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

Developing Suggestions

Newspapers For Private Messages

Using tall buildings without binoculars

Fortifications (Major PKing Nerf)

Length of Pipe: A new use (Updated)

Further Discussion

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

Daily Cycling of Suggestions

I've been at this for a few months now and am in need of a break, and anyway I want to take a back seat from the whole suggestions process for a while.

If any responsible, reliable contributer(s) would like to take over, that'd be great.

Cycling suggestions into Previous Days is pretty harmless - only takes 5 minutes. Sorting closed suggestions into Rejected / Undecided / Reviewed takes a lot longer.

--Funt Solo 23:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 3 and a half months (roughly, I checked). I would have thought you would have succumbed to insanity by now ;) - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 13:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Flubjubglah? --Funt Solo

12:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, anyway do you know what happened to Mr Yawn? I thought he would have been a prime candidate to help but he doesn't seem active any more. By the way I found that the best way to be able to take a break from the suggestions pages is just to not do it. I know that sounds horrible and disorderly but most people don't want to make much of a contribution until they can see that something needs to be done (this can obviously be seen by the fact that it's been about 5 days and no one who's active enough has offered to help). The only thing is that people probably won't sort the suggestions into the right spots (unless it's their own). Just some advice, take it or leave it, I'm sure that there will be some people who arn't too happy about it =P - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice to me. I think we should force the two people who've made the most suggestions in the past 3 months to take over the work - y'know, as a punishment. Step forward, MrA and JP - you've just been pressed into service! Heh. --Funt Solo

09:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I saw that you couldn't hold out until someone else trys to get it done. But thats alright, anyway I have to warn you about one thing in advance if you do leave it for someone else to do. They are most likely going to screw it over royaly the first time they try to move suggestions, it'll make you cringe over some peoples ineptitude. Anywho, another way of letting people know that you want/need a break is that you could always put a notice on the main page advertising for people to do it. I hope this advice helps =) - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In case no one else has said it... (and it can never be said enough in an all volunteer project)... thanks for all the work you did in those months. The page literally would not have worked without you! :-) --Nosimplehiway 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yar. Especially with asshats like me around. The suggestion pages have been impeccably kept during your watch.--SporeSore 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I am or will be regular about it, but I've picked this ball up a couple times when the page got looking ugly. Hope I did it right- the directions here were really quite well done, and seemed easy to follow, with good results.

What should be done with stuff like the "suggestion withdrawn by author" or "moved to discusion" or "spaminated / duped" bits left over from deleted suggestions? Do they need to be moved somewhere, or can they just be deleted? (There's currently a bit of this stuff piling up.) --Swiers 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They get moved to Previous Days along with other suggestions. Don't delete them - they form a record - people can see what happened to their suggestions. You'll note if you look in Previous Days that any removed suggestions are denoted on the main list with either a strike-through or italics - so voters can see what's in there before they visit the page. If you're not sure what to do, look at previous pages to see examples of what to do. --Funt Solo

20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Use what I did with the 17th as an example. In that case, all 4 suggestions that day have been removed, so I display them on PDays with a strikethrough, so people know there's no point in linking to that page to vote. I also changed the page to "closed suggestion intro" because there's nothing there to vote on. --Funt Solo

20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal discussion of policy changes for the suggestions page, as per the Voting Guidelines.

Undecided

Did we ever handle what to do with Undecided votes? How about we allow them to be resubmitted as is after 3 months without being labeled a dupe? --Jon Pyre 20:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Funt had a similar idea recently, and, on balance, it sounds good to me.

Advantages

In three months time the game, or the voter's opinions, or the voters themselves could well have changed. So it's quite possible that a suggestion from undecided could reach be peer reviewed if it was voted on at a later date.
Sometimes votes for suggestions are based on faulty logic, or misreading the suggestion, so those suggestions get a second chance.

Disadvantages

I'd imagine Kevan reads many of the suggestions in undecided anyway, so it's maybe unnecessary.

But perhaps with a better write-up a suggestion which was overlooked before could let its true qualities shine through.

More suggestions on suggestions page that people may have seen before.

--Toejam 02:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the whole i think anything older than 6 months should probably be inneligable for DUPE evidence because recent changes can completely alter peoples perceptions. Obviously this is not always the case but what in the case of 'undecided' the chances are probably higher and allowing someone to remove it as a dupe when the game may well have moved on could be very counter-productive.--Honestmistake 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well...howabout this. Undecided Votes may be submitted as is after 3 months. Peer Rejected Suggestions more than 6 months old may be resubmitted and avoid dupage if other changes to the game themselves can be shown to constitute a viable difference even if the suggestion itself is identical. I mean, all you need to avoid it being a dupe is a "viable difference". Who says it needs to be the suggestion text that's different. --Jon Pyre 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When I suggested this before, I was convinced it was pointless. [He Who Shall Not Be Named] already reads all the suggestions. Things in Peer Rejected were rejected for a reason. Things in Undecided can be re-written as revisions if the authors so wish. Even rejected suggestions can be revised. Here's an example - the first Malton U suggestion ended up in Undecided, but I created a radically different version that got into Peer Reviewed. Same with my New Fence Rules suggestion. So, there's no requirement for any kind of policy change. If you think a suggestion is good enough, revise it and resubmit it. --Funt Solo

10:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There are even a few, non-spammed, suggestion in Peer Rejected that could, potentially, get revived and resubmitted.--Pesatyel 21:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If we are to assume that Kevan reads all the suggestions and that the votes on said suggestions don't affect whether or not he implements them, then there would be no point to having peer-reviewed, undecided, or rejected. The whole point of them is to help weed through all the suggestions and find the ones that the wiki community would like to see in the game. Now, that doesn't mean that Kevan won't take a look at (or even implement) things from peer-rejected or undecided, but it is less likely. I mean, think about it. If you were Kevan (blasphemous as this statement may sound), wouldn't you rather implement things the players like than what they don't? Now, that said, I think that any suggestion which isn't in peer-reviewed (undecided and peer-rejected alike) should be re-submittable after a certain period of time (whatever is long enough for time/updates to have changed voter's opinions). Remember, what's overpowered or unnecessary today could be balanced or desperately needed after the next update. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 18:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I may have fluffed my point with mention of [he who shalt not be named], but the key point was that you can already re-submit suggestions, via the revision process. I've done it myself, as I pointed out. So, there's no need for any policy change. I wonder what the point of re-submitting a suggestion without any changes at all would be. Can you think of one? Zombies with flamethrowers isn't going to become any more attractive, is it? Before you say "hey, that's not a good example", think about it for a moment - if you open up all undecided or all rejected suggestions for re-voting without change, then there's nothing to stop the zombies with cabbage cannons from being re-suggested. So, logic says that you should only allow sensible suggestions to go up for re-voting. Now define sensible in that context. What does it mean to you? What does it mean to Bilbo Shaggins, the famous inventor of the survivors with tactical nukes suggestion? I've nothing against old ideas getting a makeover, but digging up dead horses for a repeat of the flogging that killed them isn't something I'd vote for. --Funt Solo

20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Kevan does read all teh suggestions. Many great ideas taken by Kevan has been Peer-Rejected, even Spammed by this very community for being overpowered. 1) Radios. 2) Feeding Drag. 3) 1 AP/Body. It's almost a trend...--ShadowScope 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Humorous Suggestions Voting

Prevalent Spam Votes

Kevan left this comment on a spaminated suggestion of mine that was later deleted by a single vote:

"Idea noted before it goes; shame to see that spam votes are still being abused here. --Kevan 13:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"

I'm not posting this because it was my suggestion that was spaminated, I'd do it for any suggestion. But I think even Kevan dislikes the "Spam anything I disagree with and leave the Suggestions page blank half the time" system we have going on now. There's no easy fix since you can't tell people not to vote spam but if people are going to exclusively use spam and entirely ignore kill votes I think there should be even further protections against spamination. I have two ideas.

Right now all suggestions, regardless of merit get six hours on the page before spamination is possible. This provides equal protection to anything from "zombies with jetpacks" up to better ideas. It should be a little easier to get rid of suggestions everyone thinks is spam than something with some support. Therefore I suggest the following rule addition:

In addition to these six hours for every keep or kill vote a suggestion has it gains an additional hour before it can be deleted

So a suggestion with 3 keeps and 1 kill would gain 4 hours in addition to it's starting six, meaning it could not be removed for 10 hours. A suggestion with 1 keep and two kill would gain three. That way a suggestion with some support would be harder to remove than something everyone votes spam on. Why would kill votes give this benefit as well as keep? Well, a kill voter thinks a suggestion should stay on the page just as much as a keep voter. They just don't want it to entered peer reviewed.

The other idea is that there should be a point when spamination becomes impossible. If a suggestion gets enough keeps it's clear that even if most voters oppose it it stills has enough support within the community to merit staying on the page as a symbol of their will. This should be a high number of keep votes, perhaps 10 or a slightly higher number. Perhaps 12 or 15. If something has 10 keep votes it must be doing at least something right and probably doesn't deserve spamination. The rule change would be If a suggestion has X (X being whatever number gets support in discussion) or more keep votes it cannot be deleted as spam."

Please discuss these concepts, the spam vote in general, and other ideas. --Jon Pyre 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam and Dupe should be removed from the suggestions process. Frankly, they're both fucking idiotic in a supposedly democratic vote. If a suggestion is a complete duplicate, or if it's completely stupid, moderators should be able to remove it using strictly moderator powers. That way, if they abuse it, they face misconduct. Problem solved. --Funt Solo

21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is exactly how idiotic I think the current system is. --Funt Solo

21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to expand on this...

My problem with Spam: what's wrong with Kill? Spamination has (I counted) dropped from a 1/day average to 0.4/day average since the addition of the 6-hour minimum limit. It's not really saving anyone any time - the suggestion, if killed, gets moved to Peer Rejected and takes as much time as it ever did. The suggestions page is never that busy (if people cycle daily) that spamination is required to tidy it up. It's just not needed anymore. Its only effect is to cause bad feeling.

My problem with Dupe: it doesn't matter if 100 voters make a vote after the person who voted Dupe, all saying no, it's not a dupe. All it takes is 3 people to remove a suggestion. That's ridiculous. Totally ridiculous. It is not the will of the community - it's the will of 3 people. Especially if the duplicate is from months and months ago - things have changed since then. The current community may want to keep something that the community of several months ago thought was pish. Dupe should be noted for information only - it should not be used to remove suggestions.

I'd really like to hear a cogent counter-argument. I don't believe there really is one. --Funt Solo

22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea...you would have to have a strict code about what counts as spam and what doesn't. I mean, Spam removal was only needed when there was no daily suggestion limit. Now that even the worst and most prolific suggestors can't do more than one suggestion daily, who does it really hurt if an idiotic suggestion is taking five inches on the page? Maybe it should become a strict mod power. Not sure how much support there is for that though. Also, spam removal need not be strictly a moderator power. Perhaps moderators could deputize trustworthy voters and people who maintain the page to do some of the work. You don't need any special editing powers to delete a vote, so why not make it a priviledge limited to mods and anyone a mod wants to approve? If the mod abuses the power they go up for arbitration, if the deputized ordinary voter abuses it they get de-deputized and the mod fixes whatever they did.--Jon Pyre 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Funt, dupe means that the suggestion was ALREADY suggested. The words were the same, and it is the same suggestion. It's to prevent Peer-Reviewed (or Peer-Rejected) with the exact same suggestion! Besides, Kevan reads all suggestions, and a duped suggestion will be chosen or not by Kevan. I do not think any reform is needed.--ShadowScope 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Shadowscope - see the dodgy dupes section below. People are voting duplicate when the suggestions are NOT THE SAME, just similar. It's being abused. How would you like it if you made a suggestion, someone declared it a dupe, you pointed out why it wasn't and some mod came along and deleted it anyway? Come on - how would you feel? I mean, if you want long-standing wiki users to shit all over new wiki users, then - sure - no reform is needed. If, however, you want to promote this wiki as a place that welcomes newcomers and treats them fairly, then reform is most certainly needed. --Funt Solo

09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Same and similar means the same thing. We are not usually voting on the mechanics, but rather, on the idea. And for the most part, a similar idea is...well, similar. It deserves to be duped then, so that Peer Review and Peer Reject does not get cluttered with the similar suggestions that all want the same thing! The Dupe vote, to me, is not being abused. I would be okay with my suggestion being declared a dupe, because other people know more about my suggestion than me. But, I think now, I agree with Mr. Gage here as well as you in that this suggestion page is full of drama/conterversy and that there is nothing good left to suggest. People are aruging over dupes when we should be aruguing to Mr. Kevan who SHOULD have implemented the Duped suggestion in question! I rather prefer Kevan to be smart and come up with his own ideas rather than have this suggestion page.--ShadowScope 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

==Valid Votes===
Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion.

Sure "very close" is somewhat hard to define since each person sees it a bit differently (see my comment about the "dodge dupes"). I wouldn't have a problem with removing the spam vote (in fact, I think I suggested doing that some where before and Funt disagreed). Dupe, on the other hand, I think should be changed to this:

Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of PEER REVIEWED suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion.

That, in addition to what was said below.--Pesatyel 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mis-Use of the Spam Vote

Today, Darth Sensitive decided to step in and (quite rightly) enforce one of the rules of the suggestions page, which reads: Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote. In doing so, he struck 3 Spam votes.

What I'm wondering is, where has Darth been for the past few months? Let's try and at least be consistent. Shouldn't the mods get busy with this little lot:

WTFCENTUARS - Jiminy tapdancing Cricket, no! MordredMalTel 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
WTF SQUID AEROPLANE - Send in more planes! --Cap'n Silly 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
John Teabag's Hamters - Not a chance in hell.--Tharinator 484 TжFedCom is BFI!жWMMMMMM 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
magicbananabandanarambosuggestion --Funt Solo 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Spam spam spam --Aeneid 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
ROFLWOFLZ - This suggestion causes the roffle to explode all over my waffles.--J Muller 23:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Spam - .--Aeneid 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Spam - Uh.... lemme think about this one.... NO! --Dux Ducis ‡ ◊ U! ¿ 05:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
ROFLWOFLZ - This skill enables the roffle to use my waffles.--J Muller 07:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Spam - spam spam spamity spamity spam--Gage 05:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Spam --Joe O'Wood TALKCONTRIBSUD 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
ROFLWOFLZ - This suggestion injects my waffles with roffle.--J Muller 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
LMAO - Gage 05:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
WTF SQUID AEROPLANE Send in more planes! --Cap'n Silly 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
WHITE UNICORNS!!!!! - I bet they exist. I will prove you all wrong! --Dux Ducis ‡ ◊ U! ¿ 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(Just a brief selection - there are more.)

Now, either voters can take the piss when they're voting, or they can't. Which is it to be? I'm happy with either.

--Funt Solo 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The justification rule should be enforced. A suggestor has a right to know why people are voting against their suggestion. Making a joke is all right, but follow up the joke with an explanation. --Jon Pyre 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been largely steering clear of the suggestions page and the drama attached, but that just pissed me off. The author should know why his idea is annihilated. I'm going to start to make an effort to get rid of votes without justification - maybe it will work out. Remember, my talk page is always there for commentary. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason I feel so strongly about this topic - and it's that I had a right old battle with a moderator over his explanation of "no" alongside his Spam vote. It was Xoid who backed that mod up, using the logic that this is un-policeable. If you pull someone up for not providing a reason then they can just take the piss even more with a reason like "I don't like it", or "I think it's stupid" or "It sucks". It's a good point - how do you define "justification" of a vote? If you can't, then you can't police it. --Funt Solo

08:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There must be a comment to back up the vote, which touches on at least some point of the suggestion. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 11:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not according to Xoid, not according to precedent and not according to many other moderators (when they're voting, at any rate). What, essentially, is the difference between "it sucks" (which, by use of the word "it", fulfils your requirement of touching on at least some point of the suggestion) and ""? Nothing. At all. --Funt Solo

11:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's no difference, and enforcing the rule would only result (essentially) in cookiecutter voting, what's the point? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 11:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Funt Solo

11:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. "It sucks" is far better than inane commentary about Dr. Strangelove or Apocalypse Now'. I'm not saying the former isn't bad, but it's currently the lesser of two evils. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 12:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad you're in the minority, then, Mr. Spoilsport. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 12:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Any time --Darth Sensitive

^W! 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hang on a minute - that wasn't inane commentary about Dr. Strangelove or Apocalypse Now, it was just commentary. It made perfect sense. The context of it being placed next to a suggestion vote was maybe inane, but that's a different matter. Sort out your inanities, or you'll never make Sith Lord. --Funt Solo

12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we make a requirement so that you must say Why you dislike it? Vote justification means justification, not saying your opinion of it. Just where you place your vote does that already. Pretty simple, it's just the difference between "I like it" and "I like it because it would help zombies and there aren't enough of them now". Nothing onerous. --Jon Pyre 18:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"It sucks" covers that. You don't like it because you think it sucks. Really, you cannot adequately define "reasoning". I note this: I've never, ever seen any complaint against Keep votes that say "yeah - this is cool!" Why not? Because trying to police "reasoning" is just stupid. I mean, good luck to Darth on his crusade - I just worry that it'll turn him to the dark side. --Funt Solo

18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't hard to say why something sucks. Often you don't need to because it's obvious. "This sucks. It would give zombies 100hp".--Jon Pyre 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But if it's so obvious, why bother forcing people to say it? --Funt Solo

20:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, the reason that people vote Spam and give those above comments is to NOT dignify the suggestion with a comment and a reason. Doing so gives the suggestor more credit than they deserve. I see Spam as working okay, as ultra-Kill, and see no problem. Prehaps, however, we should mandate that anyone who wants to make an inane comment also add in "See above" or "See below" so that other Spam voters can speak for them on the reason why they hate the suggestion.--ShadowScope 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the issue is that a player should know why someone is voting against them saying "As Funt" is perfectly fine. So is "It's all been said ^" Just as long as the vote you're referencing is justified, or there are several justified votes above you. I don't think keep votes need the same kind of justification. Since the reason for justification is to allow the author a chance to re it's not as necessary. Keep without any justification more or less means "As author". But if someone votes kill or spam you can't tell why they did without justification. --Jon Pyre 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer if people had to put something vaguely sensible down when they vote because:

Having to publicly state a reason discourages people from using unfair reasons.
Vote justification educates...

The author, and anyone else reading the suggestions page, about how to make a better suggestion.
Other voters, who learn to discern good suggestions from bad suggestions more accurately.

(And as others have stated)

Publicly stating a reason means if it's faulty it can be corrected.
Feels fairer.

--Toejam 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Inane comments" do NOT belong on the suggestion page. You want to chat with people, do it somewhere else. Justify your vote with SOMETHING related to the actual suggestion, even if it is "as So-and-So". And just saying "It sucks" or "Another Mr.A suggestion" or "No" ISN'T a valid vote. The point of VALIDATING a vote is to put WHY you feel they way you do about it. If it sucks, WHY does it suck? I agree with Shadowscope's comment about voters using the spam vote so that they don't HAVE to give a valid reason. That's true and it is bullshit.--Pesatyel 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy Dupes

Are either of these really fair?

--Funt Solo 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should at least bring Dupes up to standard with Spam for removal. First, make Dupe a seperate and fourth section. Dupes must outnumber Spams, Kills, and Keeps combined by 2:1. Dupes are not counted in voting tallies at all. If a suggestion is clearly not going to be duped then voters can switch their Dupe votes to Keep, Kill, or Spam at their preference. --Jon Pyre 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...how about this:

1) Suggestions cannot be removed as dupes unless at least 6 hours have passed.

2) If a moderator decides that a particular dupe vote is invalid, they may strike it.

3) The dupe vote is automatically invalid when the "original" suggestion was made 6 months or longer in the past, unless the "original" is already in peer-reviewed.

4) A suggestion with 10 or more keep votes can not be removed as a dupe.

I think this would solve most of the problems. Suspected dupes would remain on the page long enough for their originality or lack thereof to be confirmed, voters wouldn't be able to easily abuse the dupe vote by linking to a suggestion that is clearly different without anyone able to do something about it, and suggestions that failed in the past but might succeed today (the game and the community are much different than they were 6 months ago, and what was completely broken then might be the perfect fix today) will get a fair shot. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this: a vote can only be removed as a dupe by a moderator, nobody else. That'd solve some of the problem. --Jon Pyre 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean vote, or suggestion? I already suggested dupe votes to be removable by a moderator. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this, [dodgy dupe #1 is valid (though I can see how it is dodgy). It is more idiotic than anything, but the basic idea is the same. The only difference being the earlier says ANY item and the latter says it only works if you have ONE item (and try to drop it). The Dupe vote doesn't have to be EXACT, but very similar to (and *I* feel this qualifies. That having been said, I see no reason why the vote can't be treated the same as spam, as Jon mentioned above.--Pesatyel 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's arguably a key difference, Pesatyel. Do you really think it's fair that 3 people get to remove a vote based on an arguable point of logic? Look at the Keep votes on that suggestion. Would you let 3 Kill voters remove a suggestion? --Funt Solo

08:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, we SHOULD make "Duping" harder than that. Merely pointing out the difficulty of defining "very close" or "similar".--Pesatyel 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How about allowing suggestions to be made that slightly improve upon/update suggestions already in peer reviewed that would otherwise be labeled dupes? Such suggestions would replace the one it's improving upon in peer reviewed if they are successful -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss: Why Has the Spam Vote Become Standard?

If you look back at voting patterns Spam has become a lot more popular since the beginning of 2006. Why do you think this is the case? Changes to consider are the 1 vote a day rule and seperating keep, kill, and spam/dupe votes into seperate numbered categories. --Jon Pyre 05:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer lies in the quality of the suggestions. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look back you'll see that's not the case. We had the "Psychic Zombies" suggestion back then. And there used to be a lot more spam than there was simply because anyone could make as many suggestions as they liked. Strangely now that there's less spam overall people vote spam more often. --Jon Pyre 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just the users. The spam vote has become "fashionable", made popular by people such as Gage and J Muller, who turned it into a funny kill vote. --Cap'n Silly^T/W/P/C

06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It might not just be one thing. The decrease in spam might actually be a cause of it. Now that there aren't five ridiculous suggestions being made daily by the same person there's not as much obvious spam to distinguish the difference between spam and kill. "Somewhat Flawed Skill" looks pretty good compared to "Gamebreaking Entirely Clueless Concept". But without the really awful stuff then "Somewhat Flawed Skill" is the worst stuff people usually see, and it seems more deserving of spam. Also now that spam has it's own category it acts to present that as an option. When there was one list people were naturally just inclined towards yea or nay. But now that there's A,B, and C people are going to vote C simply because it's presented as one of three options. For an example of how seldom used Spam used to be look at this suggestion I think is pretty bad. Heck, even I might vote spam on it had it been put up for voting now. Today it'd be gone in six hours. But back then it didn't get a single spam vote. --Jon Pyre 06:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A very good point. --Cap'n Silly^T/W/P/C

06:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. If Pyre's example had been suggested today, it wouldn't just be spaminated; it would be mod-spaminated. He brings up a very good point. The line between what is kill and what is spam has become very blurred. It seems like there used to be suggestions that you could clearly point to and say "this is bad, and this is spam-bad". But now things are not so clear. But I also think this has a lot to do with the community. I think a lot of us have grown less tolerant of suggestions we don't like. And we all think we're right. So then if we don't like something, that means it doesn't deserve to be on the page. Problem is, we often don't know what's good for us. Most of the new features Kevan have given us lately are in direct opposition to our suggestion dos and don'ts (feeding drag=don't move characters, new forts=don't change buildings, new contacts lists=don't make it easier to hunt PKers). Our "precedents" for good suggestions have become so rigid that it's practically impossible to make one that would pass and actually have much of an effect on the game. I mean, let's think about it. If it makes one side more powerful, it's gonna get spammed, because each side believes the other doesn't need buffs. If it gives options without affecting balance, people are going to think it's pointless. If it's a new game mechanic, then people probably just aren't going to like it. For example, out of the last 21 suggestions to make it into peer reviewed, all but a handful were flavor changes. And the ones that weren't consisted of adding buildings with little strategic significance (their only big effect if implemented would be the possible expansion of the free-running network) and other minor changes save for Fences: New Rules and possibly Lunge. This, combined with Pyre's astute observation should tell us that we're being a little too strict with regard to suggestion quality. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think part of it is that the rules encourage people to vote spam. If you set aside all the social aspects of voting, and only focus on how votes sort suggestions, then Spam is Kill plus a bonus effect. With our current system, kill is redundant. It's like having hand attacks and bite do equal damage. People only vote kill because of 'soft' reasons like wanting to give the suggestion a fair chance, or they think 'Spam is not as strong kill.' But in a purely mechanical sense, their voice would be slightly louder/more effective if they voted spam. Having said all that, this place has much improved since the 6 hour spam rule came in.

Also, I think as people see more suggestions, they become more discerning, and might reject suggestions they would have accepted in the past. --Toejam 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another point to bear in mind (and this is the converse, really, of Reaper's idea that we're being too harsh) - it could simply be that, after more than a year of suggestions, there aren't really that many good ones left to suggest. Most of the obvious improvements to the game (and even the less obvious, let's expand Malton / flavour style suggestions) have already been made. We're scraping the bottom of the barrel. I don't think there's a problem with the amount of suggestions that make it to Peer Reviewed - I think it should be few. To find an improvement worth adding to the list at this late stage isn't (and shouldn't, realistically) be easy to do.

Moving on, suggestions which buff either side aren't popular because the balance between the two sides is very good. Now, I know that some key zombie supporters (*cough* Sonny *cough*) would like barricades removed from the game so that they could eat everyone and go home, but then you get the whole history, this summer, of large hordes taking apart whole quadrants of Malton with seemingly little effort (beyond meta-game organisation). It doesn't seem to matter that zombies in hordes are a force to be reckoned with - the survivor:zombie ratio remains the same - which may go some way to proving that it is societal in nature, and not related to game mechanics. Trying to get a buff for one side through that minefield of opinion isn't going to be easy.

There is a strong tendency for nice people, and prolific suggestion-makers, to claim that the system is too harsh. Of course, the people making suggestions always think that their suggestion is good (otherwise, why would they make them). That doesn't mean that (objectively) they are actually any good.

Taking all these things into account, I'm unsurprised at how many suggestions don't make the grade. I'm confused that people still complain about the Spam vote, though. Spamination has dropped sharply from 1/day to 0.4/day since the addition of the 6-hour safety net. On a controversial suggestion, it's no more powerful than a kill vote, and the suggestion gets it's two weeks in the spotlight. Having said that, I see no reason anymore for the Spam vote to exist. When I just went to cycle all of January so far, there were two spaminated suggestions in Peer Rejected. Two. It's hardly a flood of unfair treatment, is it? But it's also not really doing anything much anymore in terms of clearing up the main suggestion page (it's original purpose). Why not remove it? Why not filter the Dupe into Keep/Kill as an informative note for other voters? Add in some mod powers to remove vandalism, deliberate duplicate suggestion posting, daft (ie deliberately foolish / humourous) suggestions and we're all square. Mods can use their judgement rather than this silly system we have at the moment.

--Funt Solo

20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly new here, but my understanding is that a Spam is for an idea entirely without merit. A Kill vote is for an idea that has merit, but also has significant flaws. Spam has been overused as of late, IMO, because the Suggestions page has become a hostile environment where people seem to enjoy discouraging and insulting other poeple's ideas.--SporeSore 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1 Spam vote on the suggestions page atm (4 or 5 active suggestions)... I think Spam voting became so prevalent because respected members of the community were over-using it. Like it or not, if you're a long term member of the community, you do set the standards that newbies follow. The recent turn around, I think, is due to these contributers resetting the standard... and it's for the better, IMO, well done. I hope it lasts -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant what I said a few days ago - I'll never use the Spam vote again - it's just not needed. --Funt Solo

14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kind of ironic. I'm not saying it was YOU (I don't have the time to go look) arguing with Pyre about this very thing.--Pesatyel 04:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

People are allowed to change their minds - otherwise, what's the ultimate point of a debate? --Funt Solo

08:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Move the suggestion page off the wiki

Yeah, you heard me. This wiki is a drama cesspool, and I hate it. Most of the drama results from this suggestion system. I want the suggestion system moved to a forum, like the way Nexus War does their system. No more cycling suggestions, no spam votes. Hopefully more input from Kevan. Whatever. I promise that if we make this forum, that I will make people behave. Believe it or not, I am as tired of this shit as you are. Please discuss this with me.--Gage 22:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nexus has an efficient way of dealing with their suggestions, and I feel that Urban Dead could benefit from this sort of idea. Where did you have in mind to move it to? --Dr. Frank Sloth ^{Akule News - All The News That's Fit To Print.} 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Anywhere. I don't care. The wiki wasn't made for a page like our "suggestions". I hate it. I hate it with a passion. I am considering never editing it again.--Gage 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

http://forums.urbandead.com I guess.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So the game would finally have its own official forum? --Dr. Frank Sloth ^{Akule News - All The News That's Fit To Print.} 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, we will have to get Kevan in on this.--Gage 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For my two cents (someone cares! somewhere!), I think keeping this Talk:Suggestions page or something similar would be good for people to develop their suggestions and get feedback using the wiki.--Lachryma^☭ 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The wiki is official. A forum wouldn't be. I like keeping it something Kevan actually does check rather than some harder to access third party thing. --Jon Pyre 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sold. It would solve any of the complaints I have had with Mods or Ops or Admins or whomever as there would be a code of conduct observed. It would be a more appropriate medium for discussions about suggestions. The format of Wiki (as a general term) is just not an efficient medium to maintain control on. The vandals on the main page are a shining example of that. Admins need a sterner hand when dealing with random walk-in traffic for suggestions. --Ev933n / Talk 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ev933n said:

Admins need a sterner hand when dealing with random walk-in traffic for suggestions.

Where would you like your medal posted to? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's an official forum... Otherwise you're just throwing control of the suggestion's page to a random user.--Jon Pyre 02:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We already have one of those - admittedly not run by Kevan, but I remember him saying he isn't prepared to run a forum as well as the wiki. It's as close as we're going to get. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather put up with the controversy (called "drama" by those who wish to close down the discussion) of this suggestions system than go to a forum where Gage will "make people behave". Frankly, it's his poor judgement in recent cases that's causing a lot of the controversy, and now that it's coming back to bite him on the arse he's throwing the toys out of the pram and saying he won't play anymore. Removing a suggestion with a strong backing because four people who clearly hadn't read it thought it was a Dupe. Removing a suggestion where he thought the mechanics were already in game, but subsequent discussion has proved that they're not. Being told his Spam vote was unfair by the owner of the wiki, but then going ahead to spaminate (surprise surprise) a Jon Pyre suggestion. There's a lot of history with Gage and Pyre - and Pyre only tends to go off on one when it's Gage that's made a questionable decision in removing one of his suggestions. The one thing that makes real sense here is Gage's threat not to edit the suggestions pages anymore. Good idea: why not make is a promise. I note as well, that Gage is something of a hypocrite - he doesn't mind removing supposed dupes, or things he thinks are already in the game but aren't, or things he's incorrectly voted spam on - but when it comes to his best friend AS with the signature so long that it breaks the wiki, he's allowed to make stupid suggestions. If you're really tired of shit, stop creating it. --Funt Solo

11:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gage doesn't run the forum by himself, so your concerns in that regard over the forum are invalid. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 11:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, who would run it? A bunch of self-appointed sysops? I'm still a bit perturbed by Gage's threat to "make people behave". Not a world I want to live in, thanks. Especially when he's shown that his pals get preferential treatment. No thankyou. --Funt Solo

12:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto--SporeSore 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't rule the wiki, despite what he may like to think. Nor does he rule the forum. Every sysop (that's signed up, of course) is an admin there. The only reason he thinks (and you think) he has dominion over Suggestions is a simple lack of interest from everyone else. Having Suggestions made on the forum would make it much easier to process suggestions, so I think you'd see more participation from other sysops. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The suggestions page is fine as is. --Cap'n Silly^T/W/P/C

13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm one of the more prolific suggestors and that I make mistakes too, and plenty of my suggestions are worthy of kill or spam in hindsight, but I think I've been getting a bit of a rough deal recently. I've managed to go for more than a year of making suggestions with little or no controversy or bad blood, and a pretty positive track-record in avoiding spamination and getting things reviewed and implemented. Then I make a couple suggestions about PKing and I'm public enemy #1 for some folks. Gage is a really passionate member of the wiki, and extremely extremely hardworking. We need him here. Just sometimes I wish he'd be a little less passionate. I hate the idea that I'm in a feud with anyone here for any reason. I just want to post my suggestions and have people vote on them and not deal with random insults and have to wonder whether the couple lines I spent fifteen minutes, or a half-hour, or an hour writing will be there the next day. That isn't too much to ask. As for moving the page to a private forum, forum or wiki I'm fine with it as long as Kevan remains the big cheese at the top of the pyramid. If Kevan wants to become boss of a forum, sure. If Kevan doesn't want to handle a forum in addition to a wiki and a game and his other projects and his job, we should keep it on the wiki. --Jon Pyre 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With the drama around here, one may forget who really has contorl over the game. I think some may see this as a game. Move this over to a forum.--ShadowScope 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone briefly explain the benefits of a forum to me (in regards to the suggestions process)? --Funt Solo

23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A forum acts as an AUTOMATIC Discussion page, like this one, where people can discuss on how best to make the suggestion better. Also, there would be no votes, so no Spam voters, Dupe voters, greif voters, troll voters...basically those who hate your suggestion and send it to Peer-Rejected. You no longer have to pander to the Wiki to get it, the main goal is pandering to Kevan, and editing the suggestion to see if it is good or not based on the comments from other Forum users. Peasteyl complained on how people just vote on a suggestion instead of suggesting ways to make it better or viewing the Talk page here to make a suggestion "better". A forum can remedy this problem.--ShadowScope 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Forums can also utilise polls, eliminating the headaches of having to use a template. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are some advantages, clearly. I don't like ShadowScope's concept of a non-voting suggestions system where any old twonk can come along and add unwanted bells and whistles to a suggestion that we hold forcibly under Kevan's nose until he gives the magic signal. That's how they made Friends, and that was lowest common denominator pantaloons. The forum software would take care of discussion, and the automated polls would take care of a voting system. What I don't like is the idea that a sysop from here automatically becomes a sysop on there. UD Wiki sysops were voted in to that position by the community - but specifically as UD wiki sysops. The results of the votes may have been very different if the voters also knew that those same people would then be given control of a suggestions forum! If this were to go ahead, I'd call for each forum-sysop to be voted in, just as they are here. (Mind you, with our vast store of Peer Reviewed suggestions - which I'm a little bit proud of maintaining - I'm not convinced that I'd vote in favour of taking the Suggestions system off the wiki anyway.) --Funt Solo

09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The sysops are basically in control of the Suggestions here anyway, and all the regular Misconduct conditions are in place on the forum. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There's already a forum? Where? --Funt Solo

09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, here. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 09:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really noticing any reduction in drama. Seems very underused. I notice that mods are making up the rules as they go along, rather than voting in policies. Hrmn...I remain unconvinced of the benefits. --Funt Solo

10:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It never originally aimed to replace anything on or about the wiki. It was only ever going to be a place for discussion. I can only imagine the reason for not many users is that they couldn't be bothered. It's not as though it's innovative or unique, particularly when you place it alongside Rezzens and Brainstock. Christ, Funt, rules are easily modified. If you're going to be so completely pigheaded, I'm done discussing this with you. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 10:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a software engineer - I tend to look for the negatives before I look for the positives. I'd really like to see a well contructed policy for this - because it does sound like a good idea if it's going to reduce the amount of editing required on the wiki. I guess my skepticism is because I don't have faith (without a detailed policy) that just saying let's move the suggestions system to a forum - it'll be great will actually improve things. But I'm only one contributer - a lot of people up there seem very keen on the idea, regardless of detail. --Funt Solo

11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion page is the entire reason that I taught myself how to edit a wiki. I am proud of my minor accomplishment and would hate to see it go to waste. I vote keep the suggestion page how it is. If Gage wants a break, then somebody step up and let him take a vacation. He earned it. --Uncle Bill 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be a little bit mis-informed. Currently the person who is doing the majority of the cycles is Funt. But I agree that we should keep the current system, or an alternative is that we can adopt the ScrollWars style suggestions system which is much more manageable then the current system. But I may be a little biased in respects to that =P - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no credible reason to move the suggestions section off-wiki. Forums are just as prone to drama as a wiki. They have more bells and whistles, and automatic features. But unless you're going to heavily police each suggestion thread so that, just like here, every poster only gets one contribution to each suggestion, unless they are replied to, and then extended discussion get moved off thread (to a talk page here), I can only see threads getting so spammed up with back and forth argument, as to be totally useless to Kevan in weighing up a suggestions merits. The simplicity and strict format of this wiki section makes it ideal (well as ideal as you can get) for weighing up for and against arguments in a concise manner. IMO -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have only one issue moving the suggestions off to the forums, and that is that there is no record when an administrator acesses someones IP. Thats because the posters IP is shown next to their post for the administrators. I consider this a serious problem because we still haven't identified who leaked the check user information out, and probably never will. In a nut shell what this means, if we move to the forum that was suggested above, is that anyone who posts on it may be exposed to a potential information leak. Personaly I don't want that happening. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As weird as this sounds, in spite of my arguments above, I wouldn't vote for a move to the forums either. It's just too much of a hassle for not enough of a benefit. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either way. I don't see how a forum would necessarily decrease or increase drama. What features would a forum provide discouraging drama that the wiki does not? --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It makes it easier to delete posts, and would facilitate discussion instead of straight voting. I think it would decrease hostility by quite a bit.--Gage 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It makes it easier to delete posts - that just adds to my nervousness about the proposition. Alarm bells are ringing as I hear you talk about "[making] people behave" and "[deleting] posts". It all sounds very controlling. Sysops are supposed to serve the community, not censor it. How does the deletion of posts "facilitate discussion"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Boxy's post here makes the most sense, I think. --Funt Solo

20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that we need to move the suggestion part off the wiki. Moving it to a forum would help organize the subsections much better. I also think that the layout would be more clean-cut and easier to navigate. Putting the suggestions in different threads and such would be great because with all of the text on this page, the template break frequently and easily. Would the older material be moved to forums, stay on the wiki, or be deleted? -- 03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The template breaks are more because of people using templated signatures and not substing them, substing them is a simple solution, but it's not used by everyone (eg, Cap'n Silly, Dux Ducis, Gage, Lachryma, Thari). The other issue as you have brought up is what would happen with the older material. It would take a considerable amount of time and effort to move all of the old suggestions off to a forum, especially if each one has it's own thread. That on it's own would imply to me that the older suggestions would stay on the wiki. Out of curiosity though, how would having a forum make organizing the subsections easier? From my perspective it would be just as easy as if it was on the wiki making neither superior in that aspect. Eg, you have a subsection for Zombie skills on the forum, you can have a subsection for Zombie skills as a different page on the wiki. I do however agree that the layout would be cleaner and, IMO, it probably would be less prone to newbie errors. However I think that overall it would be easier just to stick with the wiki. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 09:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

After going over the older suggestions and objects of that nature, it seems to me that the forum would be just as organized as the wiki. Thanks for clarifying some of those questions for me. I might have missed this but where would the suggestions go after they are done being voted upon? Do they stay on the forum somewhere or get moved to the wiki? It would probably be best if they stay on the forum. --

21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing one rather major point: Suggestions do not create drama. The people who work with them do. That being said, you might as well try to drain a lake but leave behind all of the water. Seriously, what will forums do? You need to resolve the people's problems. Moving where they take them won't change it. --Nimble Zombie 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Suggestions/archive23