Suggestion talk:20071113 Making generators and transmitters

Nubis' Vote

discussion

Is not justified. For that matter, neither is Wooty's, A Helpful Little Gnome's or Cyberbob240's. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you fall from that high up, you might hurt yourself. Where did you get a 50 foot tall horse from, anyway? This discussion has been had on this wiki over and over again. You cannot adequately define "justification" beyond the votes of keep, kill and spam. Try a little translation in your head:

• Keep means "I want this to be implemented".
• Kill means "I don't want this to be implemented".
• Spam means "Jebus H Centaurs! I don't want this to be implemented."

Perhaps you can tell me the difference in meaning between someone typing "Kill" and someone typing "Kill - I don't like it"? If you can't then please use this ladder and come down offa that hoss. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand Keep and Kill votes with justifications like "I like it" and "I don't like it", but Spam votes have the power to remove a suggestion from voting prematurely and thus should have a proper justification. "Nope" isn't one, that I can tell. Just as you put it there, a lot of people think that Spam's only difference to Kill is "Jebus H Centaurs". --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

SPAM IS NOT STRONG KILL And thusly requires justification. UCFSD 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah now, boys - let's not be making up rules on the spot, please. The rule for justification is applied to all votes, not just Spam votes and reads "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote." That's all votes. However, as I've argued above, the justification is implicit in either stating Keep, Kill or Spam. Frankly, the justification, under the current rules, is implicit in simply signing in the correct location, and indicating in Spam/Dupe which you mean. Now, onto Spam votes themselves, where the rules read "Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions". Now, you'd be fair in thinking if something is ridiculous, you'd like to kill it strongly. However, the rules then contradict logic by saying "Spam votes are not a 'strong kill'". Still, that's beside the point, really. By placing a vote in the Spam section, without indicating a Dupe, it is implicitly recognised (is it not?) that the voter is indicating "I think this suggestion is ridiculous enought to warrant a spam vote". Now, back to my first question: why on Earth do you want to insist that they type that out in full? Are you sadists? --Funt Solo ^QT 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"I don't want this to be implemented" (with or without Jebus) is not a justification, it's a description of what you're voting. A justification is the reason why you "don't want this to be implemented". Liking or disliking a suggestion is enough justification to vote Keep and Kill (you want it or you don't want it), but saying a suggestion is Spam should have some backing. It's not nearly as big as accusing the suggester of vandalism, but you are saying that the suggestion is spam and thus that the suggester is a spammer.

A justification does not have to (and shouldn't) be an essay. For example a simple "15AP is game-breakingly cheap", "ridiculous", "as X" or even "as above" is enough. Thinking that up and writing it should not cause excruciating pain on the voter. If it does, maybe the person should refrain from voting.

If the rules contradict themselves, then they should be changed. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying you want to keep crap should have some backing too. Like I said in the discussion to remove spam votes, it's time to remove your rose colored glasses, it's all or nothing and most users seem to prefer nothing.--Karek^maps?! 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"then they should be changed" Okay, midianianian, go change them - go make up a policy vote. Until the rules make sense, and are clear, then one cannot adequately enforce them. It may be (and certainly seems that way to me) that the majority of users like to use the votes as Keep, Kill, Strong Kill - whether you like it or not. And the majority of users don't want to be forced to justify their vote beyond the shorthand they do use. So, carry on your crusade, by all means - but I don't think you'll get far, is all. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, my name isn't that hard to spell. If you don't want to spell it out in full, please use Mid.

I'm not saying that Keep or Kill votes should be exempted from having a justification. I wouldn't mind if all unjustified/nonsense votes were struck. There are no unclarities about that in the rules, the sysops just rarely do it. I'm saying that the Spam votes' justifications should be more specific and shouldn't be based on disliking alone.

There has already been some discussion on Category_talk:Current_Suggestions#Suggestion_Vote_Revamp on changing the system (it's not exactly on this issue), but I'm not exactly sure where I should take it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, you can just say "as above". All the justfication is there. BoboTalkClown 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hurrr – Nubis 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More discussion

This is silly. It's useless to scratch out votes because people will just add "as X" or "as above". And making a policy is also useless as people will just start typing "as X" or "as above" and if they're the first voter, "as below."--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Never seen an as below vote.--Karek^maps?! 04:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I have, but it was in the kill section referring to the spam section, or something like that. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done it before. I thought it was funny at the time. And then someone tried to strike it. :/ -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone should create an "Open Discussion" page for this!

I'm just sayin... BoboTalkClown 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)