Suggestion:20080116 Team Awesome Does the Awesome!

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

20080116 Team Awesome Does the Awesome!

Ron Burgundy 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Type
Stats page change, good things, things you should vote "keep" on, ways to amuse Ron Burgundy, things that begin with the letter "A"

Suggestion scope
All creatures, great and small.

Suggestion description

This is a suggestion for groups and members of subgroups and strike-teams. It comes in two steps:

Step the First: Allow the player to list his group and his subgroup on his or her character page. This would allow other players, were they so inclined, to see what function a member of a given team preforms and thereby better coordinate their healing, moaning, talking, eating, or what have you. It could look like this:

Group: Channel 4 News Team

Subgroup: Reporters in the Field

Step the Second: The subgroups would also show up on the stats page, under the group name and indented, so not to confuse it for an unrelated group. Player counts would be twofold: one for the group as a whole, all subgroups included (Channel 4 News Team: 50 members), and the other for the various subgroups alone (Reporters in the Field: 20 members). This would help players organize themselves within their groups or and form large-scale alliances outside their groups.

So as not to clutter the stats page, subgroups would appear in an expanded textbox visible only if you click the name of the group. For instance, if a player clicks on "Channel 4 News Team" he is not taken to their wiki page, but rather is shown their subgroup stats. Links to the wiki could be moved into a separate column.

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. Absolutely terrible. This is some of the stupidest shit Burgundy has ever thought up. All people who agree with me, please vote in this section. --Ron Burgundy 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Keep - Horrible. Kill it with fire. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Keep - Awesome suggestion. This would definitely help group members with keeping everything together and organizing themselves as far as their alignments go.--GT 04:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep - Nobody makes group suggestions. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Expand - Though a nominal keep. This suggestion will imply ownership of a group title to a group leader, after all, what happens if RedRum decide they are a sub-group of C4NT? This 'ownership' needs to be made clear in the suggestion. Also I'd definitely vote yes if changes were applied to group skills, I'm thinking of Feeding Groan here. If groans made by one subgroup i.e. The Wrecking Ball sounded familiar to another subgroup i.e. The Gore Corps then this suggestion would receive a clear keep from me. -- Iscariot 06:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep - YES! YES! YES! I can be a Naughty Zombie God and still be a FERocious Undead! Bring this to me! -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 07:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Keep - because it has the letter "A" in it.--'BP^Tmz 07:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Keep - If we had that in the day... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Pornography in Japan - I absolutely agree with Ron Burgundy, Ron Burgundy is the worst suggestion maker in the history of the suggestion tool! --the wallaby^♥ 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Pornography in YOUR MOM - OMG thiz is so dum cuz you is stoopid!! eat my poopie!1!one!1!1 That is an example of a spam vote. I rest my case. UCFSD 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Keep - "Yes", as they say... --Heretic144 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Keep Ron is right... This is some stupid shit. But I've seen worse... And this actually is something I want! ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Keep Awesome! --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Keep-tastic! - Would work great for DEM members (DEM/MFD) or those wishing to show support of a larger alliance (SSZ or SWA). Would also work great with RRF/Gore Corps. --Uncle Bill 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Keep - "Because it F-in makes sense bitch!" he said to no one in perticular. -- BoboTalkClown 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Keep - Thsi sounds reasonable.--Kolechovski 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Keep - I like the idea of adding more variety to the Group concept. --Diano 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Keep - As Uncle Bill above. Also, somebody needs to tell Ron that "Team" doesn't start with "A" - Headshot Hal 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Keep - As Iscariot --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 19:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill Total crap -Downinflames 05:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
2. As some are fond of saying, "This isn't Nexus War". Groups are much too fluid in UD since membership can't be restricted. Can't you just put it in your character description anyway?.--Pesatyel 06:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
3. kill - as above --~~~~ [talk] 07:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Kill - this is still the best suggestion I've seen you make ;) I may vote for this if it was restricted to groups with over, say, 75 members, and the sub-groups didn't show up unless there were at least 10 members in each. Karek makes a very good point, it would also need to be addressed before getting a keep from me. Interesting idea, technically difficult to impliment -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:42 16 January 2008 (BST)
5. Kill - As Karek but I don't like spam.Studoku 09:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Kill - as spam voters, but without the spam--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 13:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Kill - Boxy makes a good point regarding a minimum needed to have sub-groups. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Kill - I have similar concerns to Boxy over this.Place some sort of number limit on it.--Seventythree^Talk 17:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Kill - I don't see why we need this - keep track of the number of people on the wiki, and put the name of the subgroup along with a link to the wiki, in your character description run-on sentence --Ryiis 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Read above and below. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Kill - Because it'd get weird and a lot of people I know in groups probably wouldn't bother to use it. The profiles have a huge amount of space for a reason. Also, I can't help but wonder what happens with groups where there are no set subgroups and half the people put something unique into the box. EDIT: Didn't notice the non-cluttering part of the suggestion. I still don't like it, though. Sorry. --Howard Bentley 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Kill - Unnecessary. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 16:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Kill- As Burgundy, except I would rather post it in this section, plus this adds unnecessary spam. -- BKM 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Kill - Subgroups ARE separate groups for the most part. Let's just keep things the way they are, even for this minor edit. --Vandurn 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Kill - this is kinda useless, you can just put this information on your profile, or the wiki, or spraypaint it on your chest at home, whatever. --Scotw 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Kill Sorry - easy enough to put in your profile.--Squid Boy 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb dumb dUmb DuMb DUMB! If you want to be in a group list yourself in that group, this will cause nothing but problems on the stats page as it tries to deal with people putting themselves in two different groups, subgroups, or groups placed into multiple organizations, IT WILL HAPPEN, and it will basically make the stats page useless because it will be impossible to read due to all the confusing and misplaced crap, nothing will be right anymore, not even close. --Karek^maps?! 06:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Spam - I'm with Karek on this one. Use your character description if you want to list a sub-group, or main group, and then use your group slot to list the vicey versa (nursa! nursa!). I still love Ron Burgundy, though: he's irresistable striding around in his double-knit reversible slacks. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Spam - Needless clutter. just have it in your profile description. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Spam - I tried not to vote spam, really i did. as mentioned before, how are groups/subgroups quantified? it would get muddy with all of the affiliats, organizations, allies, groups, subgroups, units, special assignment squads, anon, anon. I do quite like the letter "A", but this idea is a no go. Sub groups are better left as part of a groups wiki page, or in the character description. -- Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Spam - Profile window is best for other information like sub-groups. The RRF has been doing fine for quite some time now without anything like this. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Humorous - Because I'm surprised at just how retarded several of the votes are. In the keep section, mind you. --Private Mark 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Spamtastic - As Karek, if people really want to have a subgroup then they'll have the real group name in the group box and then the sub group in their profile description, or the subgroup in the group name and the original group in the profile. Acoustic Pie 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Spam As above. Magnum Odus 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)