Suggestion talk:20080210 Number Groups v2
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
You Know, What I Just Noticed
This suggestion is a multi under suggestions rule 9. Funny that.--Karekmaps?! 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good eye. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eh? "This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision." -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Check the link I provide in voting, it was removed due to editing, not for revision.--Karekmaps?! 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Karek - you're being an enormous dick about this. It got pulled due to editing, yes. That means it hasn't yet (in it's current form) been through the voting process. Tell me you're not suggesting that a mistake in suggestions protocol (editing after voting) means that the suggestion in question is banned from resubmition? Wiki-lawyering bullshit. Honestly. --Funt Solo QT
01:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC) - Fuck, you removed it! You utter prick! What do you do for fun: steal candy from babies? Jebus H Cnut! Aaaaargh. PRICK. --Funt Solo QT 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- So now, what - he waits till after midnight and gets to post it again, so we all have to vote on it again? Thanks for wasting everyone's time. I'd A/VB you, but I can't be arsed with the drama. Go check yourself in a mirror. --Funt Solo QT 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Omg Karek, you better pray I never get the chance to ban you. You see folks, THIS is why he shouldn't be a sysop. He'll exploit any loophole just to get at me because he's a antisocial DICKHEAD. And besides, by MY time, it HAS been 24 hours. --Hhal 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah-hah...it's after midnight! Oh well, here we go again! --Hhal 01:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- You could have done it the moment I removed it, the rules exist for a reason though.--Karekmaps?! 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- What's your problem Karek? The spirit of that rule is that people don't have 2 active suggestions up in the one day. The old one was removed because of revisions to it during voting. Surely you can work out that putting it up again isn't abusing the system, it's just that the author didn't fully understand the procedures. Give them a break gods sake. Let the suggestion fail or succeed on it's merits, not because you can loophole it out of voting for now. And then you have the gall to whine that he put it up yet again, when it was legal, when you were the one that forced it to be done by removing this one -- boxy talk • i 02:21 11 February 2008 (BST)
- Don't fucking bitch to me Boxy, Hhal already resubmitted it so all this is is you assholes trying to villainize me. If Hhal thought before doing shit he would have at least tried to argue for his suggestion, instead he has, again, just resubmitted it without any consideration for what or why and played the martyr. He's more than breaking the spirit of the rule so stop whining about his suggestion getting removed, if you actually thought about it instead of hopping here to participate in the witch burning that would be completely obvious but, if you want to know who's really at fault for all of this take a look at the first person to bitch about it's removal, or, you know, check the history of the first version of this submitted which was incorrectly removed and then made so that nothing could be done about that by Hhal jumping the gun, you know, kinda like he did again after this, because his suggestion is soooo important that it should absolutely get through ASAP.--Karekmaps?! 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The first one was removed for editing during voting, so any edits after voting starts don't count. So, he puts up what in essence is a revision - which you haul down cause you don't like it - pretending it's a multi. Don't try and hide behind "just following the rules" - because you know you're not. You're making up rules to fit your temper - and calling me a bitch or whatever for pointing that out is just lame. Not only that, but you're puting someone new to the suggestions system off, creating bad feeling with them, and you're forcing everyone else to vote again - which is itself causing loads of drama. This was pure bad faith on your part, Karek, and it doesn't matter what you say otherwise - that's the truth of it. Pure bad faith. --Funt Solo QT 09:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- No Funt, you're assuming Bad Faith cause it suits your agenda, something you frequently tend to do actually. You incorrectly removed the first one, I correctly removed the second one, and somehow I'm the one acting in bad faith.--Karekmaps?! 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- How was the initial removal incorrect, exactly? Stop making shit up to try to deflect the blame. Anyone with half a brain cell can see you're either acting in bad faith here or simply delusional. Honestly, I'm wondering about the latter - maybe some kind of chemical imbalance. --Funt Solo QT 16:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is how, He added a 'COMMENT Which is allowed by the system. There was no mechanics change, there was no change in the suggestion at all, all Hhal's edits on the original one were were clarifying comments, something the system goes out of it's way to allow. So yeah, you are simply delusional.--Karekmaps?! 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Selective reading of the full rule on your part: "Notes" added for clarification purposes, and correcting spelling/typos are permitted. When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it with the clarification included for the voters who have already placed their votes. I was doing it for good faith reasons: many voters never come back to revisit a suggestion - so would never potentially change their votes. I'm happy that my good faith edit was within the rules and your bad faith edit was not. Even forgetting all the rules, your edit was in bad faith. You know that's true, and I haven't heard you deny it. --Funt Solo QT 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Selective reading of the full rule on your part: "Notes" added for clarification purposes, and correcting spelling/typos are permitted. When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it with the clarification included for the voters who have already placed their votes. I was doing it for good faith reasons: many voters never come back to revisit a suggestion - so would never potentially change their votes. I'm happy that my good faith edit was within the rules and your bad faith edit was not. Even forgetting all the rules, your edit was in bad faith. You know that's true, and I haven't heard you deny it. --Funt Solo QT
- This is how, He added a 'COMMENT Which is allowed by the system. There was no mechanics change, there was no change in the suggestion at all, all Hhal's edits on the original one were were clarifying comments, something the system goes out of it's way to allow. So yeah, you are simply delusional.--Karekmaps?! 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- How was the initial removal incorrect, exactly? Stop making shit up to try to deflect the blame. Anyone with half a brain cell can see you're either acting in bad faith here or simply delusional. Honestly, I'm wondering about the latter - maybe some kind of chemical imbalance. --Funt Solo QT
- No Funt, you're assuming Bad Faith cause it suits your agenda, something you frequently tend to do actually. You incorrectly removed the first one, I correctly removed the second one, and somehow I'm the one acting in bad faith.--Karekmaps?! 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The first one was removed for editing during voting, so any edits after voting starts don't count. So, he puts up what in essence is a revision - which you haul down cause you don't like it - pretending it's a multi. Don't try and hide behind "just following the rules" - because you know you're not. You're making up rules to fit your temper - and calling me a bitch or whatever for pointing that out is just lame. Not only that, but you're puting someone new to the suggestions system off, creating bad feeling with them, and you're forcing everyone else to vote again - which is itself causing loads of drama. This was pure bad faith on your part, Karek, and it doesn't matter what you say otherwise - that's the truth of it. Pure bad faith. --Funt Solo QT
- Don't fucking bitch to me Boxy, Hhal already resubmitted it so all this is is you assholes trying to villainize me. If Hhal thought before doing shit he would have at least tried to argue for his suggestion, instead he has, again, just resubmitted it without any consideration for what or why and played the martyr. He's more than breaking the spirit of the rule so stop whining about his suggestion getting removed, if you actually thought about it instead of hopping here to participate in the witch burning that would be completely obvious but, if you want to know who's really at fault for all of this take a look at the first person to bitch about it's removal, or, you know, check the history of the first version of this submitted which was incorrectly removed and then made so that nothing could be done about that by Hhal jumping the gun, you know, kinda like he did again after this, because his suggestion is soooo important that it should absolutely get through ASAP.--Karekmaps?! 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Karek - you're being an enormous dick about this. It got pulled due to editing, yes. That means it hasn't yet (in it's current form) been through the voting process. Tell me you're not suggesting that a mistake in suggestions protocol (editing after voting) means that the suggestion in question is banned from resubmition? Wiki-lawyering bullshit. Honestly. --Funt Solo QT
- Check the link I provide in voting, it was removed due to editing, not for revision.--Karekmaps?! 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eh? "This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision." -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
HOLD IT!
Isn't revision and editing the same thing? They both modify the original suggestion. Yes, it doesn't say that editing is included in the exceptions, but sometimes you have to bend the rules a bit, especially when it inconveniences *everyone* and creates very unnecessary internet drama if you follow it to the letter.
And karek, you should totally read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. It's a great book, it teaches you how to be a good leader while keeping yourself popular. For in my opinion, you're doing the latter wrong lately...
And to everyone else, for the love of God/Allah/Xenu, don't shoot revenge votes, like voting keep just to spite karek, or kill to annoy Hhal, Funt, etc). If there's any credibility left in the voting system, let's not wipe it out by having our emotions do the voting. --Aeon17x 10:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
