Suggestion:20071206 Remove Survivors from DNA Extractor Target List

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Reviewed.

20071206 Remove Survivors from DNA Extractor Target List

Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Item change.

Suggestion scope
DNA Extractors only.

Suggestion description
The names of survivors will no longer show up in the DNA Extractor list, removing the ability to attempt to DNA-scan a human. That is all.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep- Author vote --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - Sure, stops stupid mistakes and actualy removes screen clutter. --Blobdude^{Talk TM MC} 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - Didn't know it costed an AP, so I change my vote, --/~WOOT~\ 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - Because there's no point in trying to scan a survivor. --Ms.Panes 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Yes please, and corpses also. DNA scanning a (non-ambulatory) corpse is pointless.  Swiers 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - if it ever goes anywhere it can go back in--Zach016 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill Oh wait no, I mean keep. Because its silly to not fix faulty lists. --Jon Pyre 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Meh. - Glenstone 03:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - As Darth. Omega 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - Having it there makes about as much sense as trying to drink a shotgun or open a fence using candy. --Pgunn 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep - Darth changed my vote --Anti Gorefest5^TMW!B! 05:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
12. keep Number of brain cells used to come up with this suggestion: 7 ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - I suppose so. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 09:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep - makes sense. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Keep - Makes sense. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Keep - As above--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Keep - I assume this suggestion would relieve server stress, as the program wouldn't have to populate a list if only survivors were in the building, etc. --Ryiis 14:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Keep - I can't find this in Peer Reviewed, and it's unlikely it would be Rejected or Undecided. So, not a Dupe. (Possibly it should even be a bug report.) --Funt Solo ^QT 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Keep - A great idea--Murlge Gurgle The Murloc 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Keep- Good idea.-- BKM 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Keep- Why vote against? -- BoboTalkClown 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Keep - I think that it would be a dupe in PR, but no luck, so keep it. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Keep - Why not?? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Keep - I likes it. --Howard Bentley 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Keep - Good idea. --Garzahd 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Keep - because there is no Earthly reason not to.--Squid Boy 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Keep - Why the thing was even designed to select survivors as options in the first place is a mystery. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Keep - As above. --Private Mark 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Keep - This and all the other pointless menu options should be removed. I like choices, but I don't NEED the choice to use a FAK on the generator. --Steakfish 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Funt searched PR, while I searched Undecided and Rejected. There is no Dupe. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Keep - Makes sense. Sheana/Gogolnik ^{(T HD-T TMZ)} 06:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Keep - As above. --Heretic144 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Strong Keep - And about time too! –Ariedartin ^Talk 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Keep - Ditto. --Lh778 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Keep - Agreed. --Richardhg 05:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Keep - I concur. --Toejam 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Keep --WanYao 10:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Keep -- Whats the worst that could that could happen? --Raynor16 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Not like it costs you anything, plus it's something fun to try and play with.--Karek^maps?! 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   It wastes an AP. --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   You sure, I coulda sworn it just gives a you can't do that type text.--Karek^maps?! 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   Check out this page: DNA_Extractor --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   As Karek - No real point in getting rid of it... /~WOOT~\ 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Kill - The Flat Earth Society reject this notion and are stealing your survivor's DNA for a Government database. --Karloth Vois ^RR 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   Kill - why should you not be able to scan humans? --Anti Gorefest5^TMW!B! 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   It never did in the first place. If you look at DNA Extractor, the text displayed when attempting to DNA-extract a human would be "NecroTech needs DNA samples from the dead, not the living." --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   ok, well can i change vote? --Anti Gorefest5^TMW!B! 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   Use it doing the < strike > command, without the spaces. It goes like this: Vote I want to remove. Glenstone 03:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Kill - I can´t believe I´m actually voting this suggestion...I must be drunk... --the wallaby^♥ 13:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Dupe - I'm pretty sure this is in the archives already, but if no one finds a link, this vote wont count -- boxy ^{talk • I} 01:42 6 December 2007 (BST)
2. Dupe - I second that. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Dupe - i third that --~~~~ [talk] 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)