Talk:Suggestions/11th-Mar-2007

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.

Quickie

Were any of the suggestions on this page moved to their respective places? I also not that the page hasn't been locked. --Sirens^{T RR} 01:10, 23 May 2007 (BST)

Newbies and Suggestions Revamp

I am sick to death of people voting on the suggestions page who do not have an idea of what they are doing. Most people join up on the wiki to do so. Heck, I did as well. However as we all know, they don't read the guidelines and rules pertaining to the suggesting of new ideas and the proper way of going about this. I propose we do a revamp of the system, whereby all suggestions go to the talk:suggestions page first. There they are scrutinized by the community, changed and edited to an acceptable level. Then after say two or three days (whatever is deemed an appropriate time) they are moved to the suggestions page, where the final voting takes place. No editing should be done at this point, as it should have been sorted out before. Here is a better illustration of the idea:

talk:suggestions (first) --->

Iron out problems/community discussion --->

Final editing before moving to suggestions page (should stop most screw-ups of the template and stop those annoying 'removed due to editing') --->

Community voting --->

Archive into appropriate category

I also want to highlight this point from Suggestion Do's and Don'ts:

• "Aim for Believability, Not Realism:

Don't argue that something is "more realistic" when defending your idea. This is a game about the Living Dead. ZOMBIES. It's hard to get more unrealistic than zombies shuffling around downtown. It's not a mistake that things are not realistic. Making the game realistic does not necessarily make the game fun. On the other hand, do argue for believability. A good suggestion wouldn't be jarringly out of place in Urban Dead's universe. "

I have also recently found that many people are constantly harping on about the realism of many suggestions. This is a perfect example of how little the guidelines are read! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Lachryma, and I approved this ad-er, change.--Lachryma^☭ 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are those who are perfectly capable of posting a suggestion without it going up for discussion first. Don't add more red tape. Plus, the guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not rules. Nobody voted for them. --Funt Solo 10:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we could have a list of people who are clearly capable of making a suggestion. However, you said that we should not have more red tape. Ok, but the problem is that many experienced users remove their suggestion for editing, something which could have been cleared beforehand in talk:suggestions. This requires a new round of voting. Isn't this all wasting time that could have been saved beforehand? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might consider it wasted time, I don't. It's all a matter of opinion. What I meant by not adding red tape, was this entire proposal. I think the current system (whilst not perfect) would not be improved by forcing discussion (which only a handful of people take part in). --Funt Solo 15:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is the amount of things that go on the Talk page and then ignore most of the feedback and just post the exact same rubbish on the main page. likewise many people do not use the talk page (tho this would probably change that) and thus only see the suggestion when it is up for voting... I know it was months before i bothered to check the talk page! Perhaps if you change this so that if a suggestion is removed for revising it must then spend a minimum 3 days here? --Honestmistake 12:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure this is just a discussion at the moment, not a concrete formation. I like the idea of an edit going to the talk page, however it should be something deemed significant by a sysop to be moved. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 12:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, what's wrong with the current setup? Any edit after voting starts is (and should be) illegal. It doesn't take a sysop to spot it, and if you make them wholly responsible, then you're increasing their workload for no good reason. --Funt Solo 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As funt says if it is edited while up for voting it is illegal and gets removed (usually to here) what i suggest is that any suggestion removed from the suggestion page be moved here for a minimum of 3 days before resubmission! That might be a pain in the ass for very minor edits but might make people think before submission...--Honestmistake 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the sound of that, however there are those who remove their own posts for minor adjustments, however some remove them as they are going to be spammed/kicked out anyway. How can we account for both views? -- TheDavibob ^LLL 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By not applying a ridiculously arbitrary minimum time limit on revisions. The current rules - 1 suggestion per day, 1 revision of that suggestion per day - pretty much covers it, doesn't it? --Funt Solo 10:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you compare this page with a year ago it's unbelievably structured and also way, way, less lively and fun. The quality of suggestion arent going to improve anyway but the fun will go down.--Vista 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, a check of recent game updates implies that kevan does not read the guidelines when makeing game changes. Funt Solo has a point.--AlexanderRM 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What's interesting is that people quote the guidelines as if they're gospel. I'm not slagging anyone off - I've occasionally used them to back up my arguments, and some of them (such as "don't mess with AP", and "don't teleport my character") are very sensible. The thing is, someone wrote those. Just someone. If there was a voting process (which I doubt), it happened a long time ago, and may anyway not be relevant. I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: take each suggestion on it's own merits, rather than blindly dismissing it according to some arcane guidelines of dubious quality and relevance. (You cannot plan for idiocy, unfortunately, so I'm sure we'll see plenty more jet-powered skateboards, sniper-bazookas and zombie catapults. Oh, how I wish the forts had zombie catapults.) --Funt Solo 13:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They weren't voted on. Or, at least, if they were, it happened about 2 years ago.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, one thing I've noticed is that MOST people wait until the suggestion is up for voting to "help" or tear it apart. I've seen quite a few suggestions here that only a handful of us actually discussed here. So, basically speaking, telling people that have to start a suggestion here is only as good as the wiki patrons who actually bother to help here. And, as far as forcing an author to wait three days to resubmit if their suggestion gets moved here, well wasn't that why we had the 1 per day per author rule? Also, again, it makes no difference if the suggestion stays here for a day, 3 days or a month if nobody actually discusses it here.--Pesatyel 05:36, 26 March 2007 (BST)