Talk:Suggestions/7th-Jan-2007

"Looks" (Or some such)

Timestamp:	Cutlet 12:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	People who want a cool, unique look and have lots of XP.
Description:	While reading through this page, a user named Deras gave me an idea that will help use up our endless supplies of XP. I propose that for the cost of 500 XP you can buy yourself a special appearance (Something like "A completely naked zombie"), that will go in your description thingy in the profile page, and maybe give you a special colour for your characters name, so everyone can see that you've got a look, and they can check it out. It would cost 1000 XP to get rid of your look, and then 500 XP to get a new one, if you're bored with being a naked zombie. People without a "look" would just have the regular old "A non-descript survivor" with maybe some randomised addons like "with blonde hair." Of course, this means that you'd no longer have your description box to type in, but maybe instead we could have a place where you can type in some extra information, like websites (for those metagaming Martins) or extra descriptiveness i.e. a long scar, no eyes, etc. (for them roleplaying Rodriguez(s?))

Discussion

The idea of not having a description box makes me think this'll get shot down before it's even up, but I think it's a pretty cool way to spend those extra XPs, and the high cost means that people won't be able to change it every time they feel like it. Also, I'm thinking it should be available to those level 10 and above, so that newbies don't waste valuable time and XP on it, and instead get something useful. -Cutlet 12:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I'm honored! Well I don't like the part about getting rid of the description box, maybe you could add this in before/after the desciption box and in a different color or in bold or something so that people know it's bought. Or you could do like in NW where there're 2 descritions a "physycal" which is the bought one and a "personal" which is the one you write. I don't like making UD too much like NW though. Anyway get rid of the description box thing. --Deras 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than descriptions, how about having folks buy themselves REPUTATIONS? Currently, folks frequently put something about their reputation in the description box, but logically, a reputation has to be EARNED- and this could be purchased with XP's. But don't get rid of the description box- its one of the games few true Role Play elements. Also, don't change the color of people's names in the room descriptions, as this would interfere with the contact managment features; I for one love that my selected "enemies" now show up red. Not that the names can't be made distinctive- instead the could be underlined, bolded, or whatever. --Swiers 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, this will get spammed because it is already in the game! FOR FREE! Not to mention not letting newbies use it is stupid too.--Pesatyel 20:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea of this suggestion was to give people a status symbol, showing that they've been playing for a ages and been gathering a whole lot of XP. Now, maybe you're right. It's probably best to let people keep their description box, so they can can customise their character more. But perhaps, like Swiers suggested, we could have Reputations, which would scale up in price as they got more and more special. Maybe for 100 XP you could buy the first level of reputation, which would go in it's own box eg. "This suvivor's clothes are stained with the blood of many zombies" or "This zombie is covered in blood, much of it not it's own." And then the next level would cost 200 XP, and be even more impressive. Next level: 300 XP etc. It would let people keep their completely unique description, but also give them some status in the UD community. -Cutlet 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That actually doesn't sound bad. But you have to be VERY specific about it.--Pesatyel 07:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But you can already see how much xp someone has and when they joined. --Jon Pyre 08:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that stuff's boooooring. It's just some flavah! You like flavah, dontcha Jon? -Cutlet 09:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it's all right. --Jon Pyre 18:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'd spam this one because I can already write whatever I like as my description. --Funt Solo 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this suggestion is not a good one, and I would vote kill on it. But, Funt, I would remind you of the difference between a Kill vote and a Spam vote. This suggestion, while not a great one, is not to my knowledge a "duplicate", is not an "utterly ridiculous" idea, and it's not some "crazy uber-power". If you don't like the distinction between the two, may I suggest you propose a change to the wiki voting rules [1] to bring the rules more into line with your usage of the terms? The problem with overusing the Spam vote is that when a suggestion is successfully spammed, it is removed from the suggestions page in six hours. This time period is less than a standard work day, so those of us who work a standard eight hour workday rarely get a chance to see it and vote on it. Once it is in spamland, the rules for duplicate suggestions kicks in and it is dead in the water. Now, you may find a suggestion boring or not useful, but by indiscriminately voting Spam you are saying that others should not even get the chance to see it and have their vote counted.--Nosimplehiway 12:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely... SPAM abuse sucks the life out of the WIKI and often results in only those in the 'right' timezone/work pattern getting to vote. I would go so far as to say that many SPAM votes are actually 'BAD FAITH' edits and should result in vandal warnings. I should however point out that I have never seen FUNT vote in that way as he mostly uses it as a strong kill. Unfortunately when otherwise responsible voters misuse SPAM it gives weight to the moron faction... Perhaps AKULE could report them for copyright abuse?--Honestmistake 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason I have complete disdain for your opinions on this - check the archived discussions of this page. I'd add this point - show me the last spaminated suggestion. With the new 6-hour minimum rule in place, hardly anything gets spammed anymore. Trust in the democratic process, would you? Fuck, how would you like it if I started criticising your Keep and Kill votes because my opinion differed from yours? You wouldn't, so shut the fuck up. --Funt Solo 10:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Chill, Funt. This is not Spam material. Kill definitely, but not Spam. And you are allowed criticise keeps and kills... in your own votes. Excess Spam PREVENTS rebuttals, which is why people talk about them so much in places like, say, here, instead --Gene Splicer 14:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

People ACTUALLY discuss suggestions here? ;P Whether or not it is spam material, to you, is irrelevant. To Funt it is. Don't tell people how to vote. Also, didn't we just pass a 6 hour time limit on spam rejection anyway?--Pesatyel 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your response here is exactly my problem with overuse of the Spam vote. The Spam vote is a more polite way of telling both the suggestion poster and those who would comment on it to "shut the fuck up". The voting guidelines on the wiki have very, very clear (albeit broadly inclusive) criteria for spam votes. These rules are clearly posted and widely available to be read. When someone (anyone not just you) votes outside of those boundaries, the way it looks to others is that they are simply trying to break the rules as a means to shut down the suggestion, or worse throwing a vote around without thinking about the suggestion at all. Now, that might not be how your spam votes are meant, but within the rules of this wiki that's how they are received. If you do not like the current meaning of Keep/Kill/Spam, then post a suggestion to change the voting rules. As for whether any of us would like to see our comments and votes commented on, well, speaking for myself I would be happy to see it! As long as it is a well thought out and constructive criticism, it would help me construct better ideas in the future and help the suggestions page operate better. The six hour time limit certainly helps the situation, but the fact remains that as long as the voting rules are ignored, there is no democratic process. Imagine you walked into a voting booth on election day and the candidates were John Smith, John Brown and John Green, but the ballot just read John, John and John. No party affiliation, nothing. If the meaning of our votes is not kept clear, then how can anyone get any meaning from the voting results?--Nosimplehiway 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you post a suggestion to change the rules. Or report me to vandal banning for mis-use of the Spam vote - let's see how far that goes. Fuckin' bullshit. You just can't smell it for some reason. --Funt Solo 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to suggest a rules change, because to me the rules seem fine the way they are. The wiki rules currently state that Spam is not a strong kill. It even says this in bold letters, then it reiterates that for a strong kill, "VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM". (The capitalization is from the rules, not mine, btw.) If those who use Spam as a "Strong Kill" want the rules changed, then they should suggest it. Why would I report you? My point has never been that you are solely responsible for the overuse of the spam vote. It is a basic difference among users of the suggestions page in the way votes are cast, and as such can't be resolved through any sort of disciplinary action. I think a calm, open and frank discussion of the topic is a better way to settle it.--Nosimplehiway 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's already happened - check the archives for this page. Here's my conclusion: the current rules are ignored, therefore they should be re-written to more closely match reality. However, nobody can be bothered doing that right now. Plus, there is no problem to fix. Please, point me to where this issue has actually caused a problem (other than a lot of pointless whining). --Funt Solo 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It just occured to me that this discussion has veered away from the actual suggestion under discussion, so I went and read it again. Considering that the suggestion is to add something to the game that already exists, then this is indeed perfect for a SPAM vote. It's Stupid, Pathetic, Assinine and Moronic to add something to the game that already exists. You disagree? Good for you. Stop telling me how to think, or how to interpret rules, or how best to discuss something. It's patronising as fuck. --Funt Solo 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

His whole argument is IRRELEVANT anyway with the new 6 hour spam hold. I just like how people like to tell others how to vote.--Pesatyel 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---