UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Historical Voting Time Limit

I'd like a discussion point on a couple of issues: Firstly, how long should this timeframe be? Secondly, should this perhaps be added to Historical Events too? --

 

 

 

 

15:49, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I'd prefer it for both, and I see 4-6 months as being a good range.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:51, 29 June 2010 (BST)

4months for both events and groups in malton, 2 in perma death cities, as the number of participants will be significantly lower. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:29, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I generally disagree with the whole idea. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 02:21, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I think it should be 2 months for groups that officially disbanded, 4 months for groups that fall off the group listing on the game's stats page while also showing no recent update on said group's wiki page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:26, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I'd say 3 months from the time they put Template:InactiveGroup on their page (1 month for non-Malton cities), and not at all for Historical Events. —Aichon— 06:34, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I like the feel of 3-4 months for a group, but I'm still thinking at least a fortnight for events. Maybe 1 month, just for simplicity sake. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:58, 30 June 2010 (BST)

Six months for groups, one to three month(s) for events. 19:20, 30 June 2010 (BST)

If you want to make the historical category actually mean what it says, then the longer the time limit the better. If a group can't get the votes after 6 months, it isn't historical. Less than 3 months will see most of the group/event members still being active on UD, and being encouraged to meatpuppet the vote -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:07 30 June 2010 (BST)

Meatpuppeting shouldn't be a factor IMO. The fact that meatpuppeting is used in this case is probably the only justifiable time I could see it being done. By this I mean meatpuppeting from the groups, as if it's meatpuppeting from places like SA then it can happen regardless of when an event happened. The more people willing to vote on the event justifies the size of it and in that case the chances it was actually historical. Cause let's face it, we've seen it all, the only think that will always impress us is sheer numbers, right? --

 

 

 

 

10:30, 30 June 2010 (BST)

Then why the hell do you want to change it at all? Just let every group nominate themselves, and vote themselves in (if big enough) on a whim. Just rename the category to "Category:Big groups that claim to have disbanded"-- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:03 30 June 2010 (BST)

^^^^Thank you.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:53, 30 June 2010 (BST)

The focus isn't on preventing/allowing meatpuppetry, it's on giving all voters a better chance at seeing whether a group had a proper cultural impact in the game. --

 

 

 

 

16:57, 9 July 2010 (BST)

I agree with Boxy here - as long as it isn't an absurdly long period of time, the longer the better. So six months sounds good. I'm alright with a shorter time frame for events, and I agree with Ross that a shorter time frame is pretty much essential for groups from other cities (perhaps one or two months?) Linkthewindow  Talk  04:53, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Atm I'm looking to make the other cities exempt from the rule- The nature of cities so far means that once a group is forced to disband then its impact in the game will have most likely been demonstrated since the city has probably died alongside with the group... Thoughts? --

 

 

 

 

16:57, 9 July 2010 (BST)

Tempted to say a short (2-4 week) cooling off period, but I admit it would be a little pointless. Either way, other cities should definitely be exempt from the rule in some way. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:29, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Oh, plus Kevan might actually release another city with a long-term lifespan unlike the permadeath cities and that would lead to us having to go through more policy votes just to amend. --

 

 

 

 

03:59, 10 July 2010 (BST)

This sounds like a great idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottie Watson (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

No.

Who came up with this idea??? I'm prettty sure whoever came up with this idea sis it just for the benefit of me not re-nominating my group.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 18:37, 4 July 2010 (BST)

Cf/ Escape, Guardians of the YRC, Assylum, The Church Of The Beyonder, Detulux Inc, The Imperium, Rouge Heart Aces, Gibsonton Nationals, blah blah blah blah, before assuming anyone cares. 18:42, 4 July 2010 (BST)

Monroeville Many, burble burble boo. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:43, 4 July 2010 (BST)

So, you're planning to spam nominations until you pass? Yeah, that would be something worth stopping!
But no, this wont stop that at all. It just means you'll have to wait a few months until you can nominate it, something that you should be doing anyway
It's not all about you. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:55 4 July 2010 (BST)

The idea was first brought up on June 9th. You nominated your group for the first time on June 15th. Unless you want to accuse someone of fortunetelling, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with what boxy just said: it's not all about you. Besides, this doesn't stop you from re-nominating in the least, since according to you the 101st has been disbanded for years now. Please read more and assume less. —Aichon— 01:55, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Dude, this policy won't stop your group getting renominated for historical groups. We have the actual knowledge that the group sucked dick, for that. --

 

 

 

 

03:11, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Seems like I've been Poned by everyone once again.

Except for DDR. You're just a jerk. My group did not suck D*ck-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 02:38, 8 July 2010 (BST)

no DDR is a JERK, and your group really did fucking suck.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 16:56, 8 July 2010 (BST)

Sooooooo....

Besides Jerrel's whining, this hasn't has much discussion. It's six months plus exceptions for additonal cities?-- Adward  15:08, 15 July 2010 (BST)

Deal. Going to put this up for voting? (but what about events?) Linkthewindow  Talk  15:46, 15 July 2010 (BST)#

I think that's going to fall under the same thing. I've nudged DDR, but I don't mind myself.-- Adward  15:48, 15 July 2010 (BST)

I don't have a problem with it either, but I wasn't sure what consensus was reached above. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:49, 15 July 2010 (BST)

I'll leave it for DDR, but it looks like events will be handles differently.-- Adward  15:50, 15 July 2010 (BST)

Hmmm. I made notes on the talk page at one point P sure, honestly I've been lazy and haven't made the effort to perfect the policy, it's rather difficult when everyone has big opinions about the little differences, but at the moment I'm looking to ignore events for now, and give exceptions to additional cities. I'd prefer lower than 6 months so I might try on 5 months, and I might post it up tomorow after I've gotten some sleep. --

 

 

 

 

16:00, 15 July 2010 (BST)

Sounds good. We don't need to put every last detail into the policy, events can be dealt with seperately.-- Adward  16:04, 15 July 2010 (BST)

Meh. Five months is odd, but it won't stop me from voting against it. I think events should be included, but again, this won't make me an against voter. Linkthewindow  Talk  16:04, 15 July 2010 (BST)

Actually, fuck it, I've gone through all of this and I'm strongly considering making it 4 months. Since groups can nominate themselves as often as they want there's no real issue with them waiting afterwards if people think they still haven't made enough impact after that time. The aim of this policy is to create any sort of buffer, not make it harder to actually achieve historical. --

 

 

 

 

05:29, 16 July 2010 (BST)

Moved from voting

Of course that should be the vote. And if after four months, no one does remember them, then why are they historic? I mean, the sixth man on the moon was a part of history, but honestly tell me, who the fuck was he? And that's why he's not on stamps. 21:29, 20 July 2010 (BST)

He's not on stamps because he's still alive. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:37, 20 July 2010 (BST)

So is Neil Armstrong. —Aichon— 21:47, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Who indeed has never been honoured with his own stamp. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:50, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Sure about that? It was even in the article I just linked. —Aichon— 21:57, 20 July 2010 (BST)

"First Moon Landing issue commemorating Apollo 11. Armstrong is not honored "by portrayal" in accordance with USPS criteria pertaining to postage issues not honoring living people.[35]" Why don't you just say "The Queen"? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:01, 20 July 2010 (BST)

22:02, 20 July 2010 (BST)

The west wing has given me so much useless knowledge. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:03, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Read edit notes much? :P —Aichon— 22:04, 20 July 2010 (BST)

1. Yes it commemorates the arrival of the first man on the moon. The stamp celebrates achievement, not armstrong. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:06, 20 July 2010 (BST)

You're picking at straws to prove a weak point, most of the game no longer knows petrojsko, ron burgandy, or sonny as anything but a troll. All were notable historic people al effected the game in significant ways. As is ALF or the malton DEA. I can pick out more than a dozen historic events and groups that the average player wouldn't know and yet wouldn't be remembered by people joining in the timeframe mentioned. Hell, DEM would more or less fail this test, CMS would fail this test. 4 years of game, 3 votes a year, this doesn't seem excessive? --Karek^maps?! 00:33, 21 July 2010 (BST)

To answer Misanthropy's first point: I believe you're confusing popular with historic, or notorious with historic. The sixth man on the moon (Dr. Edgar Mitchell) is indeed a part of history. Whether or not he's well known, notorious or popular is neither here nor there: his achievement is part of recorded history. So, "historic groups" is actually a misnomer because it's being treated as "well known, notorious, popular or prolific groups that have disbanded". --Funt Solo ^QT 16:21, 23 July 2010 (BST)

Actually you're confusing historic with historical. The sixth man on the moon is historic, being a landmark in history. He is not historical as he lacks the memorable impact involved with remaining in people's minds. I'm pretty sure the news at the time was going apeshit over another man on the moon, but the fuss died down and now we have to actively research who he was - just like how this policy will cause future votes to be based on whether groups had enough of an impact to be remembered beyond the time when they're immediately in the forefront, a few months down the line when the vote happens if they're still thought of and remembered then they're actually historical, not just temporarily popular. 17:00, 23 July 2010 (BST)

That's a distinction I was unaware of, so thanks for illuminating me. (It's still debatable as to whether the distinction is generally understood as the terms are often used interchangeably, but I'll let that slide as moot.) I still think four months is too long in UD-wiki terms. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:56, 26 July 2010 (BST)

Not really. On Strike is still the comparison made to every movement or event, whilst The Dead, Shacknews and Eastonwood Ferals are still the yardsticks by which many hordes are measured, and every attempt to retake red zones is inevitably compared to the Blackmore Bastard Brigade. And those groups all made their mark a lot more than four months ago, and are still remembered with high frequency. If a group can't actually make enough of a mark that four months later people have forgotten them, they really just aren't historical enough to warrant being mentioned. 17:41, 26 July 2010 (BST)