more powerful rise in his place. At this rate the Wiki will implode after we remove five or six more. 22:56, 8 May 2006 (BST) Velkrin 23:00, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Spam Reform

We used to have the 3 spam votes kills a suggestion system, which I liked because it kept worthless junk off the suggestions page. Unfortunately a lot of people complained that their precious snowflakes were getting deleted by people abusing the spam vote. They wanted to abolish the spam vote but lacked the clout. They did manage to get it so we established the new system, where one needed at least 7 Spam votes and for the number of Spam/Dupe votes to be equal to 2/3rds or greater of the total number of votes to delete something. So on one hand we have people who want to bring the hammer down on spam, and on the other hand we have people who want a fair system. What we compromised on was an arcane system that doesn't get spam off the page and is by its nature heavily abused just to make it remotely useful. So here's my new proposal.

Spam vote only requires 3 spams uncontested by a non-author keep to send an idea to peer rejected. People who vote keep just to put a wrench in the system can have their votes deleted as per our existing system concerning troll votes. The difference is that all three spam votes must the same reason listed from a new list of spamworthy mechanics/suggestions (which would basically be the suggestions dos/donts and dead in the water pages edited for this purpose). This way spam votes will actually serve their intended purpose, to delete crap, but won't be rampantly abused. /Discuss. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:27, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Odd, I thought the reform was because some idiot could (and often did) swoop in at the last second and vote Keep on a spam worthy suggestion, thus forcing it to stay on the page. Just take a look at this. It has the arguments from both camps, which is actually detrimental to my argument so...*shakes fist at self*. I think it's more an issue of the ever recurring spam vote abuse. You see it pop up over and over...hey, I like this bit about removing peer-rejected...and over again. Then there is this and this. Really there isn't much we can do about spam abuse, other then clarify it more. I think we often tend to see an upswing in spam votes, followed by a recession, sort of like what we had with the 5+ bad suggestions per day from the same author. Also I bit my thumb at your unorthodox usage of the slashie. Velkrin 07:35, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Well lets throw it in, either or. 3 votes, or 2/3 majority. Whichever comes first. --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:49, 1 May 2006 (BST)

....wait, what? They're mutually exclusive! If one comes then the other is unable. Also lets throw in a change to the Dupe system while we're at it. Tired of that 2/3 crap when dealing with dupes. Velkrin 08:38, 1 May 2006 (BST)

how about simply discounting kill votes? making the ratio 2/3 spam out of the spam/keep votes? with a minimun of 3 spam votes? whould get allmost every bad suggestion out, without regression into something we know is broken. Lets not glorify the past, The old system was abandoned for a good reason, it caused enourmous amounts of drama and whining. I'm for trying to evolve into that might work instead of changing it back into something we know is just as annoying as this system. (I voted for changing it and I'm all for spamming idiot suggestions into rejected-hell)--Vista ^W! 09:00, 1 May 2006 (BST)

However if you have 20 Kills, one keep and 4 spams then the idea would be spaminated according to that system Vista. Although it's a bad idea it's obviously not so broken that it is brain numbingly bad... - Jedaz 10:30, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Yes it would, But then it wouldn't have gotten to peer-reviewed anyway, so all that it does is send it to peer rejected 2 weeks early, if the suggestion is incabable of getting more keep votes it is obviously lacking as a suggestion, because even if its only a half bad suggestion it usually gets more keeps votes then spam. But if you think it's to harsh a simple corection is upping the spamvotes needed a bit, we could change it to 5 spam needed (the same minumum as it is now) and see how only discounting the kill votes work. I mean it's not as the next change must be the final one, we can try and find the most suited version by trial and error.--Vista ^W! 10:51, 1 May 2006 (BST)

You make a good point. However I wouldn't have a problem so much if people, when removing spam votes actualy moved it to the peer rejected page. I don't belive that people are doing it all of the time when they remove them. - Jedaz 14:27, 1 May 2006 (BST)

that is a different problem, and you are right, that needs to be adressed also.--Vista ^W! 14:49, 1 May 2006 (BST)

If this happens, I have a feeling that we're going to be seeing Rocket Launcher again. - CthulhuFhtagn 23:31, 2 May 2006 (BST)

I think we should try Vista's version and if it doesn't work then we can always change it. Would we still have the 3 Spams and Spams outnumbering Keeps rule, for moderators?--The General ^{W! Mod} 15:02, 1 May 2006 (BST)

if nobody complains about it, why change it?--Vista ^W! 18:51, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Isn't that effectively what I implied.--The General ^{W! Mod} 21:01, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I think the problem isn't the method for removing spammed suggestions, it's that the suggestion makers keep posting spammable suggestions. It'd make more sense that a submitter gets a one week "time out" if they post three or more consecutive spammed suggestions (last three submissions by author)... that'd really cut out the crap on the page and force people to consider more carefully what they're submitted. And then you'd have less crap on the page, which is more in line with the ultimate goal. Timid Dan 19:37, 1 May 2006 (BST)

The problem (With Vista's idea) that I see is that something may get a bunch of kills, with suggestions for improvement, and then a bunch of people could come along and vote spam to remove it quickly. With the usual abuse of the spam vote I don't think it's such a good idea. Velkrin 20:42, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Then what we really need to do is be harder on people who abuse the Spam vote.--The General ^{W! Mod} 21:01, 1 May 2006 (BST)

So, on one hand, we got users that put up spamworthy suggestions; On the other hand, we have users that abuse spam votes. Is it that people are split on what qualifies as Spam? While the Voting guidelines clearly state that "Spam" is not a strong kill, it seems some use it to that end. I'd always assumed Spam was to be used when a suggestion clearly had no merit, but I keep seeing Spam on stuff that people just disagree with. Perhaps we should just abolish the Spam vote for a time, shorten the voting period, and put an expiration date on suggestions in the peer-rejected section. It seems a radical idea, but it would keep things moving, allow peer-rejects to act as examples for a while (in which time the author or anyone else could cut-and-paste and re-work it), but take them out before they wear out their welcome. If Spam doesn't work when its too easy to save or when it requires Spam-happy users to work, then perhaps its just a broken idea. Or perhaps I misunderstand the problem?!?--Xavier06 21:47, 1 May 2006 (BST)

How about if we have a message saying "Spam votes without valid reasoning may be struck out my moderators if deemed to be invalid". However of course to stiffle contraversy mod's can't strike out spam votes on their own suggestions. Thats probably the best way to control the ridiculous spam votes. Alos a notification to the user stating that their vote on such and such has been struck out wouldn't go too far either I don't belive. - Jedaz 12:46, 2 May 2006 (BST)
You misunderstand the problem. Why should it be abolished? name one suggestion that should and could have gotten into peer reviewed and didn't because it was spammed. While the total number of spam votes has increased the total number of suggestions spammed has not. Spam is meant to remove suggestions that have so little to no merit that they have no chance to make it to the game even when revised. and thus don't have to clutter up the suggestions page for 24 hours. Nowadays to let that happen people have to abuse the spam vote to simple get the effect for what spam is instituted for. when we make it so that the spam vote can fuction without abuse, and send the truly bad suggestions away spam voting will decrease because it is effects will increase and people will adapt to that. Now I'm all for striking out unfoundated spam, when we make the transition, so we keep suggestion that can be used as a foundation for better suggestions. They vote so much spam on everything because otherwise they don't need to vote spam on anything, because it wont do the job. saying then: obviously the system is broken; lets forget about it, is overlooking the fact that it can be mended easily by making it so that less spam is needed. when less spam is needed, the spam votes will wane and be more focussed on the truly bad suggestions.--Vista ^W! 16:48, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Just as a thought, how about requiring a link to the suggestion in Peer Rejected when a Spammed suggestion is removed? That way it is more convenient for people to see what the suggestion was, and allows people to more easily base an argument against a suggestion that has been Spammed off the board when it should have stayed on longer. Regardless, I will start adding links to the suggestion when I move them to Peer Rejected. – Nubis ^NWO 16:56, 2 May 2006 (BST)

We already have a link for spammed suggestions...Spaminated Velkrin 23:24, 2 May 2006 (BST)

True, but that doesn't help people who want to take a quick look at what the actual suggestion was, it just lets the suggestion's author know how to make a suggestion not suck. – Nubis ^NWO 23:26, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Spammed suggestions are ALREADY supposed to be moved to Peer Rejected, but it is only haphazardly done, at best (often they are just removed). Then, if the idea comes up again, people shout DUPE, even though there is, technically, nothing to dupe since the idea was deleted. Part of the problem, I noticed in the Double_Barrel suggestion is that people were voting Spam because it was "incomplete." So, are they saying it would be spammable if it WERE complete? Or is it that they don't understand that Spam means "don't come back ever" while Kill means "come back if you've improved?" And what about if a given suggestion idea can NOT be "reworked" and/or "resubmitted" for at least a day?--Pesatyel 01:42, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Actualy the reason that spams are used on incomplete suggestions is because they are clogging up the page. Thats all the spam vote is realy for, to remove something that is clogging up the suggestions page. - Jedaz 11:12, 4 May 2006 (BST)

If people want to figure out what something was they can look in history or peer rejected. Its all there. The main difference in my system that hasn't been discussed is that each vote needs a justification. It would look something like this.

Spam - Crucifixes are not magic. --Zaruthustra-Mod 18:06, 4 May 2006 (BST)

The actual working model would use a new list that isn't so vague as the current ones, but you get the idea. This way it becomes very unlikely that people can effectively ninja spam an idea, unless of course it really deserves it. --Zaruthustra-Mod 18:06, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Ninja spamming is easy. Back under the old rules, we rountinely spaminated suggestions with 15-20 minutes of suggesting. The record was around 2 minutes, if I remember correctly. - CthulhuFhtagn 21:40, 4 May 2006 (BST)

3 minutes, those were the days...--Vista ^W! 21:44, 4 May 2006 (BST)

A spam vote isn't even a strong kill vote. It's an unconscious reflex, triggered by a word or two in common with one of the frequently-suggested categories. We should just get rid of the spam vote entirely until it starts to mean something. --Dan 21:06, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I think the Spam votes are being used too often because of what a suggestion is called. Some guy listed that my latest suggestion was spam because the ammo's name wasn't right (among other things)! Also, people immidiately spamminate "Rifle" Suggestions, even if they are balanced, because of the hated name! Mattiator 03:04, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Or maybe it's because your suggestions suck. Sonny Corleone 03:06, 12 May 2006 (BST)

well you can kiss my ass! I'm trying to get all of my suggestions implemented! So live with it! And vote "Keep"! And stop spaminating suggestions because of the name!!! Mattiator 22:10, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Actualy have you read the reasons people are spaming (although I think they realy only deserve kills most of the time). For your Rifle suggestion people killed/spamed because it was too much of an AP battery. Which basicaly means that you use AP before hand to store it up (ie loading) and then you use it all at once. For example with shotguns you use about 50AP to get 25 fully loaded. Then the next day you can go on a rampage using this 50AP battery as you don't have to worry about re-loading meaning you effectivly spend 100AP in one day. Well thats what I belive that the people were saying when they Spamed your suggesion. It probably would be benifical if you go to the talk page first and see peoples reactions first so you don't get a nasty surprise. - Jedaz 05:05, 13 May 2006 (BST)

NEW Suggestion System

i was working this week on the previous suggestions page, tallying some of January suggestions in order to easily move those suggestions who were supposed to be moved to Peer Preview. Peer preview is outdated to the most, with most ot the good recent suggestions not there.

So. What was i thinking this morning...

Using this template, a user will post a few lines about his suggestion to the main page. Then, He will follow the link, automaticaly created by the suggestion, and post his entire idea in there, using this template. See both talk pages of these templates for a sample.

This second template will categorize this suggestion per day, and any user can categorize that category to the Suggestions category. When the 14days of voting for suggestions is over, a mod can simply see which suggestions got peer approved, categorize it as such (in Category:Peer Approved Suggestions), and lock those pages. He will switch that day's category to Category:Closed Voting Suggestions and lock it also.

I believe this will give an extra work to make a suggestion, but at least it will be worth it, since now suggestions will be easily moved to peer preview. --hagnat ^{t • w} 14:41, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Ah! I was forgotting! With this system, any discussion about a suggestion will remain in its own page. People will no more discuss about an idea and clutter this talk page. --hagnat ^{t • w} 14:42, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Im not too keen on this. The current system doesnt involve much work, its just that the work is not being done. Some people, such as myself, are doing some of the required tasks, but some more dedication from people would be nice, like for instance three people to go through each days page, each selecting from peer reviewed, peer rejected, or undecided and moving all suggestions that fit that criteria to the appropriate page. --Grim s 15:12, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Which would be an easy task for people considering I've tallied up the majority of March (still some open votes), and a bit of February. As for this idea, you're just making a diffrent sort of clutter. Instead of having it all on a few pages, they all get their own page, causing a spike in the number of pages on the Wiki. There is also the nice ability to vote on all the suggestions in a day, rather than vote on one, go back to suggestions page, vote on another, back to suggestions page. Finally, there is the template itself. Quite frankly it gets messed up enough as it is, I'd rather not have to fix some guy's failure which breaks the Wiki in half. Before you say 'That'll never happen' or some such...they'll find a way. They always do. Velkrin 18:45, 9 April 2006 (BST)

i like this idea.--xbehave 20:25, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Why not just make the link to an individual's talk-page, thus cutting back on new-page clutter? Frankly, when and if I develop a suggestion (I got a couple brewing...just too lazy to get 'em down), I would probably start the discussion on my talk-page, just because this page is so cluttered right now that I'd be afraid of making a typo and accidentally breaking the page...--Xavier06 19:40, 10 April 2006 (BST)

i've restored this as after adding several days worth of peer reviewed suggestions to the peer reviewed page, ive realised that alot of important issues are addressed and explained in the votes system, and although i attempted to keep the key points in the notes, i feal leaving the original votes there to be read would be alot better (and easier) especailly for rejected and undecided suggestions. Also when IMO kill votes dont make sense its quite hard to word a resonable not explaining the objection (dont worry i left the origianal archive pages up so if you feal my notes were rubish feal free to go and edit peer reviewed--xbehave 16:05, 18 April 2006 (BST)
I'd like to see us give this a try. Making a separate page (and talk page) for each suggestion, with only the Category changing as it moves from live suggestion to Peer-Reviewed or Peer-Rejected, seems like a much cleaner system than we have now. Also seems like it'd be easy to procedurally generate archives based off such a system, though I know less about that. I like this. --John Ember 18:55, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I dunno if hagnet gave up but i have put this up for a vote i hope this is within the rules--xbehave 12:34, 29 April 2006 (BST)
restored as this is being voted on--xbehave 19:56, 1 May 2006 (BST)

New Vote Type - Revise

I am suggesting that a new vote type be added to the current voting system. This vote would be called Revise and would count as a No or Kill vote for the purpose of tabulation, but would act as an indicator to the author that their idea has merit but requires more work before it could pass. I will understand if this gets shot down right away, but considering that some interesting suggestions got killed or spam due to the fact they needed more work it would be nice to see a way to indicate to the author that the idea has merit but needs more work. Likewise it would be nice to see a way to distinguish a lousy idea (something to be killed) form a lousy implementation (something that needs work). The purposed voting scale is as follows:

Keep - Suggestion is valid and accepted as is
Revise - Suggestion has some merit, but requires some work, specify what needs to be revised about the suggestion
Kill - The suggestion has no merit (i.e. breaks one of the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots), but does not go so far as to be spam
Spam - The suggestion has no merit and should be removed from voting

Please review this suggestion and feel free to give me some honest feed back on it. --Darkstar949 02:02, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Kill currently fills the role of revise as you have put it out, and spam fills the roll of Kill as you defined it, as well as rule breaking. The current votes are perfectly fine. --Grim s-^Mod 03:19, 2 May 2006 (BST)

See what Grim said. People already give revision suggestions with their kill votes sometimes, spam abuse is unrelated. Velkrin 04:57, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Perhaps if this "Revise" vote has a similiar functionality to Spam votes do now, that of keeping it from clogging the peer-reject with unfinished works with merit. I'm not usually a fan of extra procedure to deal with user-abuse (Ref. the "Re:" debacle a while ago), but it seems obvious that Spam is not entirely sufficient for all the editing purposes that take place here. Its purpose seems to range from banisher of utterly broken ideas to personal White-Out applicator. I get the impulse...I get tired of seeing the umpteenth version of something on Suggestions, too. Yes, I would rather see it spend more time in Developing, too. But these are all inherent problems of a wiki format, where everyone has a voice and a ton of ideas which they think people just don't quite get...yet. It would be nice to have some sort of delineation, that's all.--Xavier06 11:43, 2 May 2006 (BST)
- One of the ideas I have thought of is that revise would indeed work like the spam vote - after 5+ Revise votes it gets removed from the page in the same matter that the Spam votes are. --Darkstar949 05:08, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Keep= it works, Kill= it doesn't work, Spam= It'll never work. What more do you need?

Why overcomplicate the voting system simple simply because some people can't sense that it isn't the monniker but the comment behind it?, this 'revision' has no role that isn't already filled by Kill and a simple comment, Kill isn't for a lousy idea, Kill is simply for an idea that doesn't work. Wether or not its bad to recieve kills depends on if you get "work on this and that" or "Are you a brainrotted zombie in real life too?" And I have in my long, long time here NEVER seen a idea get spammed that had appliable merit. if you feel different, please, share the link that would convince me otherwise. And "Breaks one of the suggestions does and don't 'but doesn't go so far as being spam?'" When does that happen? My honest feedback? This is just PC-nonsense that adds nothing, and does nothing. And comes from a misplaced thrust of the quality of spammed ideas, and an overreaction to something remotely aproaching a negative value judgement.--Vista ^W! 20:05, 2 May 2006 (BST)

I agree. As you defined Keep, Kill and Spam is all we need (for definitions). As for the vote, what would help is legitimate reasons for why you voted kill or spam.--Pesatyel 01:46, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Its more like Keep= it works, Kill= it doesn't work, Spam= it'll never work/ I'm tired of this type of suggestion/ This is incomplete, but maybe its just me. "Overreaction to something remotely approaching a negative value judgement?" Feh, I could care less. Horrible/utterly broken suggestions should be banished forever, only to exist as an example of how not to make a suggestion. This isn't mincing on about how unfair we are to those poor users with really great ideas for a Mystical Ninja class or Zombie AIDS. What I really want from more Spam voters is some rationale behind their vote, but what I usually get is "This is Spam", "Spamitty Spam Spam", "Pressed Ham in a Can", ad nausem. Its a bit like a jury pronouncing someone guilty on the basis that, ya know, "they kinda look guilty"...--Xavier06 14:21, 3 May 2006 (BST)

When I suggestion is truly bad and easily recognizable as such why spend half an hour simply listing all the problems? when that what you mentioned occurs its usually not because the suggestions looks kind of guilty, but because not only did the jury see the murder, has ample evidence, the suggestion is still holding the blood soaked knife, wearing a shirt thats says 'Yup, it was me who did it' and has released the video, in which he is seen waving to the camera just before he does the deed. usually the one person who did say why it was spam has given ample reasons to let the others goof of. You can't expect someone to take all of the spam/crud that comes in here seriously. especially when there are such beauties as "raise the finding rate of all ammo by 30%" where I had to correct the words, 'raise', 'finding' and 'ammo'--Vista ^W! 19:20, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Are the words "What [X] said." that hard to type? Or is whatever joke people wanna tell so precious as to not waste all that time? Whatever, spam-abuse seems to be dropping since more scrutiny has been paid to it...or something. This argument is just gonna run in circles anyway. (Oh, and I'm sorry my last post was in italics...I screwed up on the edit.)--Xavier06 14:12, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I agree that spam votes SHOULD have SOME legitimate reason for the vote. It isn't just a matter of getting rid of the suggestion THIS time, we should also consider when the suggestion RETURNS. But I disagree on the This is incomplete as part of a spam vote. Oh, and Xavier06, I corrected your italics.--Pesatyel 22:26, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Depends on the context, incomplete describes the mechanical part of the suggestion, people read over the damage and thought he asked them to define the damage for him, Did they read carefully? they didn't. were they overly rash? Yes. Was there any moment in time where the suggestion was at danger of getting spammed? no even with my proposal version, it was in no danger of getting spammed. the suggestion wasn't as clear written as it needed to be. 'Ster cleared some things up, and promptly got keep votes. When a suggestion has vital mechanics missing it is meritless, were talking about merit here, not originality or how nice/cool an idea is. Were talking would it work, and whould it add more to the game. And yes as soon as those are missing there is no need to let it stay a full two weeks because it'll never work. Now I agree that with 'ster that wasn't the case, and because that wasn't the case, his suggestion was in little danger of getting removed. Should we limit wrong reasons: Yes. Is this is incomplete a wrong reason to vote spam? not if there are no mechanics were they are needed.--Vista ^W! 23:57, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Ah, I see. Makes sense. But part of the problem is that, once something get spammed out, it often has the stigma of being spammed and/or is now dupable. So if someone DOES complete it, it tends to be voted on negatively.--Pesatyel 22:19, 4 May 2006 (BST)

You know, a lot of people say that, and I've yet to see it in action? we spammed dozens of submachine guns that were horrible, but as soon as one came that was reasonable, it went straight to peer reviewed. Times and times agian I've seen that quality is 9 times out of 10 the deciding factor, if anything the erring happens on the good side, a lot of unworkable suggestions go to peer reviewed, sometimes, more then workable, I think.--Vista ^W! 12:15, 6 May 2006 (BST) (edit) rereading I understand what you mean. It usually gets a few dupe votes or spam with snarky comments untill it is pointed out that it is reworked not a simply reposted I don't know how much effect that has on the suggestion, because after a few votes sanity kicks back in. but yeah it needs to be made clearer that that is not how it supposed to go.--Vista ^W! 15:21, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Temporary Suspensions for Spam

There are a few people that continually post spammable suggestions, resulting in quite a bit of clutter on the page. This rule change idea is based off a comment someone posted up above on the page:

If you have three suggestions spammed off the page in one day you will be barred from posting suggestions for a period of one week. If you place any suggestions during that week they will be automatically deleted.

I think this is a reasonable step. Quite honestly if someone writes three spam worthy suggestions in one day they can use a time out to come up with some better ideas, and that means a week of less clutter for the main page. --Jon Pyre 19:19, 3 May 2006 (BST)

lets not go off the bat here, spamming a suggestion isn't that much hard work.--Vista ^W! 19:36, 3 May 2006 (BST)

I wholeheartedly support this motion. This would finally get rid of Mattiator, and stand a good chance of claiming MrAushvitz too, thus liberating the suggestions page from shitty timestamps and obnoxiously horrible ideas, for a while, until the next self styled lord of cool comes around to shit on it. --Grim s-^Mod 21:55, 3 May 2006 (BST)

3 in one day is hard to do. I can see Aushvitz and Mattiator simply putting up two a day. maybe make it 3 or 4 in one week. Although, I can see users slipping through the cracks with a system like that. --CPQD 22:38, 3 May 2006 (BST)

What harm does it do to spam them? most people seem to enjoy spamming bad suggestions. I think banning people from this page for being ~~stupid~~ less well equipped for making suggestions, would be detrimental. for one if we use my standard we would have almost nobody left. second we need really bad suggestions to keep us alert. Otherwise we'll keep adding more and more subjects on the 'taboo' list. truly crap suggestions lets us evaluate that it isn't the subject its the suggestion--Vista ^W! 08:45, 4 May 2006 (BST)

This...is the most treasured of ideas I've ever had the honour to comment on. Finally, freedom from ~~Mattiator~~ all serial spammers! NOTE: I don't count MrAushvitz as a serial spammer anymore; he's kept his suggestion count down and has actually put up some good ones. --Cyberbob Talk 11:11, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I think this is a great idea. Don't look at it so much as punishment, but as a signal to these suggestors that "hey, maybe you need to think these things out a bit more."--Mookiemookie 20:16, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Don't think of this pay cut as punishment, think of it as an encouragement to work harder!, and Well you got F for your test, in order to make sure your next grade is higher, your not allowed in the class room for a week... Imposing a restrictive rule upon somebody against their will, is no matter how you spin it, always punishment It's fine if you want to punish people for being idiots, I have nothing against that. but lets at least be honest about it, mh? If it wasn't punishment, people whould have suggested alternative ways of improving those suggestions even if they had to force upon people. there is nothing constructive about this proposal, It's just a pretence to chuck the people we don't want out. And in the end it'll aclomplish, zilch, nada, noppes, as it doesn't do squat about the quality of the suggestions. Get real, but more to the point get honest. I know that stupid suggestions made by ignorant people are annoying, but for real, If we're going to do quality control like that, I think we can ban all but about three suggestors. Because seeing the mayority people doing the complaning I find the premise as it stand now rather laughable.-Vista ^W! 21:09, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I'm not trying to spin anything and I will admit that I didn't come off as a clear as I should have in my above comment. I do agree that it IS a punishment, but what I was trying to say is that it wouldn't be punishment without reason. And the focus should be the why, not the punishment itself....that reason being that these people make poor suggestions that aren't thought out. Make them take the time to work out the details and think of the ramifications of what they're suggesting. Look at the suggestors who make quality and viable suggestions on this page. They don't rapid-fire them out at a rate of 2 or 3 a day. They take the time to develop them. And if the suggestors who make crappy suggestions that constantly get spaminated don't want to take the week or so to develop these suggestions on their own, then there should be a way to make them do so. --Mookiemookie 14:17, 5 May 2006 (BST)

when they get banned from this page they won't think more or improve on their suggestions, they'll only wait in posting them. and create more crap during the wait. and then we still have crappy suggestion coming but the person will have a backlog that he feels he should post. End result? a week off and 20 suggestion that suck the next day, a week off and twenty suggestions the next day, etc. or we driven him away. Both result has improved nothing. the ban is only to prevent the suggestor from bothering us. and has nothing to do with improving the quality of his suggestions. That just thought up self-sustification so it'll sound less selfish to yourself. if people wanted better suggestions, they'd devise punishments that improved them. proofreading by the proposers of this rule, forbid frequently suggested or other difficult suggestions. A project welcome buddy who removes most of the glaring stupidity. all those will help. enforce quality. A ban forces no improvement. all that it'll do is forcing him to leave us alone. say it like that and I'd respect it more that then "it's for their own good" spiel that gets rattled off everytime someone want to ban people, because he's tired of spamming a suggestion. Want to really make sure that they improve their suggestions, make sure that what you force them to do effects the quality of the suggestion, not the timing of its posting. I'm all for punishing idiots, but lets do it in a constructive way--Vista ^W! 14:51, 6 May 2006 (BST)

"That just thought up self-sustification so it'll sound less selfish to yourself." Thanks for the Fisher-Price "My First Psychoanalysis" bullshit. Now shitcan it. So, on to the constructive things you said, I agree with the project welcome buddy thing, as well as your other sugegstions. But wouldn't you agree that there needs to be some teeth behind the rule? And so what's wrong with a one week ban? What else would you propose?--Mookiemookie 21:47, 6 May 2006 (BST)

If you don't like my thoughts about the underlying reasons: It's either that, or people who suggested this rule are just dumb, I would find the second one worse, but both work for me. so take your pick. again: a week long ban is bad because it does nothing at all about the problem. I doubt that after saying that only twenty times before and making it the whole fucking point of my 'little fisher-prise psycho analyze' somebody whould have picked that little gem up. I agrued why before, but lets do it again.

They suggesters are idiots, they are genuinely suprised that their suggestions get spammed. they submitted what they thought were well rounded, balanced, and fun suggestion that would improve the game. obviously they fall short in introspection, common sense and understanding of game mechanics. So now we are going to say to such a person that he can't post for a week. How will that improve his suggestions? He is operating at the limit of his power. the only way he's going to improve is if he's going to be taught. and I've yet have to hear of the teaching method that makes knowledge miraculesly appear if you shunt them away from the learning fountain. That is just some of what is wrong with a week long ban. Now if you can say anything on why a week long ban would work I'd gladly renuance all the harsh words I said about everybody who supported it. Nea, I'd positivily embrace the policy.

As for more ideas, just think about what is wrong specifically with the quality suggestions and how that could be improved. Just remember that the suggestor probably is operation as best as he can. I'd say that giving him a project welcome buddy is the most workable, as most suggestors have specific weak points, that you can't regulate for. But you'd have to have somebody who knows a bit about game mechanics, and I'm not certain everybody of the project welcome has the knowledge required.

No I don't think their should be any teeth behind the rule, we are not here to bite heads off the people we don't like. You might have gathered, I don't care if an over-enthousiastic player of this game doesn't have the understanding of gamemechanics to match. They want to improve the game, fine let them try, It costs me just as much time to vote keep, kill or spam. And from my piont of view, there really isn't much difference. I'm sorry that I aren't impressed with 3 more bad suggestions on a day. If anything some of the spammings are more fun then ordinary suggestions. This is a wiki, we accept imput from everybody, we try to help each other. when the help is refused or the imput stays below the quality needed regardless it doesn't make the grade. It gets edited out, doesn't stay up on the page. or with the suggestions page it gets spammed or killed and doesn't make it into peer reviewed. We do not punish the people for making the effort. we endure them. we help them. and they either learn and get better or leave.

Now I do like to appologise if i sounded overly rash and condamatory towards you, It wasn't pointed at you specifically. I'm just very, very tired of both the people who want to crack down an bad suggestors and the people who want to crack down on spam voting. And personally I wouldn't want to decide whose idea is more misguided, and whould do more harm to this page. Let the bad suggestor just post crap, and everybody else just spam it, and all problems whould be solved. I'm glad though that you thought I contributed constructive things to this discussion, I always like to think of myself as somebody who always wanted to set the quality of the suggestions page higher. But why do I feel as if I was the only person in this discussion who tried to look for a workable ways to enforce quality although I'm the only one in the discussion that is against enforcing it? anyway I'll get back to this with some more fleshed-out ideas.--Vista ^W! 00:29, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Holy fucking yes. I am so behind this idea. furtim 03:01, 6 May 2006 (BST)

It makes sense; if you can't write at least a Kill-worthy suggestion you should take a break and learn from other suggestors for a while. Yes, the Spam vote does get abused; but if all three of your suggestions get Spaminated in one day, you probably are doing something wrong. Plus -- and this is important -- building in consequences for spamination would give voters reason to be much more judicious in handing out those spam votes. I think we should do this. --John Ember 16:30, 5 May 2006 (BST)

How about saying that if someone's suggestion gets spammed more than, say, 5 times over the course of three days or so, they become eligible for a one-week ban, as decided by the mods? That way, one day's bad suggestions don't get someone banned for a week, but consistent bad suggestions get them a rest to think about things. --Pinpoint 16:37, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Either or. It may be easier to catch a suggestor on the 3 spams in one day than on 5 spams in 3, though. --John Ember 17:13, 5 May 2006 (BST)

- I'm against, unless it's more drastic. As is, it just adds yet another obscure and rarely evoked rule to the already long list, for too little benefit. --McArrowni 23:22, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Temporary Suspensions for Spam Votes

This would give a three day ban to anyone caught not reading or giving a spam vote when it is an opinion, not a gross moletation of all that make UD that decides the vote. It would be implemented much like accusing someone of vandalism is now. 343 02:17, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Spam - Common, if a spam vote is abused a mod is allowed to strike it out (or so I belive) Plus not the mention this would creat an extra work load for mods. - Jedaz 12:41, 6 May 2006 (BST)

a three day ban for a vote? I'd say that you need some perspective.--Vista ^W! 14:34, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Gruesome Murder - SSS. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 14:37, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Spam - what Vista said --Mookiemookie 21:57, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Spam - Green eggs and spam.--Jorm 10:37, 8 May 2006 (BST)

This isn't actually up for a vote, right? You're just tossing it out there? Okay, good. In that case: Spam --John Ember 22:12, 8 May 2006 (BST)

I have always been against anything that would remove people's freedom to vote what they want, except in extreme cases. We have those covered already. Votes are by very nature subjective, otherwise, we woudn't need to vote to know what suggestions should be reviewed, rejected, or spammed--McArrowni 01:08, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Kill - You see the problem here is that votes, by their very definition, are opinions. And since some of the grammar can be horrible, it may not be that someone didn't read it, but they merely interpreted incorrectly. I can't endorse this as it stands. --Arcos 04:57, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Marking Previous Suggestions

I'm just a policy suggesting machine, but lucky this is the last idea I have. There was some talk about marking suggestions which had passed, right over here. I suggest we take it up a notch. As someone is going through marking the suggestions on the previous days page, they also color the words which relate the the outcome of the vote. So it would be Green for Passed, Red for failed, and the standard Black for Undecided/Retracted suggestions (no coloring needed). Suggestions would have the color coded bit next to their name, along with a - Moved if they were already moved to the correct section. I would also suggest the (brackets) be removed. Here is an example of what it would look like:

So talk amongst yourselves. I'll wait on the other suggestion until this one fails or passes. Velkrin 22:31, 23 March 2006 (GMT)

Sounds good. I can't see any problems with it other than the work that would have to be done. --Jon Pyre 21:54, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
- Well, if it passes I'd do a week or two just to make sure people have an example to go by. Other then that it's simple count, copy and paste and it can be done by anyone that wants to. Velkrin 07:28, 26 March 2006 (BST)
  - Im against. Ive been cycling the previous days suggestions for a month now, and i can tell you it is a tedious job already. This would just make it worse by far, and people are very unpredicatble. You would wind up with exactly the same situation as you have now with peer rejected and peer reviewed. The work would simply not be done. --Grim s 16:27, 26 March 2006 (BST)
    - Marking the suggestions is not required of the person doing the cycling. This is just setting down a standard for marking off suggestions. As a matter of fact the marking system is to help with the backlog by citing on the dating page if it failed/passed so that anyone sorting through the messages wouldn't have to go through and count them up themselves. The only way I could see it making the problem worse is if some idiot went around marking failed suggestions as passed, or shuffling them around. I don't think it would make the backup any worse then it already is. Velkrin 04:44, 27 March 2006 (BST)
      - Velkrin, you are a funny person, and i think you are a great guy, but you sure are naive. I am the only person performing any task associated with suggestions in any consistent manner (moving the siggestions typically between three minutes and two hours after the day has expired. All this would lead to is the creation of another job that no one will do. It isnt necessary, and it wont be performed, wo why bother with it? --Grim s 06:26, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Yes, well, as I've said, it can't get any worse. Mind you I do think it would be rather easy to do, considering I've gone and done a tally for the majority of March. At worst I'll end up like the Suburbs page. Though I suspect that would actually require effort. Velkrin 20:10, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Going to table this for now for the sake of space. Velkrin 20:38, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Because the rule change requires exact-wording of what you're going to suggest, so I'll just shuffle stuff around a bit...:

Begin (semi)Exact Text!

I move that a set method of marking suggestions which have closed be created. This system would use Green for Passed, Red for failed, and the standard Black for Undecided/Retracted suggestions (no coloring needed). Suggestions would have the color coded bit next to their name, along with a - Moved if they were already moved to the correct section. I would also suggest the (brackets) be removed. Here is an example of what it would look like:

Suggestions/39th-Mar-2040

Wet Noodle - Passed - Moved
Silly String - Passed
Death by ninja - Withdrawn
Stool pigeon - Failed - Moved
So full of hate - Failed
BFG 9000 - Undecided - Moved

Marking closed suggestions is purely optional, and is not a required part of closing previous days suggestions. The following would be added under the Notes for Editors section:

==Marking Closed Suggestions== The following system is used to mark closed suggestions (with spaces):
- Passed - For passed suggestions
- Failed - For rejected suggestions
- Withdrawn - For withdrawn suggestions
- Undecided - For undecided suggestions
The following should be added after the to suggestions which have been moved to their appropriate section: - Moved

this was before i was really active on the wiki, it never got voted on, however i did notice a few accepted tags, so i thought id help and for the last few weeks i have been checking pages and adding undecided/accepted tags. However i was recently informed that i should stop because it makes the page look messy and it was never voted on. I personaly think the previous days suggestions is more of a functional page and so it really doesnt matter if it looks nice or not. but if it has to be voted on it may aswell be the neat version about.Also my doing this regularly for the last few weeks disproves grims theory that nobody would do it--xbehave 18:02, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Yes, I do find it weird that Grim is prepared to remove the tags but isn't prepared to add them. We should at least say that people are allowed to do it even if they don't have to.--The General ^{W! Mod} 20:31, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I removed them because they were inconsistent, sloppy and generally completely arbitrary in placement all through the page, and interfered with a general scan of the list for suggestion names. If they must be done (And i still dont think its necessary, and is just a whole pile of extra work for no measurable benefit), then come up with a format that doesnt stick out or detract from standard scans of the page. And also, it makes perfect sense that if x and y are mutually exclusive, and i am doing x, i wont be doing y. I dont see how on earth it could be "weird" that im prepared to remove crap, but not add more of that crap. --Grim s-^Mod 18:45, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Actualy I belive grims point was that he is the only one who does anything to the suggestions on a regular basis. Most likely your changes would have been in bulk xbehave and not all at the same time of day. But besides that, I don't see why people just don't go to the peer reviewed/rejected/undecided pages if they realy want to know. I might support this if the backlog is considerable smaller. But we don't even have all of the peer reviewed suggestions onto the peer reviewed page, so I think people should focus on that before we try something that would involve more effort. If you want to help then could you set up the undecided suggestions page to a simmilar format to peer rejected. (Because 1. I'm lazy, 2. I might actulay add undecided suggestions to it if it wasn't such a mess as it currently is.) - Jedaz 08:09, 11 May 2006 (BST)

actually i was doing it on a daily basis when i could, but due to real life i would some times fall back afew days then catch up. It would save the person moving the suggestions from having to read through rejected suggestions and pages of entirly rejected suggestions to find those that need moving. I think its a usefull use of my time as due to my poor english i cant right good summaries of the votes and so dont move the suggestions myself.--xbehave 16:30, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Well thats fair enough. I've moved peer rejected suggestions up to the start of April. (So November 2005 to March 2006 is done...) And I'm moving peer reviewed suggesions, but thats only up to December the 22nd... but I reckon what would be more useful is a page that says what days have been processed - Jedaz 11:45, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page.

NEW Suggestion System

suggest time - 12:32, 29 April 2006 (BST) Using this template, a user will post a few lines about his suggestion to the main suggestion page. Then, He will follow the link, automatically created by the suggestion, and post his entire idea in there, using this template. See both talk pages of these templates for a sample.

This second template will categorize this suggestion per day, and any user can categorize that category to the Suggestions category. When the 14days of voting for suggestions is over, a mod can simply see which suggestions got peer approved, categorize it as such (in Category:Peer Approved Suggestions), and lock those pages. He will switch that day's category to Category:Closed Voting Suggestions and lock it also. p.s sorry i coudldnt find a template for this section

yes - There are 3 major advantages, easier to maintain, important discussion is contained within votes that are kept under the new system but ATM are erased and each page has its own talk so. i feel these outweight the problems--xbehave 12:32, 29 April 2006 (BST)
No - Yeah, putting suggestions on the goddamned MAIN PAGE is a great idea. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:56, 29 April 2006 (BST)
- re Main page means main suggestion page for the new system --xbehave 22:08, 29 April 2006 (BST)
No There some problems with this, the mods don't put suggestions in peer reviewed for starters, I know that it says they should and normal users aren't allowed, but thats wrong, in fact almost all suggestions that are in peer reviewed have been placed there by users without mod status. But basically I like the interaction that happens on the main suggestions page, this page is where most of the community grows on this wiki, sure its not the most handy way to do it, but its more fun and less sterile, and in the end thats better.--Vista ^W! 23:10, 29 April 2006 (BST)
NO - The current system works well. We just dont have people doing some of the jobs (And that situation, to my understanding, has recently been fixed). Besides, it will be an absolute bitch to go back and redo the last five months of suggestions. --Grim s-^Mod 02:13, 30 April 2006 (BST)
- RE a five month back log isnt really what id clasify as working. Also it wouldnt be retro-active the already reviewed/rejected/undecided pages could be gradually changed, but the 5 month back log would be sorted by the exsisting inefficent method--xbehave 18:09, 30 April 2006 (BST)
  - Re - Last i checked we didnt have a five month backlog. As a matter of fact i believe it is shrinking, as people are finally doing the stuff. --Grim s-^Mod 23:21, 1 May 2006 (BST)
    - Re - we have at least 4 months partial backlog, i know because im one of the people who was trying to clear it, unfortunatly im not good with words, i felt my summaries were poor and so i gave up --xbehave 00:35, 2 May 2006 (BST)
Yes - I really like that each suggestion automatically gets its own talk page this way. Currently it is a BIG PAIN to carry discussion on a suggestion into the talk page -- you have to find a space for it amidst a ton of other stuff. This would be so much cleaner and more "object-oriented," if you will. Let's at least try it, huh? --John Ember 06:21, 30 April 2006 (BST)
No - What Grim said. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 06:24, 30 April 2006 (BST)
No - So, if I get this right (correct me if I'm wrong), I'd have to open up a tab (or window in IE, I guess) every time I wanna read the suggestion whole, then go back to the suggestion page to vote. Meh...not really exciting me. I'm all for a more organized suggestions page, but this ain't it.--Xavier06 06:43, 30 April 2006 (BST) Yes- ...grudgingly. Still not crazy about the idea, since it only trades off a cleaner page for more going back and forth between tabs. But it probably is worth a test drive, like set it up on a seperate beta-test page (keep the old page open at least until voting closes on the suggestions there). That way, if after that period, the overwhelming consent is to nix it, you can go back, but if you keep the new system, you can just shuffle off the old page without having to re-do it. At least, I think that works...I'd say final say on this goes to the users that do the bulk of the daily tasks on the suggestions page, since this is their logistics nightmare.--Xavier06 11:19, 30 April 2006 (BST)
- Re - I don't think so. I believe the main suggestion page will have a list of suggestion titles + summaries. You'd click on a title, read the complete suggestion (in the new page) and vote on it. If you wanted to discuss it, you'd use that page's discussion tab. Once you'd voted, you'd back up to the main suggestion page and hit the next title. Personally, I'd probably load up each suggestion in its own browser tab and then close each one as I voted on it. --John Ember 07:00, 30 April 2006 (BST)
  - Reyes, i apologise for not maknig it clear but votes would be on the suggestions individual page. opening up a new tab for each vote is no different from voting atm where you have to open up a new tab to edit each suggestion and add your vote--xbehave 18:13, 30 April 2006 (BST)
Yes - I like it based on the concept of separate discussion pages. Also links to voting section could remain valid for the entire length of voting instead of shifting a day or two after submission. --Spraycan Willy ^MalTel 10:31, 30 April 2006 (BST)
- Re - This is a really good point. If the main suggestions page has summaries instead of full suggestions, they won't have to cycle off the main page as quickly. This is another big problem with the current system; voting is open for two weeks, but really most of the votes hit in the first day, when the suggestion is easy to see. And if you post your suggestion just as the page is getting cycled, it falls through the cracks. --John Ember 17:17, 30 April 2006 (BST)
  - Re - Since im the one who does all the cycling (And have done so for nearly two months) i feel it is my duty to inform you that i cycle the suggestions page several hours after the deadline just to give those suggestions exposure, and that timing is more than sufficient to see several of the horrible ones spaminated. The actual rollover delay ranges between 2 and 6 hours though, im not very consistent in this regard as it really depends on my personal schedule (For example i will cycle it early if i am going out for the afternoon, or late if i sleep in or go out in the morning). Since it seems that the period around the rollover is quite an active time (A great many votes get dumped on anything new in that time in my experience, with very few exceptions) i really dont see the need. --Grim s-^Mod 16:38, 1 May 2006 (BST)
No - I'd like to see this test drive before I consider a keep vote for it, in order to see how well it works, and if any major problems arise. Best to find any bugs you can before implementation. Velkrin 22:25, 30 April 2006 (BST)
we could work on a beta version for that, and then see how it would work out. --hagnat ^mod 00:49, 2 May 2006 (BST)
ok, i tried, but it simply isnt working. I blame magic words, and the subst: command and how links handle them. Unless Kevan updates the media wiki engine to 1.6, or this wont work :\ --hagnat ^mod 01:35, 2 May 2006 (BST)
We could all go bother him about it. [Narrator voice] "Suddenly, 2,000 suggestions make their way into peer-reviewed, all with the title, scope, etc of 'Update the bloody Wiki!'" Velkrin 05:04, 2 May 2006 (BST)
yes - heck, i completly forgot about this thing. Thanks xbehave for placing it vor voting. --hagnat ^mod 03:03, 1 May 2006 (BST)
No - I don't want to have to go backwards and forwards between the main page and each suggestions individual page, when voting. Chances are I would end up not voting on half the suggestions simply because it would be too much trouble.--The General ^{W! Mod} 15:18, 1 May 2006 (BST)
re - but you have to go backwards and forwards to vote anyway, this is just 1 extra click --16:31, 2 May 2006 (BST) , all the new browsers now use tabs so its not a firefox plug btw
I use firefox and it already uses tabs, but I still think that it would be more hassle.--The General ^{W! Mod} 17:55, 6 May 2006 (BST)

re using any tabbed browser this would be easier than using the suggestion page. You would just ctrl+click the suggestions you want to read, and then vote for them. You wouldo also be able to see that page history, and see if anyone changed other votes. --hagnat ^mod 00:49, 2 May 2006 (BST)
I know, but my gut feel is still that it would be a hassle.--The General ^{W! Mod} 17:55, 6 May 2006 (BST)
Yes - But a tentative one. Really I'd like to see it in action for a little before making a committed change. --Pinpoint 07:14, 2 May 2006 (BST)
No I don't want to have to click through ten different pages. --Jon Pyre 19:06, 3 May 2006 (BST)
No - I'ld have to agree with Grim, the current system works alright (although there is a backlog). In this system pages could get lost and that it would be a huge task for moderators as they would be the only ones that could lock the pages and therefore be the only ones sorting the suggestions. - Jedaz 11:21, 4 May 2006 (BST)
Yes - It would make for more page clutter, but if done correctly, would address several issues with the current system. Not only that, ut an industrious person could even put together a wiki robot to automate a lot of the housekeeping tasks. --Reverend Loki 17:55, 4 May 2006 (BST)
- Re - It would actualy be easier to make a Wiki-bot for the current system then the one being purposed. I probably would have made one by now but I don't know enough about all of the HTML stuff and what not. - Jedaz 09:14, 7 May 2006 (BST)
No - Makes it far harder to vote, with a lot more clicking around. Keep it simple. Ignatius Newcastle 11:18, 5 May 2006 (BST)
- re - harder to vote?its easier to navigate,easier to keep track of where youve been/not been, at the cost of an extra click in 4, id say its easier to vote!--xbehave 12:30, 5 May 2006 (BST)
  - Re - Sounds like we'll need to see an example in action before it can be generally approved. Would that be possible? --John Ember 18:19, 5 May 2006 (BST)
    - Re well im a wiki noob, i really dont no enough to format the example pages, if i could be directed to a guide or something i would happily make the pages--xbehave 00:06, 6 May 2006 (BST)
No - Too complex. And there's no reason to RE every vote. And just for saying that, I'll bet you RE this vote. --Timid Dan 15:13, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Since this proposed sistem doesnt work, could we archive this voting ? --hagnat ^mod 17:42, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Normally we archive what's on the page (except active policy votes) on the 15th (current month) and then add in everything else thats built up into that archive (except active policy votes) on the 1st (next month). Velkrin 21:46, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Voting doesnt finish until the 13th. --Grim s-^Mod 05:43, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Moderator: - Vote fails. 7 Yes, 10 No. Failed to reach required 20 vote minimum. --Grim s-^Mod 04:50, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Talk:Suggestions/archive11

Archives

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

Look out a window V2

Secondary Rooms

Neutral Junk Items

Fire Zombies

Toxic Miasma

Laser Sight / DC Adaptor

Fight Back

Default Group Affiliations

Double-barrel

Engineering Skill

Developing Suggestions

Revive/Do Not Revive flag

Vomiting

Half-zombie

Powered weapons

Molotov cocktail

Alphabetical Names

Triage

Further Discussion

New Page: Obsolete Suggestions

Suggestion Guidelines By Type

Make No Additional Comments

Spam Voting getting out of hand

Strikeout of Invalid Votes

Policy Discussion

Vandal Banning for people not moving suggestions

Suggestion one-day delay

Spam Reform

*NEW* Suggestion System

New Vote Type - Revise

Temporary Suspensions for Spam

Temporary Suspensions for Spam Votes

Marking Previous Suggestions

Policy Votes

*NEW* Suggestion System

Navigation menu

Search

NEW Suggestion System

NEW Suggestion System