	Archive Page
	This page is an archive page of Talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the Suggestions page do so at Talk:Suggestions.

Archive

Today's suggestions

Making it fair

Moved from front page:

Spaminating is a lawful action here. If you don't like the rules theres a whole camp of people who would love to talk with you, however you do have to abide by them until such a time as you can get them changed. --Zaruthustra 21:52, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Re: - That's ridiculous. I was not undoing the Spamination; I had voted Keep before or at the same time as the Spam votes. However, my vote didn't appear as quickly because of failed technics of the wiki (edit conflict message). I have every right to bring it back and I am going to do it if you have no further objections. --Daednabru 21:57, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Fact of the matter is, the spams were first, and it was removed with those spams tallied before you could submit your vote. Those are the rules. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:59, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

OH but we DO object. It was fairly Spammed according to Wiki rules. Dont like it? Take it up with a MOD --Jak Rhee 22:00, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Re: - When I was typing up the reasons for my vote the only other vote I saw besides mine was that of Zaruthstra's - 1 Spam vote in total. --Daednabru 22:02, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Take it up with Librarian. --Jak Rhee 22:03, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The suggestion was a near duplicate anyway. --Signal9 22:11, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Re:hey they were two really good ideas that panned eachother out and would make the game feel more like a real zombie experience but they were shoot down cause everyone is probably thinking they are "too complex" to code. other than that there is NO WAY the idea of looking and shooting out of windows or having trouble escaping the center of a zombie horde a bad idea or SPAM. Chiasm

READ THE HISTORY! It had nothing to do with coding.. it had to do with overpowering! And the fact that theyve been killed MULTIPLE times before! --Jak Rhee 22:19, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Who said anything about coding? They were killed for being unbalancing. And this a game. There's a fine line between realism and fun. We could have helicopters, perma-death, assault rifles, and breaking down walls all for the sake of "realism" but then we would lose what every game needs: fun. There's another person on the other end of that zombie you just shot, believe it or not. And they deserve to have fun, too. --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:23, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

yeah but read both parts, it equals everything out. survivors got the ability to look outside hold back the zombies while they try to secape while the zombies are trying to slow them up from escaping so they can feed. BUT REMEMBER, the survivors got that ability too slow down zeds too. there was never any indecation of FUN or REALISM, just the fact that survivors could now get away from a 30 horde the that just happened to show up without knowing it. or the zombies working their ass off to get in a building only to find that the survivors inside are trained ninjas and was able to skip around the horde of 30 with no chance of slowing them up and attacking.

That's the game: survivors are supposed to bunker down for as long as they can, then run for it. Zombies have the advantage of being able to stand up for relatively few AP, not having to change sides, etc. And "real zombie experience" is an indication of realism, hence the word "real." You're right that there's no indication of fun here, because neither suggestion would bring that to the game. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:01, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT) And by the way: a library is burning somewhere from the literary genocide you committed in your last post.

I don't know about a burning library, but a bookstore I'd agree with. There is one major problem with your suggestions: THEY'RE CONNECTED! - You can't just post a horribly unbalanced suggestion, then post another one that's just as horribly unbalanced only the other way, and expect us to keep both when they are really very bad ideas seperately. If you have two ideas that can only work when they're together, they should be in the same suggestion. That said, it's true that the first suggestion was good for survivors and the second was good for zombies, but making it a little harder to run out of a block does not balance the ability to attack someone without the danger of being hit back. --Signal9 03:10, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'm just a little confused why my idea for a skill to even out the impending end to this game (melodramatic; over-run of zombies) got spammed and some by people who didn't even understand what I was even saying? This isn't making much sense to me at all.

The Stormtrooper Effect

Congratulations. Now this is wasting space on two pages :-)

It would still be spam, but chance to hit good guy = (goodGuys/badGuys)³ should work. 100% if a survivor tries to kill a survivor in the same block because, obviously, murder is inevitable. --Signal9 03:51, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Then what happens if the number of survivors outstrips the number of zombies? Also, what happens if there is only one of each? The equation is meant to benefit the survivors most of the time, but act as a double-edged sword as well. AllStarZ 03:55, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Didn't you watch movies? When there's one bad guy, he slaughters half of the room, and only then is there a long and balanced fight with the last survivor, finally leading to the bad guy's death. --Signal9 04:02, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

This equation is only supposed to apply to the grunts, not the Champion of Evil. AllStarZ 04:04, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Binoculars

I'd liek to refer everyone to the TEXT of the linkj I gave in my vote.. that Amazing didnt read. Then I'd like some one to tell me how suggesting that this RULE be followed makes me a 'biased bitch.' The text is under the INVALID VOTES section and reads:

"Kill/Change, Keep, but Change, Keep/Change - These votes will result in the only valid part of your vote being counted; the change part is completely ignored during the vote tallying. If you only want the suggestion to be kept if it's changed, vote Kill and ask them to re-suggest with your changes. "

This is an OFFICIAL wiki rule. So... either Amazing didnt read that, or he is ASKING people to violate wiki rules by askign them to vote what's essentially a Keep/Change vote. I'd also liek to point out, for future reference, that the rule states they should be asked to RE-SUGGEST not alter the current suggestion. Clearly the Peer-reviewed suggestions with Change notations came BEFORE this alteration or were pulled from the minority of Kills from that voting.

As you continue you get angry in your responses, I'd liek to point out that I have no personal vendetta against you. I truly beleive that only suggestions that are ready to be implemented.. that contain everythign perfect except for the actual code itself warrent a Keep vote. I beleive the rules seem to support me. Perhaps you feel differently. This is fine. However, there is no anti-Amazing conspiracy. I vote Kill on all bad suggestions regardless of who makes them.. and I keep good sugegstions regardless of who makes them. Please do not accuse me of beign biased again.--Jak Rhee 05:07, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Just want to make note that Jak and I came to an understanding about our differing views of the vote rule text on his Talk page and Mine. Anyone interested can check it out, but I think we understand eachother better now. -- Amazing 06:37, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

On another subject, is it just me or are voters arguing realism (You can ALREADY see Zombies around all buildings in your CURRENT Urban Dead Map View. Sheesh!) against the Binocular suggestion? -- Amazing 06:37, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I kiss everyone who helped me refine this idea which I was so sure didn't need refining. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE KISS, IT HAS 100% SUCCESS RATE. -- Amazing 00:38, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I hate you, but if you create a decent suggestion, I will vote Keep on it. And if you kiss me, I will feed you to Craw. *Charges up cattle prod*. AllStarZ 15:35, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Just Craw? I fgigured you'd dig up Jason Killdare and feed Amazing to him for such an act. --Jak Rhee 20:48, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Hacking of the descriptions

Someone has hacked the suggestion description protocol to automaticly show the same horribly written adrenaline rush suggestion. The real description still shows up in the edit screen. Could someone rectify the problem? I'm sorry, but this is the only place I could think to put this. - Kyokujitsu no Tenshi 20:09, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Someone did it again, now it's all about money. Not quite sure who did it, checking the history now. Velkrin 06:28, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT) Update: I have come to learn two things: 1. It is a pain to read Wiki history. 2. I need to learn to read Wiki. No idea where it started.

Secured Lab Access

See NecroNet Access. Just in time to save the YRC, too! --MorthBabid 06:27, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Pit of Despair

This suggestion is so horrendous that I felt I needed to go here to explain all its flaws. - First of all, you dont ever dictate the conditions that makes a building become a PoD.. so frankly thats an instakill to me. I want details! this x and y stuff is CRAP

-Yeah.. way overpowerign anyway.

-Zombies have no trouble holding their homes.. look at Ridleybank

-It says in SUggestion Dos and DOnts that you should not post suggestions that are reliant on other not yet implemented suggestions in order to function. You're rely on this whole 'fire' thing.. "specialty necrotech serum"...

-Insane amounts of coding required

-What's the point? Why would Survivors EVER go to these buildings where they dont stand a chance in hell of winning a fight? I wouldnt never go there.. no one would. Even in Mall Seiges the two sides have equal strength over all,

-Why?

-No really... Why?

- Human penalty: "% Chance of infection for every ap spent " falls under SUggestion dos and Donts as Dont Punish the Player.

-"Will these great beasts be savagely annihilated by a wiki that might not realize that the conditions during voting may not match the conditions when the suggestion is implemented!?" Yes they will because it'd have to be a COMPLETLEY different game for this ever to be useful

-The free stand/AP gained upon standing problem I mentioned on the main page

-Lack of details.. its all "some of this" or "one of these" or "x" and "y" - screw that...

-You used "leet" congragulations.. you justy sucked an IQ point from everyone who read it

-Organization? What organization?

All combined this is the single biggest pile of Spam I've ever seen. --Jak Rhee 21:16, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

A good idea is like a rifle. Its a straight, focused shot with a clear purpose. This suggestion is like a shotgun, it left a bleeding hole where my brain used to be. To be fair, the idea of zombie strongholds isn't completely without merit, but damn that needed some work.--Zaruthustra 21:24, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Not only that, but look at the long-term effects! Zombies wouldn't mind abandoning Ridleybank with this since once they hold oll the Necrotech buildings, survivor populations will drop at an astonishing rate! It'd become almost 100% zombie city, and all remaining survivors would have to be in a single group working with ZKers just to survive! --Volke 21:42, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Um, isn't that already happening? Like I started playing during that sweet period when zombies were few. But now they are as thick as a pack of buffalo before the white people found them. AllStarZ 01:45, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)

GPS Ally Tracking

This suggestion is being voted on now currently with 8 keeps out of 14 votes, setting it straight on track for the Undecided page. The suggestion is to allow people with GPS units to let their mutual contacts with GPS units see their coordinates next to their names on the contact list. This assumes the GPS units are advanced enough to show the position of other GPS units, which is not far fetched at all. GPS units aren't designed just to give your latitude and longitude but also to show where you are in relation to other objects. I think this is a useful idea because you could consult your contact list and see where all your allies are. If you hear that a nearby building is under attack you could check your contact list and if you see many of your allies are there you could attempt a rescue. Or if looking for a safehouse you could look up where your allies are and rendezvous with them. Using a mobile phone could often put a 24 hour delay between question and response, this allows you to know where everyone is instantly. It's doing worse than I thought in voting though. Any way to improve this idea so I can resubmit it? Or if you think its fine, why not vote keep on it and give it the 2/3rds it needs? --Jon Pyre 19:32, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Hospital Residency

Crafting ammo is easy and midgets have everything to do with anything.

Re You aren't crafting anything. The main part of this suggestion is that you don't need a First-Aid Kit (something designed to treat someone when they are not in a hospital) when you're in a hospital. It does not reduce AP cost it merely reduces server load. And the OPTIONAL part about assembling First-Aid kits isn't crafting either, you're merely taking bandages and antiseptic off a shelf and putting them in a box, which is different than making bullets. --Jon Pyre 02:56, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re probably should have told you that I'm killin since if more of these things are implimented too fast the zombies will go back on strike again.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 02:59, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - I foresee inumerous crafting suggestions coming after this one. Not that there wasnt some of those before, but atleast those would be duped. The main problem is exploit during sieges. If to InstaHealWhitoutFAk costs just a few APs to heal there will be lots of people storing ammo and no FAKs. When the time comes, they will jump a few squares to a powered hospital nearby and simply hit the 'heal' button and instaheal inside the hospital.
  - you should reconsider then, It is Kevan who implements these in his own time, first they have to be 2 weeks in the que, Kevan doesn't seem to check the Wiki or forums all that much so it can sit in peer reviewed for another week easy, and then he just learned of the idea we put forward. It doesn't even means he likes it. this suggestions page isn't a democracy it's a dictatorship. all we do is try and make easy as possible for our esteemed ruler to do things, when and how he pleases. the most fabulous suggestions we make could be in peer reviewed for months before he decides to put it in, if at all... so voting on time issues is a wrong reason. --Vista 17:13, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re This wouldn't hurt zombies except in the sense that survivors would in hospitals be able to detect who is infected and heal them first. The main change would be to reduce server load. The first hardly harms zombies and the second is good for everyone. --Jon Pyre 03:04, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Adrenaline Boost

Yup, I' m aware skills with this name have been submitted to hell. But why not try. Some tuning ideas:

Optional: Mutually exclusive with Body Building (temporary option to swap BB for AB for no extra cost.)
Optional: Costs double if Body Building is already taken, and Body Building costs double if this is already taken.
Optional: Having both Body Building and Adrenaline Boost reduces both bonuses to +5.

Your thoughts? - Skarmory 18:36, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

EDITED: single target menu for all non-weapon items in return for full list of survivors

Cah51o commited multiple acts of vandalism after my Spamming of his suggestion, including attempts to restart the vote. I have moved the conversation here to talk --Jak Rhee 00:22, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Spam - See now.. this illustrates my comment in my entry in Talk! I was going to just Kill this, but the authore changed it to add the crazy idea of bringing back the survivor list, its now SPAM as I feel that is a silly idea, you can always click for the list. Now had I already voted Kill, I wouldnt see the change and my vote wouldn thave changed. Now what if this was a Kill-to-Keep or Keep-to-Kill change? Vote Yea on my change! --Jak Rhee 23:35, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re that better?
- Comment You know you cant DO that, right? Thats why I support resumbitting the thing if you change it.. Deleting other peoples votes is technically vandalism of the SUggestions page and Im afraid I must now report you. Edit Did you even READ my entry in talk? That explains how I feel changes should be done. A whole new suggestion should be made (aka a Vrs 2.0) but you CAN NOT JUST REMOVE VOTES IN THAT MANNER --Jak Rhee 23:55, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- now that is funny. Isn't this exactly what you suggested me to do? Im afraid you must now report yourself.--Cah51o 00:06, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - COmment You cant do this EITHER! You can not restart voting on an active suggestion! Do you not know how to read? Criminey --Jak Rhee 00:10, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    - comment please do not confuse people with your suggestions that are not rules.--Cah51o 00:13, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      - Re Listen VERY carefuly. You cannot resumbit a voting the process this way. You must retract the entire suggestion, similar to it being removed for Spamination or Dupage, leaving a marker in place THEN resumbit. You are not required, fo course, to do any such thing at the moment which is why Im running the Vote below to require resubmitts for alterations. I know leave you to be dealt with by the Mods --Jak Rhee 00:22, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Suggestions In Progress

These suggestions are here for comments/changes before they go to formal voting.

Barricades need items to be built

I would like opinions on this before I suggest it because if it gets shot down once then I will have to make huge changes in order to stop it getting Spammed the next time. Anyone can barricade up to quite strongly (not set in stone) as normal. But if they want to barricade any higher they have to search for materials at a 75% chance (also not set in stone). This would help zombie players because there would be less needless barricading so zombies wouldn't waste so much time bashing down dummy barricades. It would also help n00b survivors as there would be less heavy barricades to get stuck outside. This is not unbalanced as you could still barricade without searching but if you really want to barricade that heavily then you have to work a bit harder at it.

Please note that the numbers are not set in stone and can be changed if nessecary (they just seemed reasonably balanced).--The General 17:23, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Did you know that it's not automatic to barricade after very strongly? There is a progressively lower chance depending on the building type that you'll find a place to put the next item in the barricade. Some buildings are almost impossible to barricade heavily. This is really not necessary. --Daxx 17:29, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Is there a list anywhere that shows which buildings have the highest barricade failure chances? I don't believe I've seen one, but I'd definitely be interested. Maybe nobody's had time do to the research? -CWD 17:36, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

If I remember correctly we started doing one on the old forums until they were shut down. I don't think it differentiates between buidings though, so the data's probably off - at the time we thought all buildings were the same (now we know they aren't). Maybe we should put some research into this, but it would take a really long long time; it wouldn't be like search percentages where you can create a new character for it either. --Daxx 17:40, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I knew that there was a chance of failing but I didn't know how likely it was. My logic was that as there seems to be an abundance of extremely heavily barricaded buildings then it can't be too hard to barricade beyond very strong. I might do some research into this when one of my characters gets construction.--The General 18:46, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

This has been proposed and utterly obliterated about three or four times before. Universally, the replies are "new players need to learn how barricades work" (which was actually addressed by Kevan--previously, barricades that you could not pass did not have the "you see no way to enter" tag included in them) and the very, very valid point that forcing players to search for items will make barricading useless and turn survivors into buffets. One zombie can knock down barricades from Extremely Heavily--I know because I've done it myself on several occasions. Barricades work just fine as they are--leave them alone. Bentley Foss 19:19, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I can't actually find any duplicates, please provide a link. I know new players need to know how barricades work but I don't see how that is relevent to this suggestion (and I know that barricades didn't have that tag originaly (I was playing this game before barricades were included)). Also, it won't make barricading useless because, in this suggestion, you can barricade up to a certain level before you start having to search for items. Plus, there weren't barricades originaly and survivors managed. Barricades do not work fine as they are because, as a zombie, it takes all my AP to knock them down and then while i'm regaining AP the safehouse is either overrun or is barricaded back up again meaning that I don't get any XP. I also disagree that one zombie can knock barricades down from Extremely Heavy (you would have to be very lucky).--The General 15:36, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

there weren't barricades originaly and survivors managed. perhaps because then there were a lot less players overall? so little that there were actual PD's and Hospitals empty? that just finging a survivor was a big task? I doubt that without barricades survivors would last more than a week now--Vista 11:34, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Point taken, but this still doesn't mean that this is unbalancing as you can still barricade up to a certain level without having to search for items. If you believe that this would nerf barricades too much then please give your reasons.--The General 11:53, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

actually I don't think it is nerfing at all, I think it is already implemented largly as stated, I believe it to be a reasonable workable solution, that is unfortuneatly already in the game. And based on were I usually barricade, the succes percentage is already lower, about 50% (although my guess is very unscientific, because I didn't pay attention and you remeber failures more then a success), but I hate heavily barricaded buildings because (as you already said) hurt the low to mid level players without free running (and there are a lot of them). If you can show the difference between your version and the one already in play, I'd love to give you more imput, And I'd be very tempted to vote 'Keep' any decent suggestion is this vain.--Vista 10:48, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The point was that it still seems to be very easy to barricade beyond very strongly (I'm not sure how easy as my characters never barricade beyond Very Strong), this would make it harder as you would actually have to search to allow you to barricade. Presently you simply have to click barricade as fast as your browser can refresh. It would also allow you to build up a stock of materials and then barricade without having to search (similar to the way people stock up on ammo and guns). I would like your opinion as to whether this should replace the present system or run alongside it. I am inclined to make it run alongside as it would then fulfill the purpose of making it harder to barricade.--The General 12:17, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

it may seem that barricading past very strong is easy but it isn't. cost huge amounts of AP. just as we have people who spend all their turn searching for seringes, there are people who only barricade. I also never barricade past very strong because up till then it is cost effective. (and it hurt the people without free running) beyond that it cost equal to build it then as to bring it down in my experience. (but as I said, I'm not sure on the precise data) I don't know if I like the inventory cost though, but like to hear more on that.--Vista 07:31, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The original idea was that you couldn't barricade beyond quite strongly without searching for items at a 75% chance (this would run alongside the present system). The alternative is that in order to barricade beyond quite strong you have to search for items at the same chance as it is presently to barricade beyond very strong (Kevan will, of course, know the exact chance), this would replace the present system. The main difference is that you could stock up on materials and beforehand and and then barricade with a 100% chance of succeding. But it would mean that people would be less willing to waste their precious materials barricading unnessecarily. However, if they really wanted to do this they would have to sacrifice their precious guns. This would also mean that the barricades wouldn't always be bumped straight back up again after you knock them down again because they would eventually run out of materials and have to search for them instead of barricading.--The General 18:18, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Actually, I like that, I like that a lot. but I do think that the AP cost should change much, (or even get a bit better) because of the extra cost of having the extra stuff in your inventory. a double penalty is a bit much. certainly with the mall tour'06, and ferals with groan show that barricades aren't really that big a defense anyway.--Vista 15:18, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)

How about doubling the chance of finding the items? This would effectively mean that instead of spending say 2 AP trying to barricade you would spend 1 AP searching and 1 AP barricading.--The General 13:40, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

A lone zombie can already easily crack into any VSB building on its own, and still have AP left to attack. A lone zombie can get into an EHB building and still have AP to attack if it starts on the barricades with full AP (I do one of the two every single day). If you upset the barricading balance with something to make it harder for survivors to keep up barricades - you will wind up with a player strike like the headshot one, as survivors will not be able to defend their safehouses from even feral zombies, much less a horde. The moan skill allows zombies that crack into a safehouse but don't have enough AP to kill the survivors to alert nearby zombies of the meal they just found. Dummy barricades are an all important aspect of the game (frustrating for zombies, yes - but vital). I see no reason to make barricading more difficult in the slightest. I think Kevan has it right as it is now. --Blahblahblah 17:33, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I am sorry but I beg to differ. I, for one, most certainly cannot break down EH barricades. Anyway, did you actually read the suggestion? It actually helps survivors as well as zombies because they can stockpile materials while their not under siege, and it doesn't make it harder to barricade it just adds an inventory cost. If you're going to whine about that then I can easily improve the chances of finding the items, the problem is that you will then complain that it makes barricading needlessly complicated!--The General 20:46, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Weapons carry capacity

Here's my suggestion, moved from the page onto here, with while I submit a slightly refined version.

Does carrying a dozen shotguns, let alone pistols, disturb you? Well, I can't says it disturbs me too often, but I still think this is worthy of consideration. SImply put, I sugest an arbitrary limit on the amount of weapons you can carry - not a full inventory system (although it would be a nice idea if, say, the fire axe, although more powerful than other weapons, would take up much more space etc., but that's an idea for later), but merely a limit, in that you can carry one (1) shotgun and two (2) pistols. Maximum. What with the excess weapons you find? Well, the character would (all in one AP) pick them up, remove the ammo, and leave the empty weapon. yes, I do realize that "bracing" (carrying around a lot of fully loaded weapons) would be completely impossible now, and an actualy "fast loading" skill for shotguns might be useful, but it all requires some thought, no?

I will give my own point of view after the weekend, as I'l be away from home during it.

It doesn't requires too much real thought for me, as I've already debated with a friend about this idea before. Survivors have tons of already loaded weapons becuase they can't hope to kill more than one zombie if they're taking up half their AP reloading their weapons! This also makes shotguns useless, as reloading them one-by-one is too annoying to be worth the damage, and since zombies would understandably hate the idea of free reloading being able to happen, I'm afraid that a free reload power won't balence it. Also, suggesting that solving the problem by having survivors taking excess ammo from pistols before tossing would be bad, as then pistol clips would also have to take up additional inventory space because, like guns, they would need another space to represent how many bullets is in each clip. Lastly, fire axes are NOT more powerful than the guns unless you can't stand searching to keep your ammo supply full every other day or so, so there's no need to even consider them needing to take up more space than they do now. --Volke 21:41, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I meant fire axes being more powerful that other close combat weapos being offset by the fact that they wold take up lots more space. Note that I didn't mean "free" reloading, merely a often-suggested and often-shot down skill that would make it possible to load two shells with one AP - yes, I DO realize it is unbalancing, thank you very much. If it was impossible to stockpile APs by prereloading guns, however, such a suggestion would have more merit - as would the one of introducing a rarer shotgun, with the same damage, but a bigger capacity - the pump shotgun - heck, I'd propably go with a 8 dmg but 8 clip size shotgun in such a occurence. Keep in mind, I'm still musing here. I do realize I'm suggesting ground-breaking, mechanics- and playtype-altering changes, but hey, this page is for saying what we'd like the game to look like, no? - Skarmory 17:40, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Fire axes are acutally the only melee weapon worth using unless you count crowbars hitting barricades. Having it take up another space would just prove to make it more of a burden for no reason, as it's already one of the most balenced weapons (not nearly as good as zombie claws, but can still make a daily kill), and thus, doesn't need to be nerfed. The fast reloading isn't really much better, as it would still end up costing 1 Ap on top of what it would take to fire the guns, rather than just the cost of using loaded weapons to start with. It's better as it is right now because if unprepared, they have to use up those extra AP reloading, or rely on a fire axe to finish off an enemy. Readiness and strategy are a major important part of the game, and if people don't come prepared and have to take the time reloading with half their AP, that's their own fault for not being ready for what could happen! Yes, tons of guns is unrealistic, however, I personally think of it as each person having one of those "infinate item sacks" that RPGs use to explain the party being able to carry so many large objects. Seems a bit stupid, but it makes sense to me and the ability to carry that many items in general in there for the sake of balence. Besides, once a person's ammo is used up, they have to spend a few days searching a mall or PD for ammo anyways, so it's not like they can use all those pistols and shotguns non-stop! --Volke 18:28, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Why should space in the inventory be related to usefulness in the game?--Vista 10:50, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Building Repair 06:29, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Last submitted as Interactive Bulding Elements, which was spammed out rather fast.

I think someone with the Construction skill (or a sub-skill) should be able to rebuild a delapidated building's interior in minor ways for an XP bonus, and by that same token Zombies should get XP for destroying it.

The key issues with this idea is that survivors could theoretically destroy a building and fix it up again for the XP bonus. Currently, survivors can shoot and heal eachother for a greater XP gain that benefits however many people are involved, whereas fixing a building up would only give a smaller XP upon successfully fixing something to the person who completes the repairs.

From a flavor standpoint, those destroying or fixing a building would recieve random messages pertaining to the building. Generic "You smash a desk." (being brief here) to specific "You overturn a Holy Water font" for churches and the like.

Thoughts? Harman bases would probably be at a constant level of full repair, and areas controlled by the undead would be perpetually ransacked and destroyed.

This might be better/worse with the addition of Search Result bonuses/penalties depending on building status and the fact that there may be additions in the future that concern having a good working environment.

--Amazing 06:29, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think the biggest problem that people had with this is that the only incentive to repair/destroy the interior of a building is XP - usually XP is awarded for actions that are also useful to your side (zombie or survivor) - healing helps other survivors, killing harms the other side, etc. As your suggestion stands, zombies are collectively better off not ransacking (thereby depriving servivors of possible fixing XP points) and survivors are collectively better off not fixing (depriving zombies of ransack XP's). --Signal9 07:01, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

At the moment it just seems as flavor given an use with XP. The idea to make search odds dependant on it is a start, but makes it basically the peer approved ransack with XP, and thus a near dupe. To be honest, I'm not that charmed to have another XP gain in the game that doesn't involve fighting survivors and zombies or healing. I'd rather lose the XP for books and dumping bodies as it is already.--Vista 11:04, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Newbie Friendly Zombie Barricade Attack

I was reading the old suggestions and noticed that many suggestions to make zombies more powerful against barricades are killed because they would make lone beginners too easy to target. I thought of a way to make a balanced barricade attack, and i wanted to know what other people thought.

The name for it could be 'rage' or 'hunger' or similar, and it could nest in the Scent tree. The idea is that it 'powers-up' the barricade attack depending on the ratio of Zombies outside to Survivors inside. One Zed outside attacking the barricade of a well occupied (mabey 20+ survivors) building could use their rage skill to knock down the barriers with double damage or hit percent. A hoard of more than 10 zombies outside a building with less than 5 survivors would get deacreased hit percentage or damage against the barricades. This means any lone low-level survivors with no protection are safe from this 'powered-up' attack, and it remains balanced beacuse hoardes of zeds can't use it to wipe out survivors like a hot knife through butter. The skill would not tell the zombie what numbers of survivors were inside so it would be not like an X-ray vison skill.

The reason i posted this here was so that you could tell me wether this is a good idea but the numbers need tweaking, (as i think non-hoarde zombies are very weak compared to us survivors.) Or if you think that barricades are an integral part of the surviors surving and should be left alone. I think that an idea like this would be a balanced way to make non-hoard zombies and new survivors a bit stronger without overpowering the hoardes, as it is based on the ratio of Zeds:Survivors. However the math may be a little complex, so if anyone knows a better way to implement an idea similar to this please leave comments, or if you want to know more ask me. PS. im still finding my way around the wiki so if i do something wrong please fix it and notify me on My talk page.

~ Benpage26 21:34, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Sorry: metagaming ruins this - a zombie group will send a few zombies to take down the barricades while the rest wait in the neighboring block, and when the barricade goes down, everyone swarms in. --Signal9 00:30, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Good point, i didn't think of that... Benpage26 10:23, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Energy Drink

I do think this idea has merit, but I think it needs change before it could work. Can anyone give me some advice on how to change it so that it could work simply, and yet be free from abuse? AllStarZ 19:28, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I don't know... I suggested Adrenaline Syringes, which gave AP with an HP+XP penalty, and even a chance of death or infection... was still overwhelmingly considered overpowered and I took it down because of the Don't Mess With AP section... And making time limits on uses is server-unfriendly. The problem is that with enough AP you can gain anything else back, making it the only limit on actions. Tough task. --Signal9 04:38, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Anything that gives extra AP is likely to be very unbalanced and even if it isn't it will attract a lot of kill votes just by the nature of this type of suggestions. If you can make it balanced then i'll vote keep.--The General 18:35, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Hence the point of this posting. I'm trying to figure out how to make it balanced. So I'm taking a different approach here and getting input from everyone else. AllStarZ 19:01, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Generally I don't think many people will vote keep on an AP storage item of any sort. to make it "balanced" you'll need the ap used to ap gained to be atleast 2:1 if not 4:1 and this has to be the ratio for a character with all the shopping and medical skills(if the item takes away HP). So if the item grants 3 ap, then it better take at least 6-12ap to find and use. Consider how a group of firefighters could almost double their effectiveness against a horde with an item like this.--Tekgo 22:39, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Similarly, you'd want the XP cost to be more than the what you could probably get in that AP. Suppose it restores 3ap (which means actually 4 minus the 1 to use it), theoretically, you could get 40 XP out of this with 3 good shotgun hits and a killing blow. I'd suggest that in order to even USE the stim shot sort of item you would have to currently have at least 100xp unspent and that you must lose that 100 XP to use this. This, essentially, then becomes a zombie hunter item as only those with maxed out trees will be willing to sacrifice XP that's currently unspendable. I would also suggest a limit on uses per day. Maybe 5? So that a high level survivor sitting on the XP Horde of Doom (TM) actually has up to 65 AP in a day. This sort of item, then, becomes a noble sacrifice of XP in the cause of definding/foraging or a last ditch resort to find that elusive safehouse Giltwist 05:47, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Chains and Wirecutters

Right now my suggestion "Chains and Wirecutters" is under voting and doing pretty poorly. This was the basics of the suggestion: Allowing players to find chains and use them to secure barricades by tying the various items of furniture together. The chains, while not blocking zombies in anyway, would prove too much of a hassle to survivors attempting to attack barricades if they were at Very Strong or lower (larger barricades can be attacked because the excess furniture is too large for the chains to cover and is not chained with the rest) and must be clipped with a pair of wirecutters to allow attacks. Clipping chains would alert other survivors to the chain cutter's identity. This got something like two keeps and a whole bunch of kills. Sometimes I suggest things I think could use a bit of work or aren't 100% perfect but I don't see what's wrong with this suggestion. It would allow a way of survivors safeguarding their barricades from other humans working to let in zombies. Why is this a bad thing? What's the logical flaw here? Is there something this suggestion is lacking or that needs to be changed? Help me out here, I want to know if this can be improved. --Jon Pyre 19:21, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The only flaw I can see is the realism fact, how come we hear chains being cut when we dont notice sombody murdering another person right beside us? Otherwise I like the idea because it hinders the sabotage element in the game. The reason I voted kill first was because the chains only went on the door and I thought that when barricading a person would not only barricade the door. But the zombies of Malton are very polite and only enter through doors so I changed to keep. The idea is just brilliant as it will help destroy those traitors to humanity who even the zombies seem to reject. Sunzark 10:00, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I reasoned that while you might be able to stealthily shoot someone in some far off room the front door is a constatly used entrance and under constant guard and barricade maintenance. Think of it this way..if you went to a modern skyscraper you could probably get away with something illegal more easily in a storeroom on the 15th floor than in the lobby where everyone could see it. --Jon Pyre 14:32, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Jason Killdare

Is he a troll? He has posted a half dozen suggestions, shows no sign of stopping, and every single one is either one that is incredibly stupid, already suggested, peer rejected, demoted to humorous, or instantly barraged by kill votes for other reasons. Rhialto 03:44, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I think it's up to a dozen now, but he retracted a few... and his earlier suggestions were broken, trolls usually know what and how they should troll. so for now I'm just going to say; beginners enthusiasm coupled with not reading the do's and don't, previous suggested, etc, etc.--Vista 04:37, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It often takes more than a couple of put-downs to knock sense into newbs. Keep up the barrage! AllStarZ 04:01, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

He's not a troll, but his suggestions aren't too great. And way too rapid and numerous. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:52, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The Problem with Jason is that he doesnt do alot of research into his suggestion before making it. He doesnt check the Suggestion History, the Dos and Donts, and so forth. Nor does he listen to us telling him to, and just gets defensive. Its unfortunate sinc ehe does seem want to make improvements to the game that he doesnt but the thought in to make his effort worthwhile. If he'd spend the time he used thinking up 25 weak suggestions in a week to thinking up ONE good suggestion a weak, I think he could be quite impressive. Unfortunatly, theres no real way to make him see that. --Jak Rhee

The standings are thus: 18 suggestions. 2 duped. 8 spammed to death. 8 at or on the way to peer rejected. 9 total keep votes, some of which are pity votes. Kill votes to high to count in a short period of time. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:37, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What time period has all this been in? Oh, and there's been one more spamination. --Daxx 23:40, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

It seems he's gone. We havent seen a suggestion from him in ages. It looks like the WCDZ and others defeated him. --Jak Rhee 00:28, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You know, I was just thinking that today. I might actually kind of miss him. He wasn't a bad guy, he just made bad suggestions. --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:00, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

we have had worse people posting, even if he might have been a troll--Vista 10:27, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

He left. You are honestly surprised? Hah. Riktar 02:21, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

REing

Can certain users stop striking out replies to their REs? The suggestion rules specifically state that the person being REd can reply to their RE. Extended discussion (I think this should be defined to be anything after the original RE when there are four or more comments in sequence) going on the talk page.

If your reply to an author's RE is struck out, don't stand for it. You are entitled to reply when you've been REd. --Daxx 08:56, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Daxx says the rules say you can RE: if you are the person being responded to.. but Daxx ADDED THAT HIMSELF! Check out my post below (bottom of the page) to see Daxx in action. He's hardly one for playing by the rules - he just wants to maneuver everything toward his own personal preference. -- Amazing 05:53, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'm fine with people reing an author's re. I'm also fine when someone moves the excess responses to the discussion page. What I DO NOT LIKE though is when someone moves the re and comments to the discussion page and moves the original author response with them. There's a debate about the additional comments but the first author re should never be moved off the voting page under any circumstances. --Jon Pyre 18:39, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Extended Discussion

Undecided Suggestions

How exactly do those work? Are those doomed to limbo forever? I have some suggestions there that literally didn't make 2/3rds by one vote, were all around liked, and I can't see any way to really improve them. It's likely that many would make it through if resubmitted. Are we allowed to resubmit them after a month or two to be "redecided" or must something significant be changed? What's the protocol here? Maybe we could have a seperate voting page for Undecided suggestions that allows you to keep submitting them once a month until they are kept or killed in which case they'd be moved from Undecided to the appropriate place? --Jon Pyre 17:59, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Huh? Give it a try. My money says someone will yell dupe, then 3 guys will spam it before an hour has past. Anyway I think the only real WIKI rule is not to anger a moderator. bbrraaiinnss Jan 2 2006

I think with those, it is best to examine why they were undecided, and explain how your new proposal is significantly different, or how it is different in the light of the current (and presumably changed) game environment. Simply resubmitting with no explanation is almost certainly futile. Don't just say the game environment is changed; explain how the changed environment makes the old idea more worthwhile, or propose a change to the old idea that makes it work better. Rhialto 10:25, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What I mean is it possible to resubmit for voting without any changes at all. I have suggestions that had a large majority and literally failed by one vote because of the 2/3rds rule. It is likely that if resubmitted it would pass simply because many of the people who voted that day were never seen again on these pages and because new people are here now. It really is in a limbo and I don't want to make a change just for the sake of it being different. Obviously I'd never suggest this for something that was killed but when something was ahead by several votes and shot down at the last second by a single person I think it should be fair to give it another go until a real decision is made about it.--Jon Pyre 06:17, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think you're right and if you resubmit a suggestion in undecided then I for one will not vote dupe.--The General 16:38, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The whole "undecided" thing has kind of been a debacle since day one I think. Its either good enough or it isn't, whats the point? --Zaruthustra 15:26, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What IS it today?

Is there something in the water? The air? Today we've gotten almost nothing but balance-free crap. The real tragedy is that the same people making the bad suggestions are the ones rationally killing the others! PLEASE USE THE SAME CRITERIA YOU USE ON OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS AS YOUR OWN. Thank you. Slicer 01:21, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Well, i posted 5 suggestions today. All of them were sitting at my user page for a few time already. I was working then a few times before i submit them. The problem with them is that people just think about how they would be nerfed by the thing, not thinking how this actualy change the way the game would be played. Anyway, i had to give a try at those, since its a shame to see one own ideas dont get any reply from the ones would be affected. I play both sides, and i think i know what any changes i suggested would reflect. --hagnat 01:37, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

And one more thing. Sometimes it is good to throw away some unfinished work away into the public. It make people start thinking about things they didn't think it would be possible. --hagnat 01:41, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I submitted some things just to establish precedent for Dupe votes... :P --LibrarianBrent 23:39, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Spamming them out

No matter how bad the idea is, can we make a rule that a suggestion cannot be removed as spam while less than 6 hours have passed since timestamp? The dead eye one didnt last even 5 minutes. Some people like to read them. Rhialto 01:30, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Trust me. That was for the better. Anyways, you can go through the History. CthulhuFhtagn 01:36, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

My first spam removal. I'm so proud. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:54, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Still...I would like a chance to vote keep and save it from deletion if a good suggestion should happen to get 3 spams from confused parties (as unlikely as that is.) 6 hours is a little long though. How about 1 hour unless it's deliberately trying to waste space i.e. "Suvivors Doing the Deed, Making Babies" --Jon Pyre 06:11, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Just a note that spaminated suggestions should go to Peer Rejected page. So in theory you should be able to find and read them there.--Brizth 17:30, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

It would be interesting if you would not be allowed to remove a suggestion unless you move it to the Rejected page. People are taking the fun of deleting other peoples' ideas without the responsibility of keeping within the spirit of the system. I've had suggestions spammed in 9 minutes, but that's beside the point - anyone can see there are SOME problems with the system, even if you're on the side of spam-voting suggestions. -- Amazing 18:34, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Why not create a new page just for spam? Sort of an archive of dishonor. Also why not make a new rule: you can't delete a suggestion until it has six votes? That way it would have to be at least half spammed to be taken off. --Jon Pyre 18:44, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The entire point of the spam vote is to get that junk off the front page ASAP. It is always saved for posterity in the history if you really want to read it (which I often do). If something gets three spam votes in less than 9 minutes what are the chances that its really worth your consideration anyways? --Zaruthustra 19:15, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That's how it is supposed to be... I edited the Template:Suggestion_Voting to reflect this. What is interesting is that Template:Suggestion_Voting#Valid_Votes notes that the suggestion has to be moved. --Brizth 22:39, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I don't know about this but I think the moving peer rejected things has kind of been unofficially dropped. We can barely keep up with moving the peer accepted and shifting days. --Zaruthustra 15:29, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

I don't like this whole practice of one keep vote saving a suggestion from being spammed. We should adapt a new process that allows messages to be removed if they are overwhelmingly spammed even if one person votes keep as a joke. How about if the votes are 2/3rds Spam or greater it can be removed even if someone does vote keep. Note that kills won't count for this 2/3rds. --Jon Pyre 18:49, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Got to elaborate on this. Hypothetically that means that one or 2 spam votes could destroy something. How many votes minimum, does the author vote count, ect.? --Zaruthustra 19:10, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

2/3 with a minimum of 3 spam votes. author votes does counts for the 2/3 but kill doesn't. how about that? It's not like if there is more spam then keep it's going to make it to peer review.--Vista 19:12, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think the suggestion should need to be 2/3rds Spam opposed to one third or less Kill and Keep combined. People who kill suggestions often think they can be salvaged and wouldn't like them removed entirely so their votes should be able to prevent deletion. But yes, we should keep the minimum of 3 spams for removal. If not enough spams exist for removal they would still be counted as Kills for the purpose of voting. --Jon Pyre 19:19, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think Jon Pyre's got it. But, perhaps it can be deleted after a day, not a minimum number of votes. --Daxx 19:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

But after a day it's done most of its damage, namely cluttering the suggestion page. How about it needs a minimum of 3 spam votes and 7 votes total before being deleted. That way a few people would get to vote on it before it is deleted and if a suggestion has even slight support it should be able to stick around for a while. And we should allow the author vote to count in all this. If a single keep can't save a suggestion anymore then there's no reason not to allow their vote influence. --Jon Pyre 19:27, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Is that a minimum of 5 Spams and 2 Keeps? --Daxx 19:29, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yep. Much more concise than what I said, thank you, although those keeps could also be kills. Also, we should make a page for Spam to be moved to so that those that honestly voted keep can still review it and maybe improve upon it. --Jon Pyre 19:34, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

P.S. This is needed not just to delete Spam messages but to save possibly reworkable ideas with all kills and 3 spams. Spam and Kill get muddled on this page and despite the instructions Spam is used as a "strong kill". The 2/3rds rule would fix all these problems. --Jon Pyre 20:48, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'm glad somebody else posted this, because I was about to come do the same. I too am getting tired of "well, you all think it's spam, i'm going to vote keep just so it stays around, ha ha ha!" votes. They're clearly invalid. I like the "3 spam, 7 total" (or 2/3, same difference..) idea. This ensures that the suggestion sticks around for at least a little while. Do three spams and four kills override a "keep just because you all hate it" vote, though? Bentley Foss 21:20, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Nope, because that would be 3 Spams, 4 Kills, and 1 Keep. There'd be a ratio of spam to non-spam of 3/5 which isn't enough to boot it.--Jon Pyre 22:47, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I disagree, i think it should be at a minimum of like 2/3rds spam over 10 votes, or a 5 voes of spam before rem,ovle, and with a minimum time, that way there can be more input, I do not think that this is a place for perfect suggestions, but a place for suggestions that can be rewoked and re submitted, utter spam should be removed, but good works that some people do not like should nbot be allowed to fall apart, I do like the minimum time thing, that would prevent a group of trolls from comming in and doing a mass spam vote to new topics and having them remoevd, 12 - 24 hours seems fair - --ramby 12:29, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I would suggest three uncontested spam votes (With only non author keep votes being counted as a contest) with a minimum required wait time of six hours after the final required spam vote is added before deletion is possible. On top of that i support the 2/3rds majority spam for removal, with no wait time, but only active after ten votes have been made. For this i would suggest kill votes also be included as contest. Nonsense votes would not be counted. --Grim s 15:23, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think we should keep the present system but let the moderators remove the suggestion if it is only being saved by one Keep vote which is obviously only there to annoy people.--The General 19:17, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'd say author votes do NOT count. Obviously, it would be a "keep" vote (or they would take it down, which I've seen), otherwise, why suggest it? And if it is obviously something stupid (like the cyborg idea) the author doesn't deserve to even vote.--Pesatyel 05:45, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Evil Crates of Doom From t3h Heavenz!

What is it with the constant air drop (and now anti-air drop) suggestions? Does anybody know how crate drops actually work, (are they going to be a regular event, was this a one-time thing, are there actual rules for those things...) Maybe we should just ban all crate-drop suggestions until we find out more? (any such suggestion seems to be "t3h 0verPOW3RZED") --Signal9 20:14, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I don't think crate suggestions are overpowered considering how hard it is to find one. I carried a crowbar around for a while hoping to spot one but dropped it after I realized that I would probably never find a crate. I am curious how crate drops operate and whether they are regular events but suggestions can be made that they be dropped in a manner different than however they actually operate. I think suggestions that allow 1 in a thousand suvivors to find 4 first-aid kits and a loaded pistol isn't overpowering at all. It just provides an incentive to explore. --Jon Pyre 20:23, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What Jon said is right on! I have never even seen 1, yet the Zeds act like they really scared of them. I dont get it. DarthMortis Jan. 3rd 3:30 pm EST

Have never seen one. Ever. At all. Not even a little. Heard a helicopter over my building once, though. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:31, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Neither did I, but it doesn't mean that we don't still have at least one crate suggestion every day, each being shot down for being overpowered. --Signal9 20:47, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Still not worth banning on priciple. Zombies/Suvivors getting a new attack type usually gets shot down too but we still allow those. If we ban that we might as well just ban everything. Every concept gets killed here. It just needs to be reworked. --Jon Pyre 20:50, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I got very lucky on the first day of crate drops and two of my characters were in the same square as dropped crates. However, it had been hours prior to my logging on, and they were long gone. I got to see the messages, though. That's about it. And yes, all the crate drop suggestions need to go away. Bentley Foss 21:17, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Crate drops are fine, what people don't realize is that mechanically they help zombies about as much as humans. They make people run around outside looking for those three gass cans while zombies get to take pot shots at them. Anything that gets survivors outside is fine by my book. Let the suggestions die out on their own. --Zaruthustra 21:25, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Okay, call me a hypocrite, but I have a supply crate suggestion. Only difference is, I'm making no assumptions. ~~This is what I have so far~~, please tell me what you think. --Signal9 22:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

For formality's sake, I'll write down that I posted it. --Signal9 20:49, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

THIS is what I have so far. Clearly, this suggestion is the ultimate supply crate suggestion EVER. Read it until your eyes BLEED! Bentley Foss 07:37, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Wow. That is just genious. --Signal9 20:49, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

A new way of Spaminating suggestions

Here's my proposal:

IF there are 7 or more votes and the ratio of Spam to Keep is at least 3 to 1, the suggestion is Spaminated.

Spam should also be encouraged in case of retarded suggestions. Kill should be "I vote no, but the suggestion has some merit" and Spam should be "I vote no, and the suggestion has no merit whatsoever". Spam should be a 'strong kill'. --Slicer 22:40, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

In my opinion Spam should be done away with entirely and suggestions should be yanked if they get 5 or more Kill votes with no non-author Keeps. There's no need for the Spam vote, save for the fact that some people like using it a lot. -- Amazing 23:26, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I would add that no suggestion may be removed from the queue for spam or any other reason (except by the author) unless it has been there for at least 6 hours. I'd keep spam as a separate vote category, because kill is often used to suggest constructive changes.

Also, under current rules, 3 spam and no keep is grounds for removal. What if a keep comes in after the third spam vote? Rhialto 01:04, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

6 hours is way too much time for some suggestions that deserve to be spamminated on sight. Make it 1 hour, 2 hours tops ! --hagnat 01:07, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

My original thought was actually for 24 hours (ie. wait till it leaves the front page). That would give a chance for a global audience to see how truly awful some ideas are. It7s unfair that we can't see who the real idiots are. Rhialto 02:38, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That's an interesting idea.. whoever moves it to the "Previous Days" page could take out all Spammed suggestions. Of course, this greatly increases said volunteer's workload... :\ -- Amazing 04:34, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The difference between the Spam vote and the Kill vote

And why both of them are necessary in this context

An essay by Daxx

So, I'm sitting here and reading a lot about people saying what the spam vote is. There's been a lot of debate over the issue, and some people are saying we should get rid of them or overhaul the system. We need to get this straight, because I believe the system as it stands works with a few minor tweaks. Here's my list of votes, and what I think each of them should be used for.

The Keep vote. You vote this way if you like the suggestion as posted.
The Dupe vote. You vote this way if it's a duplicate suggestion. You provide a link.
The Kill vote. You vote this way if you don't like the suggestion as posted, but you believe that the suggestion could be reformulated in such a way as to make you vote keep. Suggesting a change as an example is a good way to help the author.
The Spam vote. You vote this way if and only if the suggestion is so awful that you think other voters should not waste their time reading it. Thus, the need for Spamination.

So I'm looking at an idea. Let's say it's the Pile of Rot idea. Now, I don't like it. It seems out of place to me. I feel that it doesn't belong in the game. I don't believe it's been suggested before. That narrows my vote down to between Kill and Spam. How do I choose between them? I ask myself whether it can be salvaged. Can this idea be changed in such a way as to make me vote keep? In most cases, for most suggestions, it can be changed. I believe even the air drop suggestions can be changed (I'm still waiting for a good one). Can Pile of Rot be changed for the better? I believe not. Do I think that other people should waste their time on it? No. So I vote Spam.

I look at a different idea. This time, it's Find Them Thar Rotters. I look at this ideea, and again I don't like it. But I think to myself "Is this unsalvagable"? It's a nice idea, but making brain rotted zombies easier to find isn't good without bringing some other benefits to having brain rot to cancel out the penalty of being identifiable. Do I think other people should waste their time on it? Well, maybe. So I vote Kill.

Now I look at Pile of Rot and Rocket Launcher. They each received keep votes that prevented them from being spaminated. I would vote spam on each of these suggestions. (Rocket Launcher because it's not serious, more than anything else). So what happens if a suggestion gets a malicious keep vote? Under the current rules it must stay the full two weeks. The problem is, we can't devise a system to tell a malicious keep vote from a sincere one. Do we change the rules to allow us to remove suggestions that would otherwise be spaminated but aren't? I say we do not. However, malicious keeping should be regarded as trolling. If a person develops a record of keeping then they should be reported to the moderators, and nothing else. Obviously, there would have to be a track record. Obviously, the maliciousness of their keeps is purely a matter of opinion. But if we can't trust the moderators, who can we trust? I say we keep the rules, we don't change them, and if they start to be abused then those abusing them can be singled out as the trolls they are.

--Daxx 11:51, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I contend that one reason the Spam vote is not needed is because you don't need to save other peoples' time for them.

This is a bit of a metaphysical Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice battle, but one side wants the ability to abort someone else's "baby" on a whim. -- Amazing 17:46, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Personally I like my time to be saved for me. I assume other people think the same way. Be realistic, I think I'd rather have spamination and trust other people to act within the rules than have to trawl through an already-long page, and a already-long suggestions archive that's suddenly become three times as long. Unless of course you'd like to live in a world where there are no roads because people thought it wasn't worth saving other people time...

Also, can I call a moratorium on bad analogies now? I don't really think you can compare spaminating suggestions to abortion.--Daxx 17:55, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Daxx, I'd agree with your points if it could be ensured that people don't just post Spam out of spite, or out of the wrong reasons. Otherwise, it simply does not do what you described - save time - because people would still have to read up everything and make their mind about it to know if the Spam vote is justified... though, that being said, I'm one of the people around here that don't at all think the Spam vote should go. I couldn't argue for keeping it, though, and I don't think this argument that you bring is really one, either; so if it's causing grief to some people, I'd have to say it'd be better parting with it. -pinkgothic 18:45, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I agree with you there, but when I said 'save time', I was referring to when a suggestion that gets Spaminated is removed so we don't have to read the suggestion at all. That's more what I meant. --Daxx 18:51, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I have to disagree with you on the purpose of the Spam vote. In my eyes, it's there to weed out the truly ridiculous and illogical ideas, and that's it. Pile of Rot? I don't like the idea, don't think it belongs in the game, so I vote Kill. Now that Survivor skill: Call In Tactical Nuke, that has the effect of erasing all characters in 10 square blocks, THAT suggestion gets a Spam vote. Personally, I hate seeing a skill get spammed out of existence before anyone can debate the merits of it. I think that the Spam vote is being abused here, and it should be reserved for those suggestions that truly deserve it. --Reverend Loki 18:55, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I guess that's your opinion. I think, and I keep saying this, that the Spam vote gets very subjective. There is a grey area around what you've mentioned. --Daxx 20:27, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Another reason for the Spam vote is that it shows the author that this suggestion cannot be salvaged and therefore should not be reposted.--The General 19:05, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Exactly right. --Daxx 19:08, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Most of the trolling SPAMs have flat out said that they are such. Usually something along the lines of "I'm voting keep just so this stays because its funny and you all suck and vote down everything so hahahahaah!!!!!111." I see no reason why we couldn't remove a spam contender when this is the case. Perhaps for safety's sake, that trolling keep vote could be included in the removal notice on the main suggestion/previous day's page and/or included at the new location of the spam (rejected or humerous in most cases). Then editors removing spam and reposting it elsewhere would want to link to the new location as well.

I agree that SPAM is for the throughly ridiclous (protest suggestions and most things that end up on the humerous page), but there are defeintely a lot of things that fall into a subjective grey area category here. --Thelabrat 08:40, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What's this about Dupe anyways? What's the difference between that and Spam besides the latter had a previous suggestion? It's off the front page, right? Just tell them that if they vote Spam because it is a duplicate suggestion, to leave evidence. We don't need a fourth vote to confuse the newbies. Riktar 02:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Nice definitions of the votes. Personally, I don't like the idea of spamming a vote out completely. Even the spammed out suggestions need to be found in order to know what NOT to do, for example, or as a reference for Dupe votes (the history is difficult to waddle through). If spammed out ideas were MOVED to a spam page, that would work better. Not to mention the spammed suggestions are sometimes so ridiculous you have to laugh at the person who made them. What I want to know is how "close" does a suggestion have to be to get a DUPE vote?--Pesatyel 10:30, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

New Idea for the suggestions page

I think it would be a good aid for voters on suggestions if there were a sort of tally at the top of each suggestion, to show which way the public opinion is going at a glance, instead of having to trawl through dozens of Keep/Kill votes. Look at the Crate drops skill. At an estimate it is roughly half and half, but it is more 8:6.

It could be layed out in this way:

Suggestion Name

Vote tally: Keeps- 12 Kills- 15 Spams- 1 Dupes-0|

Timestamp: 05:45, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Type: Skill change

Scope: Survivors

I would appreciate any suggestions on layout or on how this would work etc. Thanks. -- Andrew McM 18:35, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

My immediate thought is that this is best left to the Previous Days Suggestions, as those on the front page get updated very quickly at times and keeping an up-to-date tally may not be possible. In principle it's a good idea. Don't know what people think of that as an alteration. --Daxx 18:38, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Well, it might work even if you can't get an automatic system working. You could just make it so when you give your vote you also add a mark to the tally. -- Andrew McM 18:45, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

True, but there're enough people who don't follow the suggestion guidelines already. I'd like to see it work, but someone would still have to check periodically. --Daxx 18:49, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

There are always going to be people who forget or don't want to follow the guidelines on the wiki. That's what the moderators are for. I wouldn't mind monitoring the tally's. -- Andrew McM 19:00, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Put it to the vote then. If you're volunteering to maintain it, then I'll vote to add it. (Thought you might want to wait a bit in case anyone else has any more ideas. --Daxx 19:04, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'd like to see people number their votes.. like..

Kill - This is SILLAY. -- A guy 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - SPAM EVERYTHING LOL WAIT WHAT! -- SpamKing 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - uhhh.. You guys are on drugs. -- Officer Fielding 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

All you have to do is replace the asterisk with a number sign. The problem comes in with Re:s and Comment:s. I'm sure there's a way around those issues though. This would save a lot of time for whoever's moving the suggestion. IE: "4 keeps out of 20 votes." would tell us the other ones are kills or spams. -- Amazing 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Ah, you mean a hash. Was going to ask what you meant, until I saw what you'd written. I don't know how you'd solve the RE: problem. --Daxx 20:25, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Easy: Look at this:

Kill - This is SILLAY. -- A guy 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
1. Re - is not! -- Author 21:03, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  1. Re - is too! and you know it. -- A guy 21:03, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - SPAM EVERYTHING LOL WAIT WHAT! -- SpamKing 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
1. Re - wtf? -- Author 21:03, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - uhhh.. You guys are on drugs. -- Officer Fielding 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

This should solve the numbering thing. Looks a little ugly with all the 1's, but I don't know how to fix that. --Signal9 21:03, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Oh wow, I never thought of that. Yeah the extra 1's are... interesting.. but it probably takes up the same space as a bullet. The thing is that supposedly only autors are allowed to respond, so perhaps you'd only see one "1" under each vote.. supposedly. -- Amazing 21:07, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

So would this be more appropriate than Andrew McM's suggestion? It seems better, because it's automatic (though I'd like to get rid of those 1.s for the RE:s.) And everyone knows you're allowed to RE: an author's RE: when he's RE:ing you. --Daxx 21:10, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Guess what? I just came back from the Wiki Editing Help :)

Kill - This is SILLAY. -- A guy 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re - is not! -- Author 21:03, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Re - is too! and you know it. -- A guy 21:03, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - SPAM EVERYTHING LOL WAIT WHAT! -- SpamKing 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re - wtf? -- Author 21:03, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - uhhh.. You guys are on drugs. -- Officer Fielding 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

This looks okay. --Signal9 21:20, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Cor... And to think I started this. If only people were as enthusiastic about my suggestions. Only 1 has been peer reviewed. Heh. -- Andrew McM 21:27, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Voting

Brilliant Signal9! All votes to add this to the page should go under this line, and we'll use the new system so everyone knows how it should work. Vote Yes or No. It will be implemented once we get 10 unopposed Yes votes, or if the majority of votes are Yes on the 11th January.

Yes - Works nicely, I think. --Daxx 21:23, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - For reasons stated above. --Signal9 21:32, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Nice idea, makes things that little bit easier. I like it. Catriona McM 21:35, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Because it is a collaboration between me, Amazing and Signal9. And yes, the above voter is related to me. -- Andrew McM 21:40, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - ~~What the fuck.. I don't exist now?~~ Hoot Hoot. lol.. -- Amazing 21:50, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re - Sorry. Forgot. I'm surprised how far this thing has went. Also I am testing out the 'Re' part. -- Andrew McM 21:57, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Comment - Well, it's a good idea. (Also testing the RE: thing) --Daxx 22:13, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Oh well why not -- Brizth 21:55, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - wait, n--- KYAAAAA --hagnat 22:19, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - hell yes--Kcold 22:26, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - The vote tally should include the last vote number and is only updated every X votes --Mikm 22:29, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE: - I still think "whenever possible" is a good idea, but if it can be done every 10 votes - how's that for an arbitrary number? --Daxx 22:31, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Die spam die. --Zaruthustra 02:57, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No - Rhialto 03:25, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re You know what's awsome? Giving reasons for your votes. --Signal9 05:01, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Since when was giving reasons a requirement for voting on this wiki? Rhialto 11:07, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    - Re: Since ur butt lol. (In actuality, he just said it was awesome, not that you were required to.) -- Amazing 04:44, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - I like this new system. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:15, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You know what would be a LOT simpler to do? Simply have any interested people add a tally 'vote'. Something like this:

- Tally - 8 keeps, 3 kills, 4 spams Rhialto 05:46, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT) strike through my text that was edited by someone else. Rhialto 01:29, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - RE: - That was my orignal idea, but I prefer the more automatic one. -- Andrew McM 09:20, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That would be even easier to implement, and as it does NOT change the format in any way, it won't confuse anyone. I know people get confused enough by wikis as it is, without changing the way we expect things done. Rhialto 05:46, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Good idea --Mikm 05:51, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Unfortunately, wiki software isn't as far as I am aware capable of scanning through the votes and perfectly identifying the various votes. Since automatic functionality doesn't exist, a manual system seems the only other choice (short of changing nothing of course). It appears the current proposal being voted on requires either a voter or a moderator to manually update the tallly in the header. I'd be all for it if there was an automatic system which required no special human intervention, but there isn't. Rhialto 11:07, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Very funny Rhialto, I'm changing it now anyway. You didn't give a reason, and we already had 10 votes. --Daxx 14:19, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What's so funny? I wasn't making any joke. I don't believe any rule has ever been set that requires a reason for any particular vote. By teh rules set out in the vote above, I am neither required to give a reason, nor are you supposed to make that change for another week. In any case, I have outlined my reasons in later posts. If there is a mechanism within this wiki for automatically reading votes and tallying them (manual find and replace doesn't count), I'd would love to know how it is done, since you apparently are privy to secret arcane lore here. Rhialto 15:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

By the "rules" above, I can change it. There were 10 unopposed Yes votes. --Daxx 15:17, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

My vote was an opposing vote. Rhialto 00:20, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

After the necessary 10. --Daxx 00:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Precedent for spam votes, where a keep after 3 spams prevents summary deletion, means you couldnt do that. Rhialto 13:59, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Oh well. --Daxx 14:04, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to my humble suggestion. -- Andrew McM 16:10, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You still haven't shown me how this change benefits anyone, or allows for the machine to automatically tally the votes. In fact, I've found that having more human-readable text (numbers instead of bullets) actually slows me down when scanning the content of the votes. Rhialto 01:34, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Okay, I missed this discussion when it actually happened, but why did it just end? and why do we have tally votes? putting a line in the template seems much simpler & easier. people could update that by hand just as easily as they could make a Tally vote, and timestamp it so that people would know how old the tally was.--'STER-Talk-Mod 18:47, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

About the Tally

Should it count or not the Author Vote ? --hagnat 00:42, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

If it is a valid vote, it should be counted. The only time this makes a difference is with spams when the author's keep is irrelevant. --Mikm

Mikm's right. --Daxx 14:04, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Important points

By the way, a few possible good rules:

Only tally up on previous days suggestions: This means that there are going to be less votes being added, making it posible to keep count. (possibly you can begin the tally on new or slow votes. Hot suggestions will be difficult to keep a 100% count off)

If a vote has been declared spam or dupe, declare how many different types of votes (edit:already been done twice)

Add a note to the voting rules at the top of the page to keep the tally at the bottom of the vote list. -- Andrew McM 16:37, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What about adding a Tally area to the Suggestion template BELOW the voting area? -- Amazing 00:44, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Having the tally in-line with the main voting section means taht when it has to be updated, the updater only has to count new things below the old tally mark (and possibly scan for changed votes). Rhialto 01:32, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Brain Rot Headshot immunity discussion

A couple of points based on the comments made in the votes so far, using the topic as a platform for expounding on some larger issues...

1. Yes, Headshot weakens Ankle Grab, but it doesn't render it totally useless like this suggestion would make Headshot totally useless, so the two aren't the same and the "don't create skills that nerf others skills" reasoning stands. Even if you think Headshot does nerf Ankle Grab too much, coming up with a skill that nerfs Headshot won't help - it'll just escalate the arms race, making survivors want a skill that has a Headshot-like effect on Brain Rotters, etc. As I've stated before, I firmly believe the last Headshot modification was genius, as it simultaneously solved the problems with the two most complained-about, unbalanced skills in the game: Zombies get to keep their XP, but they don't get to pop up like jacks-in-the-box instantly with Ankle Grab.

2. This "You shouldn't be able to stop the zombies, zombies should fear nothing!" stuff needs to stop. You may as well just come right out and say, "Let's have unbalanced skills that ensure zombie victory!" This is a game. Games are supposed to be fun for both sides. Yes, yes, I know zombie players think they get the short end of the stick, but two wrongs don't make a right. I'm noticing a disturbing trend lately of people -- especially the hardcore zombie players, I have to say - voting for or against suggestions based solely on how it affects their faction of choice with no thought given to game mechanics or balance. "This skill would allow my side to totally pwnz0r the enemy, yee-hah!" (or should I say "barhah"?) is not a valid rationale for being in favor of a suggestion. -CWD 21:39, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Hear Hear. --Daxx 22:50, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

As the Vice President in Charge of Cookies in the WCDZ, I hearby endorse this product/event. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:48, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Part of the issue with the new Headshot is that, by losing 5 AP, zombies lose 10% of their opportunity to play. Even though a survivor needs to spend an average of at least 5 AP each day doing boring stuff (searching for items they don't need is the most obvious example), that survivor still gets to do something. Now, playing primarily as a zombie for the last few months, I greatly prefer the new Headshot to the old one, but that disappointment on logging in and seeing I have to spend 6 AP before I can do anything can be quite a bummer, especially if it happens every day, which one should expect.

As far as "zombies should fear nothing" goes, I guess I have to defend it, since I wrote it. Here's a quote from one of the kill votes: "survivors need some way of encouraging that zombie to go away and eat someone else." Now, in what zombie movie does convincing zombies to just leave you alone come into play? For me, that's a thematic issue, not a play issue. Game play as a zombie should be different from play as survivor in exactly the way I said: survivors should worry about dying while logged out, but zombies really shouldn't. If survivors get a number of different ways to play (healer, reviver, warrior), then zombies should at least get to actually play the one method they do get.

For me, the issue is that survivors expect to be able to defend a building indefinitely. That shouldn't be the case -- if your safe-house gets attacked by 50+ zombies, all survivors should have to run away. Taking away zombie AP does help in sieges, but frankly, sieges are a somewhat ridiculous concept. I have way more fun with my survivor character running from place to place, holing up for a day or two, then taking off again, trying to keep away from the worst of the infestation. I'm not saying all survivors should be forced to play that way, but those who choose to defend a building against large hordes should expect to be defeated, just as a single zombie wandering in the street should expect to lose in a one-on-one fight with a survivor armed with shotguns or syringes.

--Dickie Fux 00:54, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The only thing I'm going to take issue with is when you said "Now, in what zombie movie does convincing zombies to just leave you alone come into play?" Dickie, when you kill a zombie in the movies, it stays dead. And when you kill a survivor, he or she becomes a zombie unless it was a headshot. The "movies" discussion isn't really valid for that, as Kevan isn't going to permakill people. --Slicer 00:59, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Well, hopefully, we can come up with some type of game mechanic that simulates death in some way, without making the game less fun, which is how some people see losing AP. --Dickie Fux 16:51, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The difference is that when survivors die, they need spend AP finding a revive point (oftentimes getting headshot along the way), the revivor needs to spend AP finding syringes, then spend AP points standing up again. When a zed dies, he stands up right away and can continue fighting. --Mikm 03:34, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Maybe that survivor should try getting into the spirit of things by, you know, playing as a zombie for a while. --Dickie Fux 16:51, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I hate to get into "realism," but at least it makes some small amount of sense for a zombie to want to become human again, which can't really be said for revived zombies hurling themselves off buildings immediately. Perhaps I need to make a speech about the guilt-tripping and belittling of people for playing the game the way they prefer, too. The survivor-zombie number disparity should come as no surprise to anybody - zombies are the "bad guys"; only a limited number of people enjoy playing the "villains" of the story, and they shouldn't be put down for that. -CWD 00:24, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I didn't mean to guilt trip or belittle anybody. I honestly find playing as a zombie (and as a survivor) to be fun, and I'd like to see the survivor-only players give playing as a zombie a fair shake. Obviously, people should play however they like -- that's why I've voted against every suggestion that would require players to fulfill some requirement or other before they can get revived. That said, zombies in movies don't want revived, they want to eat the flesh of the living. A survivor jumping off a building could be seen as someone coming to grips with what he sees as the inevitable. And, it isn't necssary to see zombies as the "bad guys;" the bad guys could just as easily (and more profoundly) be the arrogant scientists who tried to control life and death. In that scenario, zombies would be the unfortunate victims of that arrogance, victims of a plague that most of them took no part in creating. --Dickie Fux 01:22, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

the fact that zombies keep the same side can be roleplayed is not a substitute to that most of the zombies only play zombie, and most of the survivors play survivor. My survivor sees a place were there is heavy harman traffic, and waits untill one passes by to attack him. that he gets revived before he can attack isn't his fault now? does that bit of roleplaying change anything? as long as most zombies are not expected to play survivor, moaning about the fact that survivors don't play zombie is pure hypocrisy. I agree with the fact that zombies aren't the bad guys, with the blurred lines between both sides I can't even say that there are just zombies or survivors, let alone that one of the sides whould be the default 'bad' side. --Vista 12:08, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That is what I liked about the "Remove viger mortis" suggestion, it would allow 0 leval zombies to be semi-effective in the game, maybe have the zombies get 100xp insted of a skill so they could pick what they want as a starting skill. with that, it is on;t a short step tell the diversification of zombies into effective fighting force, like an army. - --ramby 18:46, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What CWD said. --MaulMachine 9:58, 6 January 2005 (EST)

RE: Revives require someone to spend AP finding syringes - Yes, and the revivor gets XP for performing the revive. Using AP is common amongst XP earning activities. Of the many possibly valid arguments, I just don't see this as being one. --Reverend Loki 06:38, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What I think is best about the headshot change is the prevention of jack-in-the-box zombies in the occasional live combat. But it's definately a bummer to have to log in with part of your AP gone. If zombies choose to dedicate they should get a bonus, but not total immunity. What should really happen is the headshot should be timestamped. If you stand before some amount of time passes (maybe an hour or two?) you suffer the 5AP penalty. However if you lay there long enough, you regenerate enough to stand up normally. Giltwist 01:23, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Problem is, in a game like this were players HAVE to be "the bad guy" why should the "bad guy" have a hard time of it? And getting revived SHOULD be difficult.--Pesatyel 05:37, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

This discussion so far doesn't address the version of the suggestion where Brain Rot (or another skill) only imparts a partial chance to prevent losing AP to a Headshot. Other possibility: a Headshot to a Brain Rot Zed causes them tou use 2-3 additional AP to stand, instead of 5. This doesn't negate the Headshot skill, but offers a slim chance to escape it. Similar to how a Flak Jacket doesn't negate a gunshot. --Reverend Loki 06:38, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Resigning

Just a quick question: if a day later we notice an accidentally unsigned vote of ours has been removed - can we just remove the strikeout and tack on our fresh signatures at the end? Riktar 01:01, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT) (I almost forgot to sign this too! grahh#$%#$ what is with me the past few days)

I don't see why not, it shouldn't be a problem, its only not counted if it's unsigned or a invalid vote, so if you make it valid then it would be fine. - Jedaz 11:34, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Hmm that makes me think of another question - if somebody has an invalid vote, they can just change the vote and keep the comment, right? Riktar 03:38, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderator Announcement

From now on, votes that Kill a suggestion solely because "such and such should go in first" will be given strikeouts. This page is for voting on whether or not suggestions are good ideas, not for voting on the implementation order of suggestions. --LibrarianBrent 04:36, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I propose an exception for situations where one has a serious effect on the other. --Slicer 04:53, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That's already in place. This targets the people who vote kill on things because they say "zombies need more skills first". --LibrarianBrent 06:22, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Silly Suggestions to Prove a Point And Similar Votes

Alright. This has to STOP. First we had Grim S's Rocket Launcher idea as discussed above. Now we have the Cyborg idea by Craw, which seems to be in the same vein if you check his personal talk page. This is ridiculous. We all need to grow up and stop this before it blows up into a full fledged 'silly suggestion war.' Its incredibly immature and I would hope we can cease and desist. If you're not serious about your suggestion, you shouldn't be posting it. It's the least we can do as a community. This goes for VOTING too. Those who voted Keep because they thought it was funny, or voted keep sarcastically need to stop as well. We shouldn't be encouraging this petty behavior and should be sweeping it off the boards (ie SPAM) as soon as possible. Now there is, unfortunately, no way to tell who's vote is serious and who's isn't - so we cant have Mods slap them down or delete them ourselves. With that in mind, I am asking you all as human beigns (or zombies) to stop doing it. Act like adults. Act like mature ,intellegent individuals. Please. --Jak Rhee 05:22, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I agree with this, I've noticed many suggestions that have 10 Spams, 14 Kills and 1 sarcastic keep before the 3 spams. This attitude just clogs up the page and hides the better suggestions - Jedaz 11:32, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Uh...one stupid suggestion per day and you think they are clogging up the better suggestions? They can't be that good if they get clogged up so fast. It's not like the suggestions get implemented just because somebody suggested them. And most people (including me and nearly everybody else except Kevan) don't know what a suggestion will do to the game. For example: Feeding groan. It's one of the best zombie skills and was able to tip the balance in favor of the zombies, right? http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/9th-Nov-2005#Death_Knell <-- A suggestion that's pretty similar to Feeding Groan, except it's a bit weaker and it got voted down. You guys didn't suggest it to Kevan and it still got implemented. But why do you want to change the voting system just because of stupid suggestions? That's why we have a voting system. Think about it like a real vote: I established a little political party with stupid ideas like "Everybody gets four cans of beer per day" (We have a party like this in Germany) and nobody forces you to vote for them, but there are still idiots who do. You'll still find them on your ballot. Deal with it. I didn't broke the game and neither did the zombie rocket launcher. - Craw 11:55, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

No craw we didn't suggest Death Knell we suggested Feeding Groan itself! we named it Howl and it was suggested by Jon Pyre. why settle for a crap version when you have the real deal. Sorry kid but don't try to play with the big boys untill you know what you are doing.--Vista 14:56, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Oh, point taken. Your're right here. And don't call me a kid, please. Craw 15:02, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Alright, I'll stop calling you a kid if you stop behaving like one, fair deal?--Vista 15:07, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Yeah, don't settle for the original. Settle for the dupe with an edit. lol I kid, I kid. -- Amazing 18:33, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - in this case that little edit made it from a near useless skill that creates a lot of spam, to an hyper efficient zombie communication/hunting tool. sometimes Amazing the devil is really in the details--Vista 20:31, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    - Have you seen how spammy Malton can get now? I've logged in to find at least 30 groans in my "since your last turn" area on several occasions. The detail here was that it can only be used when you see a human, which inspires people to use it more often if anything. "Omg a human, quick! groan groan groan groan!!" -- Amazing 02:53, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      - So think of how much spam you'd find if you could do it alway, anytime you want. now al spam means something, you check the couple of latest groans and if there are more then one, that usually means a cracked safehouse and thus easy hunting. without that safe guard, It couldn't be used this way.--Vista 09:05, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        I proposed a cost of 2 AP which probably would do a better job of cutting out Spam. -- Amazing 00:02, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        But it would cut the use overall, it would also cut the benificial use of the skill itself, making it far less efficient.--Vista 11:08, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Craw, you entirely missed my point. There's nothign we can do to stop stupid suggestions by Spamming them. What I am attacking this section is the people who INTENTIONALLY make stupid suggestions to prove a point. Grim mde his Rocket Launcher suggestion NOT to try and improve the game, btu because he was annoyed at Air Drop/Crate suggestions and wanted to make a sarcastic point. Then it got similarly sarcastic keeps. This kept it stuck on the page logner when, frankly, it has no business being there in the first page. From YOUR personal talk page you mentioned that.. "Grim s inspired me to make it because Urban Dead has a disturbing lack of cyborgs. Everybody loves cyborgs. Look up his rocket launcher suggestion from yesterday if you want to know more...I'll tell more when the vote is closed" which seems to indicate that you also were proving a point. The suggestions page is not the place for that. THAT is my point in all this --Jak Rhee 17:24, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The silly ones will be spaminated, as Cyborg already has. It's the duty of all of us to clear it away. So they make an intentionally spiteful suggestion, there are always people who will. What's the worst that can happen? Riktar 03:41, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The problem is those who vote Keep, liek Craw just did with Midgets. Now, accoridng to my understanding of WikiRules, it can't be spaminated. It's immaturity at its height. --Jak Rhee 19:00, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Best use for the Suggestion Page

killing a decent suggestion for slightly off numbers isn't dumb, because with viarable numbers there are no decent suggestion. any number you pull out of your ass to make it a "suggestion" is meaningless if you don't consider gamemechanics.

But you didn't think that easy bit of math was necessary. Your idea is so special that Kevan will use his time working out the numbers. Because hey with variable numbers, It's all O.k. No, with variable numbers you don't have a suggestion, you have a wish, and upon the merits of that wish I'll vote on it. I'm sorry, no free lunch, not on your suggestion. or Kevan put it himself Elegant implementations of ideas might be taken up or used as raw material or simply put if you make a suggestion, do the work--Vista 15:14, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I believe that this suggestion page is to help give him a basis on what people would like in the game, not an direct implimtation. This is for helping him in what the people might like in the game, and I think this would need a balance somewhere in the zombie side to help with ap, but I think it would work with the proper zombie ap counter-balance ---ramby 13:30, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- ...I've watched the same zombie films that you have; it isn't particularly useful to have people telling me that helicopters and abandoned cars and infectious bites would be cool. Elegant implementations of ideas might be taken up or used as raw material, though...- Kevan' seems pretty obvious to me. If not, it's simpler to put up polls instead of suggestions--Vista 13:42, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - But it would not give him the basic idea's that people would like. You see, by having the suggestions page, he can not only get a basic idea as to what the people would like as a whole, he can get an idea as to how the majority would like it to be done. Anything moregoes to the suggestions discussion pages - --ramby 13:56, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    - actually I agree with you that it is handy for Kevan to see what is wanted and not, I don't believe however that the suggestions page is the best way to do that. For instance, Submachine guns are enormously popular unless he check frequently suggested, He's not going to find it out by the peer reviewed as that has only one version on it. on that peer reviewed is also a lot of suggestions that were small but worthwile suggestions that the majority is only luke warm about. So thats why I mentioned Polls. That solves our problem of telling Kevan what the players would want. and free's up the suggestion page for the more in dept mechanical ways to implement those ideas. --Vista 15:24, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      - In other words remove the suggestion page and ask us what we might want and what he is going to do in the future? --ramby 15:28, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        The problem with that of course is that what the players want and what is best for the game are two different things. Otherwise we'd see giant mutated licker zombies with guns running around the place. --Daxx 15:30, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        The suggestion page stays. That way Kevan can see that although giant mutated licker zombies with guns are very popular, nobody found an unbalanced way to make it work, mechanical or flavor wise. The suggestion page should always remain the main part. It's only to stop people suggest the less thought out suggestions as we can set the bar higher then. then we can expect some mechanics and spam things like, Hey big K can work it all out! I just make the ideas! as the polls are for that part--Vista 15:35, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Then there should be some kind of calculator as to help those with less good math skills to balance a potentualy good thing - --ramby 15:42, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yes there should, I've helped people in the past with that part. especially with the HP/AP. I've put on my user page that if people have an idea and want help they can come to me. But If a calculator is available. I'd be be overjoyed.--Vista 15:45, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Really, people with no idea of the numbers should use the talk page first. --Daxx 15:54, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

If only they would... seriously I'm willing to spend an hour a day just doing the math for the most stupid suggestions, if that meant half of the suggestion wouldn't go beyond the talk page and the other half would have workable numbers. I'm up for making lack of mechanics a spammable offence, or an automatic removal to the talk page. People who want to have their say without doing the mechanics can go to the polls--Vista 16:09, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think there's merits to both sides of the argument. The frustration I often have is that if I make a suggestion "Zombies/Suvivors have a 10% chance of doing X" and it's mostly killed with comments like "Pretty good idea but 10% is way too high", if I resubmit it as "Zombies/Suvivors have a 5% chance of doing X" it'll get voted out as a dupe, probably with the comment "This is exactly the same as this other suggestion with a lower percentage". I don't think you should hold people to a specific number for that reason, because when something gets voted out for its numbers it is dead with no way to revive it. What I would propose is that if you aren't certain of the numbers of your suggestion to include a possible range, for instance "Zombies/Suvivors have a chance of doing X. The percentage should be somewhere between 5-10%." If there's absolutely no way of simply adjusting the numbers to make the suggestion workable then I'd say vote keep by all means. I'd also do the same when there's no mention of numbers at all: "Zombies/Suvivors have a pretty good chance of doing X". But it seems a shame to doom good suggestions if they're just a little off. They're rare enough as it is. --Jon Pyre 21:55, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I so agree, but most of the time the people who say things it needs to be X instead are just guess the magic number idiots I'd be for discounting those kind of votes without math behind to. and yes different percentages make different suggestions, and people should recognize that. But unfortunatly the Lets' play powerball crowd would use it to submit their horrible suggestion 30 times too. I guess I just have to live with this broken system, and just ridicule them with the WCDZ. Thats why it's there, isn't it--Vista 01:15, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT) (and to destroy balance...)

Vote Reform

What does anyone think about keeping vote types seperate?

Something like this:

Keep

I like it! - Tito Jackson
Excellent addition. - A dude
Wow. - Bob Jones

Kill

No way. It's totally going to be unfair to Bees. - Killer Jones
- How so?! - Suggestor
WHAT?! This would ruin the game. - Slippedincrap

Spam/Dupe

This was already suggested. - Hobart

Just a thought. With the numbering system, this would keep vote tallies SUPER SIMPLE. "Oh, Keep has 10 and Kill has 20." etc. etc. If there is a change in Spam policy, it would also be better for keeping track of the "Ten Spams" -- Amazing 01:26, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I like it! Smart, sensible. This would be very helpful. I like the order you have here too; Keep, then Kill, then Spam. --Jon Pyre 01:43, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Agreed. Maybe with the subclauses "if there's a reason for Spamination, list it" and "only one re allowed otherwise all goes to talk page" Meaning one and only one, from the author. At least that's my personal opinion. Riktar 03:44, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Authors need to be able to have multiple Responses but each one should address a new point.--Jon Pyre 05:03, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

A new point or a new vote? Because the latter, at least, was implied by my last comment. ^^ Riktar 00:33, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Spam should be seperated from dupes. Dupe says nothing about the quality of a suggestion (it could be a peer-accepted or rejected). Spam says "this is crap nobody should read" --Mikm 05:09, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, I was just trying to save space, overall. Figured people could look and see the Dupes and Spams to tally them the old fashioned way. Kills and Keeps should be seperate though for sure above however Spam/Dupe comes out. It'll be much easier for the process of moving to Rejected or Approved. -- Amazing 05:30, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Just make it so Spam and Dupe are two different categories. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:23, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Okay.. Something like this:

Keep

I like it! - Tito Jackson
Excellent addition. - A dude
Wow. - Bob Jones

Kill

No way. It's totally going to be unfair to Bees. - Killer Jones
- How so?! - Suggestor
WHAT?! This would ruin the game. - Slippedincrap

Dupe

There are currently no Dupe votes.

Spam

This was already suggested. - Hobart

I'm not sure about what would go into an area with no votes. It's probably best left blank, actually. -- Amazing 18:53, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Or maybe dupe and spam will be added only once someone votes in those categories? --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:22, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, making people work a bit more to Spam or Dupe vote might prevent a small percentage of 'strong kill' spams. -- Amazing 19:32, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I like it. Especially since it makes my surprisingly popular vote tally suggestion easier. -- Andrew McM 21:14, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Brilliant. I'm adding this to my SuggestionsInRevision proposal (yes, I'm still working on it :P). --RSquared 21:16, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

No. Currently, voting is a simple issue of adding your vote to teh bottom. having to search for the correct place to put your vote isn't trivial on very big issues with many votes given the editing interface. Rhialto 23:54, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Is there a way to add an &quot;edit" link without making each vote section a new headline? -- Amazing 07:16, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Nice work Amazing. This would make those new tallies a lot easier and allow people to get the gist of the public pros/cons at a glance. Good times. --Thelabrat 17:16, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Justification

Am I wrong? Wasn't it, at the very least, implied that a "justification" for a kill or keep vote was unnecessary? That every registered user was entitled to his kill/keep vote? I can understand for spam, but is this some new rule or policy I'm not aware of? I've voted without justification before and never had a problem. Riktar 01:01, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Apparentl, this was jsut changed today. I've asked LibrarianBrent to point me to the statement of the new rule and any place we might dispute it. I for one, frequently vote with a simple "no comment," or in fact with no comment at all, when all the previous voters have stated my reasons for me and/or when I don't particularly care to get involved with the inevitable flame war that comes with some suggestors' unpopular suggestions (I've noticed they usually only attack those they have a history with or those who provide a reason for their vote, and leave us reasonless voters alone). My question to him on the subject is on his talk page. To me this new rule will just become redundant as many people's "comments" will simply become "what everyone already stated," "because I do/don't like it" (which doesn't seem to really clarify anything at all really), or something else equally simple/similar. My hunch is that it's to help sort out votes that are because someone doesn't like a suggestor (many seem to vote kill automatically on Amazing and Jason Kildare's suggestions, for example). While I see the point, I don't particualrly think this rule will help. My guess is it will make it worse. --Thelabrat 23:56, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No one killed Jason's suggestion because they didnt like him. The killed them because every single one was BAD. I dont think ANYONE here votes dependant on the author... we are just extremely harsh critics. I know I am... if your suggestion isnt damn close to perfect, I'm gonna crush it into the ground. I know the rest of the WCDZ didn't vote 'kill' or 'spam' because we didn't liek Jason... we killed them because they sucked. Then we grew annoyed at Jason because he kept submitting sucky suggestions. But our votes are ONLY on the merit of the suggestion --Jak Rhee 21:30, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT).
But you can not speak for everyone. Some people are inane enough to vote kill on somthing just because they do not like the person who wrote it. I do not, i like to vote on who benefits the most, and what balance there is to it. If we balance survivors and zombies, people will like to play both, and then for everything that is added to one side, there should be something added to the other. --ramby 21:51, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Jak I wasn't saying that you guys voted Jason's votes down because of any distaste for him personally but more along the lines of what ramby said (why did you change your name anyway, just curious). I was merely pointing to those two posters as examples of people who have gotten under the skin of enough people with their responses to votes that it wouldn't surprise me if many see a suggestion put up by them and just vote kill out of reflex. And while Jason has yet to put up a useful suggestion, Amazing has put up at least a few good ones. My guess is that Brent put forth this rule to help weed out votes on the suggestor as opposed to the suggestion. I still say it's most likely going to make it worse or, at the very least, clutter up the voting with redundancy, but I get the idea. I think a word/line limit on reponses (that only mods can fix) would be helpful though. --Thelabrat 00:38, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Voting for New Spam Deletion System

I would like people to vote on a change to the spam deletion system which I discuss up earlier on this page in the SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM discussion thread. My two concerns there is that a single malicious keep can prevent spam from being deleted and that imperfect but reworkable suggestions are considered as Spams rather than Kills even if Spams are the minority. Here is the new rule which I am proposing after earlier discussion:

Suggestions can be deleted by anyone if there are at least 7 Spam/Dupe votes and the number of Spam/Dupe votes are equal to 2/3rds or greater of the total number of votes. The author vote is included in all these tallies.

Notes: 7 was selected as being as close to 2/3rds of 10 as possible. Keep votes no longer save a suggestion from Spams. Kill votes are included in the total number of votes (obviously). The author vote is included in the totals since a single author keep vote will no longer save a suggestion from being spammed which is the only reason we do not count them currently.

If voting must be conducted by a moderator then let this just be considered a poll of people's opinions. Otherwise let it be counted as an actual vote. Vote below this line either Yes or No. --Jon Pyre 05:41, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yes This would require at least 7 people to vote Spam and require that at least 2/3rds of EVERYONE vote Spam. This suggestion would protect votes with 5 Spams votes and 15 Kills from being Spammed providing even more protection to minority opinion. For something to be deleted this way it would have to be both amazingly unpopular and thought to be a waste of everyone's time by the vast majority of people. At the same time it would prevent individuals from completely foiling the spam system.--Jon Pyre 05:41, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No Yes ~~Just a way to change it so people can gain even more of a strangle hold over the opinions and votes of others. Spam voters and removers aren't following the guidelines in all cases as it is.~~ Only if the Three-Spam rule is dismissed when this is added. -- Amazing 05:44, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes Please and thank you. I swore I made a comment up in that thread of yours about the trolling keeps but I can't even find it in the history. Go figure. Usually the trollers state that they are trollers so they are easy to spot. That, combined with this = better than current. Mr. Pyre pretty much sums it all up nicely. --Thelabrat 15:23, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
YesNo -Amazing, I don't think you understand this. It requires a minimum of 7 SPAM votes. This gives it enough time to be seen and have people vote kill/keep to block it. This suggestion is designed to kill the suggestions that get a keep vote just to block the spamination. Anyways, if a suggestion is removed illegally, just look in the history to revivie it. If it recieves a "bad" spam vote, ask a moderator to make a judgement and remove it. --Mikm 19:06, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re: Maybe I am misunderstanding. I would vote for this if it would replace the current Spam system of 3-votes-and-it's-gone. Otherwise we are just enacting two different ways to remove a suggestion when the one in place is already strained daily. Get a group of 7 people together and you decide the fate of every suggestion in existence based on your personal preference. With the "One Keep saves" system, at least people have a chance to prevent this. -- Amazing 19:30, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Amazing, this wouldnt be NESSECARY or even THOUGHT OF if peopel were beign adult wiht their votes. I feveryone would only vote 'Keep with extreme seriousness, this wouldnt be a problem. Unfortunatly, those liek you and Craw have made this nessecary. If we could all be adults it wouldnt be needed. --Jak Rhee 19:58, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    - I see. You just want to tell others how to vote becuase anything you don't like could only be voted "keep" if the person's being malicious. Got it. -- Amazing 02:52, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Of course it would replace it. 3 spam votes is far less than 7 minimum vtes.
    - Keep in mind the 7 vote rule overrules Keep votes, and the Three Spam rule doesn't. Therein lies the difference, you see, and that's why I was saying that keeping both would be really silly. -- Amazing 02:52, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re It would replace the current system. The Three Spams and it's out unless there's a non-author keep would be GONE, entirely. --Jon Pyre 19:33, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - God, yes. It still wouldnt be easy to pull off unless it wasnt HONESTLY Spam, but keeps one or two people votign keep to be silly from ruining the page. Everyone should be takign this seriously. --Jak Rhee 19:16, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes! Yes! Yes! YES! - Great idea! I hate those idiots who vote Keep so it'll stay. You're not funny, you're not clever, and you're not witty. STER. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:20, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No Yes - 7 and 2/3 are far too many. I'd say "at least 3 spams and more than 1/2 the votes are Spams." That way we get rid of the "one malicious Keep" problem, but it'll still be possible to spaminate anything, which under your idea it wouldn't be. Have you ever seen anything get 7 spam votes? The only one I can think of only got that because of a malicious keep, which my version would fix. Alright, with the other change below, I'll change my vote.--'STER-Talk-Mod 19:35, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
~~No - What 'STER said.~~Yes With the modification below being overwhelmingly approved, this makes sense. --Slicer 19:43, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes No - Apparently I still agree with 'STER --Brizth 19:51, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - What 'STER said. --Vista 22:15, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No We don't need to slow down the ability to destroy spam. --Zaruthustra 21:12, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re I would like you to all reconsider your No votes. This page has a lot of traffic and does not take long for seven spam votes to accumulate. In addition think of this: many people who would vote Spam now do not because there is no point in voting on a suggestion with three spams already that seems like it'll get killed anyway if it isn't going to be spammed. Why drive another nail in the coffin of a suggestion that's already going to Peer Rejected? 7 votes really isn't that much. The "Midget Zombies" suggestion that's currently on the suggestion page would have been deleted long ago if this system was implemented. What's the alternative? Deleting suggestions with 2 Keeps and 3 Spams? Small groups of people would be able to instantly delete suggestions. Without the instant and total save of the Keep suggestions need more protection in the form of a higher minimum number of Spams. This is a good system that would result in the timely deletion of Spam and prevent abuse of the Spam vote. In addition this only refers to the ability of ANYONE to delete. We could set up seperate rules to allow moderators greater ease in deleting blantantly spam suggestions (Zombie Rocket Launchers). But this suggestion is seperate from moderator rules. We can vote on that seperately but this as is is fine and needed. Please think of the poor suggestion page and all the cyborgs getting proposed there. --Jon Pyre 21:42, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Anything to stop the frosty invasion. --Hexedian 21:46, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No, this would likely ruin the page. The proposition below is far more balanced. --LibrarianBrent 22:37, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes Because that snowman is ruining my assassination attempts on retarded ideas! Though on a more serious note, perhaps it would be fine if while the conditions were met, only a mod would have the power to remove it on the spam grounds. I mean, I'm sure they have a pretty good grasp on what ideas are trash and what ideas are just unpopular. I mention it becuase this might make a good median between the two ideas, though I think that either one works alone, too. --Volke 23:03, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re I think this proposal is a good idea for everyone and would work even better if moderators could operate using the rules below. This way it would limit the ability of people to delete suggestions they hate if 3 out of 20 people voted spam but still provide moderators wide latitude in cleaning up the suggestions page. We should vote Yes to both of these. I think they work on their own but together they're golden. --Jon Pyre 23:17, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - I think it's just as easy to get 7 Spam votes as it is to get 3. So what if crappy suggestions stay up a little longer than they used to, if it means they can also get removed even if some goof votes Keep to be a fucktard? --Dickie Fux 00:57, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - What 'STER said. --Signal9 02:29, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Removes Junk and keeps "issues" from happening. --RAF LT. General Deathnut 05:07, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No - I prefer the idea below.--The General 16:15, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re We can approve both rules. I think they will work well together. --Jon Pyre 23:21, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Re - Yes, but I don't want to have to wait until an idea gets 7 Spam before we can spaminate it. Plus, if kill votes count towards the total then it will make it almost impossible to spaminate an idea as ideas rarely have more Spam votes than Kill votes. Change it to be 2/3rds more Spam votes than Keep votes and i'll change my vote.
Yes - Now we don't have to waste any more time trying to think up incurably retarded suggestions. - CthulhuFhtagn 17:51, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Riktar 00:41, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No - Pending question about a modification: can we just outright blow away stuff that goes against theFAQ, such as item trading? I'm personally tired of seeing "trade items", "insta-hide your account", and other such suggestions pop up every few weeks. Bentley Foss 15:50, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re Nope, because I don't trust any one individual to make the call that something need be deleted all on their own. I want a few people to agree first. I assume anything as glaringly terrible as insta-hides and trade items would collect seven spam votes in a very short time and with this change a keep vote or two wouldn't prevent you from deleting them. --Jon Pyre 07:50, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Voting For New Moderator Spam Deletion Rule

Please vote in the Voting For New Spam Deletion System that's directly above this vote as well as this one too. This is a seperate rule change that would work well with either the current system or with the new rules being voted for above. It is as follows:

A suggestions page Moderator can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps. This includes their own spam vote.

I think this would go well with the rules in Voting For New Spam Deletion System regulating voting for everyone and this giving moderators even more discretion, but this is needed even if that is not implemented. This would actually allow Moderators to moderate. --Jon Pyre 22:07, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Vote Yes or No below this line.

Yes - Please vote Yes on this one. We have zombie cyborgs and midgets running amuck on the suggestion page. --Jon Pyre 22:07, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes. --LibrarianBrent 22:37, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes --Mikm 22:44, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes --Daxx 22:46, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes And they're survivor cyborgs, not zombie cyborgs. -Craw 22:47, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes GAWD, THIS IDEA IS LIKE HAWT EYE SECKS MaulMachine 22:49, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes Mods are mods becuase we know we can trust their judgement (they don't hire bums off the street to be mods, after all!), so either this or the above suggestion would help with the current crap suggestions. --Volke 22:58, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Can we still spaminate ones with no keeps on our own? --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:00, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re Yes. --Jon Pyre 23:06, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - If the idea above this one doesn't go through, that is.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:33, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes You made me a happy man--Vista 23:03, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes Sure. --Brizth 23:47, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes Joy to the f*cking world AllStarZ 00:43, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Considering one of the mods voted for it, doesn't that make it a rule already? --Dickie Fux 00:59, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes --hagnat 01:19, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes --'STER-Talk-Mod 01:33, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - KingRaptor 01:41, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes --Signal9 02:16, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes, God yes. Someone to decide whether or not things are being spammed out unfairly or they're just plain stupid. --Slicer 02:35, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - A better implementation of the previous idea, though I think both would work. --Hexedian 03:08, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Perhaps even better than the above though I'd be fine with either. --Thelabrat 12:20, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re We can vote Yes on both. I think the two will work well together, the above regulating Spam deletion abilities for everyone and this change giving special priviledges to moderators. --Jon Pyre 23:23, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Lets clean up the pages - --ramby 15:08, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - I am always in favor of such suggestions. --Zaruthustra 15:24, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - This would solve the problem while still allowing serious keep votes to save suggestions.--The General 16:14, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes - Took you guys long enough. - CthulhuFhtagn 17:50, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No - Pending question about a modification: can we just outright blow away stuff that goes against theFAQ, such as item trading? I'm personally tired of seeing "trade items", "insta-hide your account", and other such suggestions pop up every few weeks. Also, does this modify the regular removal rules in any way, other than adding a superuser who can spam remove things at will, no matter the number of keeps, at their discretion (to avoid hateful "Spam" votes that would spam an otherwise serious/decent suggestion)? Bentley Foss 15:55, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re All this vote is for is whether to give moderators additional spam deletion rules. It would not grant o non-moderators any additional priviledges or take any away. And they would still be limited by keeps if keeps outnumbered spams. This is simply to prevent obvious spam suggestions from suviving if two or three keeps exist among a million spam votes. For suggestions that aren't spam but just bad I'd expect moderators not to delete it if three people should vote spam incorrectly. --Jon Pyre 07:46, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Zombie/Survivor Ratio is OK

According to the zombie/survivor ratio thingy, I can safely say the game is balanced. 58% survivor and 42% zombie. Not perfect, but its much better than less than 1/3 zombie compared to over 2/3 survivor. So now we can discard all arguments talking about balancing and shit for our suggestions. AllStarZ 08:37, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I agree, besides it always was a poor reason (one that I used myself too sometimes, to my later shame) as that 1. there is already an enourmous amount of suggestions in peer reviewed, enough to shift balance a hundred times over either way. 2. with a two week voting period, the situation you seek to adress might be already changed. --Vista 08:58, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I don't even like this because it implies that it ever mattered. There is no reason to quote statistics from right this minute when talking about balance, as that just creates a never ending teeter-totter of unbalancing suggestions. --Zaruthustra 17:31, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Keep with Change?

Is the "Keep with Change" style of voting now invalidated or something? It seems like a lot of suggestions on Peer Approved have notes like: "Needs to have X added" or "Only if X is done". Now it seems that if a voter has a single issue with a suggestion, in all cases a Kill vote is issued. Then once the suggestion fails, any attempts at a revision usually draw Dupe or Spam votes, and Kills based on the fact that it was just suggested.

So yeah, my basic question is what the current mood is about "Keep with Change" votes and if they're no longer considered to be allowed. There's a lot of "Changes" listed on Peer Reviewed suggestions past. -- Amazing 06:17, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The guidelines say that if you want a change you should vote kill. The thing is that the way votes are counted, if you say "Keep with Change" it will count as a Keep regardless of whether there was a change or not. So I think it's a matter of how much you care about the change and how good you think the suggestion is without the change. --Signal9 07:09, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

If you vote "Keep with Change", it means you don't like the suggestion in its current form. And if you don't like a suggestion, you vote Kill. Simple as that. AllStarZ 18:57, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Incorrect. In some cases it means you like the suggestion but think it needs a bit of a boost or removal of an element in order to be better applied or accepted. You're saying if they want a change they don't like the suggestion. If you genuinely don't like the suggestion then no change would save it from your kill vote.

Direct your attention to all the change notes attatched to Peer Reviewed suggestions. -- Amazing 22:04, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Well if you already like a suggestion the way it is, but want improvements, you vote keep. AllStarZ 22:25, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I've wondered about this myself. It seems that some (and this method suits makes more sense to me personally) will go ahead and vote Keep/Change if the change is realtively minor or, as Signal9 said, if you like the suggestion just fine without the change but think it would be better with. Many seem to ote on the idea more than the details (I've certainly done so a few times myself). Even though the guidlines are contrary to this, and as you pointed out, many Peer Reviewed suggestions show evidence of the current pattern, many voters who have been on here much longer than I seem to do this, thus lending the practice a certain amount of unofficial validity to any Suggestions newbies who read through all of the older suggestions stil in the voting cue before getting started (not that there's many who seem to do that but I did and I'm assuming I'm not the only one). --Thelabrat 00:02, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

If someone means "Keep - Such and such a change would be nice, but acceptable as is," then they should just say keep. If they mean "Keep/Change - I vote keep only if such and such a change is made," they should just vote kill, and switch to keep if the change is implemented. --Dickie Fux 00:09, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Main Page RE: Change

Someone went and changed all the "Re:" rules to allow non-authors to reply. Is this a real official action, or the work of some shlub who just wants to be able to do it himself? I don't recall discussion on this, much less a vote, but I may have missed it. -- Amazing 05:34, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Hahaha. Hey, everyone.. Check out Daxx flippantly removing one of the oldest Suggestion page rules for his own personal preference! Click Here. -- Amazing 05:51, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

What the eff? What is that all about?? Riktar 06:11, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Basically, the standing rule was that ONLY the AUTHOR could post a Re: responce to Votes. This was WIDELY abused and voters posted their own Responce, which was against the rules, at which point the illegal responces were hopefully moved to the Discussion Page.

Daxx apparently didn't like that, and wanted to be able to Reply whenever he wanted, wherever he wanted. So he changed the rules himself without warning, without asking, and without even saying: "Hey everyone, I'm gonna change the rules, try to stop me!"

THEN he had the NERVE to quote his own edits as if they were standard rules.

Very dishonest and creepy way to behave. :( -- Amazing 06:22, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

he's just updating it to common practise, I mean you're having a conversation right, so why should everything be edited into the vote? makes it hard for people to understand what people are on about. I believe that it makes it more natural. should he done it in an other way. probably, but creepy? the system I always use is one RE from the author, one from the person being re'd if more the whole thing goes to the discussion page. If that isn't how it is done, I'm up for changing it.--Vista 07:38, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Common practice. Pretty common, seeing as we've used it since the dawn of this page. Vista has just hit the nail on the head for that one. Obviously, clarifying the rules to reflect this is vandalism. But then, Amazing is famous for his displays of arrogance and inability to deal withw hen he's wrong. Take your vendettas elsewhere, I don't have time for them. --Daxx 13:50, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I would also like to point out that the point of a wiki is so that people can change things when they're in error. --Daxx 13:52, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Daxx, you have been banned for 24 hours in accordance with your failure to comply with a recent Moderation/Arbitration decision. --LibrarianBrent 14:38, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'd like to add that, although this seems to be a reasonable change, simply modifying the rules so that it is allowed is unreasonable. Next time please invoke a vote or something so that the rule can be clearly established. --LibrarianBrent 14:39, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I reverted the Rules to their widely accepted version, and Daxx reverted it AGAIN back to his own changes. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template:Suggestion_Voting&action=history

Second 24 hour ban for Vandalism or can we PLEASE have the rules Locked? -- Amazing 18:26, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Actually what we need even more are specific rules for voting. I put two votes up to suggest rule changes I thought they were a good idea but I have no idea how rule change implementation works. I think I might start up a voting thread just to discuss how we should vote, tally, and implement. --Jon Pyre 18:41, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Voting for RE; Changes

Author Retracted - I realize I didn't word this right. People thought I was lobbying FOR the changes. I was lobbying for getting back the old rules. I've re-written this and tried to be much more clear below. Thanks for voting, and I hope my error in wording didn't inconvenience the voters who voted too much. :X -- Amazing 00:56, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Voting for RE; Aternative Change,

Retracted by author because they are now the established rule. --Vista 12:05, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Rule Change Rules?

Are there any rules for proposing rule changes/implementing them? I've put some votes up which are doing well but I don't know what the rules for implementing them are. If there aren't any I think I'm going to put up a vote to implement rules to regulate rule votes. Any ideas, comments? --Jon Pyre 18:51, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Well I second the question and add one to it. I'm starting to wonder if maybe the main suggestions page shouldn't have a recent changes section near the top. For all of us who didn't realize we now had to justify our votes this would have been helpful. For everyone who was unaware of the dupe vote creation this probably would have been handy as well. Nothing fancy (since it's already pretty cluttered over there) just a summary directing people to check various suggestion related pages for changes to rules that have been made recently. Perhaps it should be it's own page. Shrug. --Thelabrat 23:32, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I would say that once a consensus is reached, something can be a rule. Now the only problem is defining consensus. Probably 2/3 majority after 2 weeks would work...what does everyone else think?--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:22, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Sounds good to me. Let's go with that unless anyone objects. Do we need to hold a vote on this or can we just run with it? --Jon Pyre 03:25, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

My only concern would be rules changing to often, once people start suggesting all kinds of rules changes. Also, you know people are going to suggest stupid rules, so the criteria for rules to be accepted should be high. A minimum number of votes should be required, so that a rule change with two keeps and one kill doesn't get accepted. A recent changes section would definitely be necessary, too, like Thelabrat said. Also, mods should be able to vote Veto on any proposed change, ending the voting right there. --Dickie Fux 13:30, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Ok, how about this. Minimum 20 total votes, 75% Yes, and it needs at least one mod vote Yes to pass. --Jon Pyre 17:17, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, that works for me. Making it almost impossible to pass rules changes will hopefully scare off those who want to make stupid rules. And, obviously, mods retain all powers and authority they had previously. --Dickie Fux 17:57, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Mm-hmm. It's kind of like the Constitution.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:37, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Lazy, aint we ?

Dear god. There was 3 or 4 full days of suggestions on the main page and no one bothered to move them to the previous day suggestion page. I moved then, i only hope i didnt screw anything in the process :\ --hagnat 00:20, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

don't know how to do it.--Vista 07:51, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- there used to be instructions on this page... If I find them I'll put them back --Signal9 01:37, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - they did the trick (I got to move my own suggestion to peer approved, I'm so proud)--Vista 14:57, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Talk Page Modification

Okay, anyone here can understand exaclty whats going on in this talk page ? There is disccussion still in progress from stuff that were removed a long time ago from the main page and is deep below on the previous day suggestion page.

My suggestion to the talk:Suggestio page : sort discussion about suggestions by date. like

==January, 21st==
===Suggestion 1===
* Suggestion 1 is crap - CrapGuy
** CrapGuy is a newb - NewbGuy
----
===Suggestion 2===
* yadayadayadayada - YadaMan
** Yada rlz - yadaDude
==January, 22nd==
===Yet Another Suggestion 1===
* This sux - ImaBoredGuy
----

With this it would also be possible to move the talk page to the previous suggestion day, leaving this talk page alone for current suggestions and other stuff to discuss (like this idea for modificiation of this talk page) --hagnat 00:20, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Remove Daxx's RE: Rules Edits (Voting)

Daxx editied the official rules without vote and without warning so that voters can reply to the comments left by a suggestion Author. He did this on the 8th, and a couple days later, I noticed the change (who reads the rules all over again?) and reverted the rules back to their standard form.

He then re-edited them again to support Voter Replies.

This was reported for Protection by someone other than myself, and the Suggestion Rules were Locked.

Unfortunately they were locked with Daxx's edits instead of locking them pre-vandalism.

Now we have to vote to get back the old standard system if we want it.

This is what you are voting on: Should we have the RE: Rules reverted to their original form before Daxx's most recent unapproved edits?

Under the CURRENT edits, Non-Authors are told they can reply to an Author's "Re:" responce. This will most assuredly create even more flaming and text to wade through on the main page. The main page is not for extended discussion of any kind.

Under the OLD standard, official rules, non-authors could NOT reply to an Author's "Re:" responce. Any further discussion was to be taken to the discussion page.

So which do you, the Wiki users, prefer? Non-Author replies allowed, or Non-Author replies not allowed?

Vote YES if you want to go back to the original rules in which people cannot Reply to Author Replies.

Vote NO if you want everyone to be able to reply to Author Replies to their votes.

Vote ALBATROSS if you want to get rid of Responces altogether, because you are a crazy Rapping Granny.

(Don't edit my post. Signal9. It's not offensive and you know it.)

Not even to the albatross as a species? Have you ever talked to one? --Signal9 19:51, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yes, yes I have. -- Amazing 03:52, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Let the voting commence! *snap snap* -- Amazing 00:54, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Not allowed (YES) - Irritating as an author to respond to someone's vote, then have them go on some tangential response while saying 'go to the discussion page for further talk'. Wiki, not a forum. FireballX301 00:59, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Not Allowed - But there should be a link to a discussion in every new suggestion. To me neither solution works well, so I'm voting in the lesser of two evils. Now I look again, Signal's idea below sounds just fine. (Did I say "Vista"? I think I've gotta get some sleep before trying anything else...) --Omega2 01:03, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
NO RE'S! - Amazing, there was an obviously implied policy of both authors and people being re'd being able to reply as long as it wasn't abused too much. Because of your "author replies only" crossouts, we have effective proof that there is no way to conduct this in a civilized way, therefore, I vote to remove Re's completely, possibly allowing the author to post a "go to talk" link as a reply, but nothing more. Happy? --Signal9 01:16, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Comment - Actually not a bad idea. Issues brought up in voting could be amended by modifying the suggestion as such. FireballX301 01:48, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re: - Implied nothing! The rules specifically read "Only Authors can reply." Any "policy" beyond that was simply violation of the rules. Should all violations of the rules be made legal if enough people do it? -- Amazing 02:39, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Re: - First of all, why did you care about a very technical part of the policy, and secondly, this is a serious suggestion - get rid of Re's, thereby moving all and not just part of the clutter to the Talk page. It will also make it clear to newbs that there is a talk page and that it is extensively used. --Signal9 03:25, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    - Re: - Whatever you think is whatever you think, man. Just don't edit my post again. -- Amazing 06:12, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No RE's Agree with Signal. Lets just do away with RE's completely. I mean you are complaining about us voters cluttering suggestion pages with RE's while you have at least 5 for every single suggestion you make Amazing. AllStarZ 02:17, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re: Heh. Doing away with "RE:" is fine by me if there's at least one space to generally correct any errant statement made, but it was allowed as per the rule system, so really any given responce of mine was legal, as opposed to non-author replies which were flagrant violations. -- Amazing 02:42, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No RE's Signal's plan. I'm wordy enough in my voting (I'll work on that). I'm not the only one. That's plenty of clutter for one page. Many RE's are redundant. That's plenty of clutter for a different page. --Thelabrat 07:55, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No - I like the established practise as it is right now. one responce by author, one by the voter and the rest on the discussion page. relatively spam free without limiting the discussion or it's visibilaty. I fear that the majority of voters will never go to the discussion page before voting, mis the counter arguments and thus make an uninformed vote.--Vista 12:02, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
discussion with FireballX301 moved to below voting--Vista 15:43, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No - What Vista said. But I would throw in the warning that abusive REs would be removed by a mod. Of course, that brings up the issue of what abusive means. --Pinpoint 20:52, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re: - That also creates a LOT more work for Moderators who are already seeming to struggle with the glut of work involved.. At least with the OLD rules, ANYone could move Illegal Responces to the Discussion Page. Think of it this way.. The OLD rules were Flat-Out simple. "Don't do this." now we have much more complex issues. What's allowed? What isn't? What's abusive? Are you allowed to reply if it's not constructive at all? Will we see people abusing THIS system now to issue third, forth, fifth, and sixth replies and so on? The OLD way, as I say, was flatly simple as Heck. It was just broken a lot by certain people. -- Amazing 03:55, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
No - I think there should be a limit of two replys per every third vote(By this i mean, for eevery three kill votes, the auther gets 1 reply and the voter gets 1 reply. As long as there are 2 kill votes for every 1 responded kill vote everything is good to go.) This way, you get 1:feedback, 2: A reasonable amount of thought into a discussion and 3: A person can figure out why his vote is like/disliked. Set up in a matter of:

#Vote here
**Auther reply
***Vote creator reply

It makes sense and if there is mroe it can be moved to the Talk page with this in its palce:

*All Replys moved to talk page |Insert link here|

--ramby 21:07, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

extended discussion on the Re change vote (the talk page' talk page)

No - I like the established practise as it is right now. one responce by author, one by the voter and the rest on the discussion page. relatively spam free without limiting the discussion or it's visibilaty. I fear that the majority of voters will never go to the discussion page before voting, mis the counter arguments and thus make an uninformed vote.--Vista 12:02, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Comment - That can be extended to the counter-counter arguments, counter-counter-counter arguments, and such forth, i.e. permanent status of being 'uninformed'. You get your chance to make a statement in your vote, the author gets a nominal chance to reply. Whatever you want to say, say it in your vote. FireballX301 04:49, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

this is why I want to be able to Re the author, because many times they misconstruct arguments into strawman objections instead of addresing the issue. there is no 'permant status of being misinformed' that is why the limit is set there and not further after the second re enough of both positions is know for other voters. and anything further is more elebotation between the orginal suggester and voter to find understanding which fits well on the discussion page.--Vista 16:28, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

...and what prevents you (or other non-author REs) from constructing strawman arguments? Works both ways, so allowing multiple Res based on the fact that some people make strawman arguments isn't valid. Again, you have your vote to state your point - if you really really have a heartfelt need to say something, simply EDIT YOUR VOTE. FireballX301 07:16, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

lets try that, shall we?

No - I like the established practise as it is right now. one responce by author, one by the voter and the rest on the discussion page. relatively spam free without limiting the discussion or it's visibilaty. I fear that the majority of voters will never go to the discussion page before voting, mis the counter arguments and thus make an uninformed vote.--Vista 12:02, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT) edit this is why I want to be able to Re the author, because many times they misconstruct arguments into strawman objections instead of addresing the issue. there is no 'permant status of being misinformed' that is why the limit is set there and not further after the second re enough of both positions is know for other voters. and anything further is more elebotation between the orginal suggester and voter to find understanding which fits well on the discussion page.--Vista 16:28, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit2 lets try that, shall we? as you've probably noted, It actually gets messier like this then being able to Re each other one time and move it to talkpage if it gets more then that. not only does it gets messier it gets lets comprehensive as well, people won't read both our vote and re in this format. isn't it better to leave it as it is now? I think it works better then editting your vote, allows more comprehensive and easier reading and makes less mess then extencive editting. (ooh and on the strawman as you don't know wether you're vote is going to get a Re you'd have to make the strawman in your vote, that gets a Re from the author showing it for what it is. any further comments don't matter because it has already been disproven and lost it power. the end of the strawman.) User:Vista|Vista]] 15:51, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Comment - That can be extended to the counter-counter arguments, counter-counter-counter arguments, and such forth, i.e. permanent status of being 'uninformed'. You get your chance to make a statement in your vote, the author gets a nominal chance to reply. Whatever you want to say, say it in your vote. FireballX301 04:49, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)edit...and what prevents you (or other non-author REs) from constructing strawman arguments? Works both ways, so allowing multiple Res based on the fact that some people make strawman arguments isn't valid. Again, you have your vote to state your point - if you really really have a heartfelt need to say something, simply EDIT YOUR VOTE. FireballX301 07:16, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

as you've probably noted, It actually gets messier like that then being able to Re each other one time and move it to talkpage if it gets more then that. not only does it gets messier it gets lets comprehensive as well, people won't read both our vote and re in this format. isn't it better to leave it as it is now? I think it works better then editting your vote, allows more comprehensive and easier reading and makes less mess then extencive editting.(ooh and on the strawman as you don't know wether you're vote is going to get a Re you'd have to make the strawman in your vote, that gets a Re from the author showing it for what it is. any further comments don't matter because it has already been disproven and lost it power. the end of the strawman.) --Vista 15:51, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Wow, talk about setting up strawman arguments. I said, if you have something HEARTFELT to say (such as addressing an ad hominem attack), edit your vote. Not for bloody extended debate. You seem to think that addressing the author's counterargument is necessary to inform a voter - if the author sets up an invalid argument, most people are intelligent enough for themselves to figure it out.

Also, I'm able to read my block of votes fairly easily. Not so for yours, since you've got 4 blocks of text in there plus your rather atrocious spelling. FireballX301 20:37, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

- Every thing I wrote earlier was heartfelt, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to write it. Your preference has the problem of who desides what is heartfelt and what is extended debate in a vote edit. With my system it is easy, you just lump it all together and move it. no ever expanding votes through edits (some as badly written as mine) wouldn't you rather have them moved to a discussion page instead? That way you actually keep the vote page more comprehensive. Now I have given explaned many times why I think the current system works best. you on the other hand haven't even as much given one reason why your way would be better other than, IT HAS TO BE DONE THIS WAY!!!! which not quite in role for somebody an a crusade to stop a satirical group of 'bloody dungeon masters of UD' wannabees. So please give me the background on why your way would work better, instead of simply saying how it should be done.

Also, Thanks for pointing out that I, a non-native English speaking dyslectic who had no access to a spellchecker for the last couple of weeks made some posts with atrocious spelling in them. I'm so glad we've moved on from a substancial discussion to personal slurs. It raises the level of it all so much.--Vista 14:29, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Strange occurance 1/15

Anyone else seeing that EVERY suggestion's description text has been repalced by an 'adrenaline rush' description? All the same one? But there's nothign in the history to accoutn for it? --Jak Rhee 20:10, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I posted about this one minute after you. Yes, wtf. 'adrenil rush- requires you to be at least level 5(so u could say that the survivors who have this skill are familiar with the terrain) and will ad 10 ap to your daily ap (could cost 100xp zombie hunter skill)'. This is pretty retarded. --Zaknrfama 20:13, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I very strange occurence it was only around for about 10 min but managed to overwrite all prevoius versions and previous days ones Drogmir 20:40, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Should be fixed now, though someone with a better knowledge of wikis might want to check things.

What happened was that User:Spazticjustin edited Template:Suggestion thus overriding all suggestions. He then moved some pages around, I'm not quite sure exacly which pages. Then I messed trying to fix things, but succeeded the second time. I think. At least the suggestion template is okey now.

Funny thing was that I couldn't find Template:Suggestion history, except for what User:Spazticjustin did. But after I rewrote the page to its correct form, the history came back... --Brizth 20:45, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'm not sure why, but this sort of stuff happened before when I was checking this out late into the night (Im on EST). During those times I thought that my browser or something was screwed up. AllStarZ 20:56, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

MOVED from Suggestion Page

WTF?

WTF! someone changed ALL of the desriptions! Drogmir 20:10, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I know.. but I cant fidn the act in History so I can get the guy banned! --Jak Rhee 20:12, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
The beautiful suggestions page, RUINED! :( --McDave 20:13, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
This appears to be a hack. The edit page is unaffected. - Kyokujitsu no Tenshi 20:14, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Indeed it does... So what do we do abotu restoring the page? --Jak Rhee 20:15, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

go to the last non corrupt history and restore it put a notice up warning people about possible lost votes.--Vista 20:18, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Wow. It is unaffected. This is messed up.. --Zaknrfama 20:16, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Not only that but he spelled adrenaline wrong and the suggestion itslef is bad and overpowered ! Drogmir 20:17, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
A fate worse than death! --Zaknrfama 20:20, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
oh good. i thought my computer was broken... it's not just me who sees that (and what a horrible idea it is too). --Firemanstan 20:19, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - This hack is overpowered, poorly spelled, unbalanced, and frankly not funny.. Thus I vote SPAM --Jak Rhee 20:20, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Uh oh it seems that the hack went through all 500 and something prevoius version and is now encyrpted on there too Drogmir 20:21, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
not only that, all previous day's suggestions are also affected.--Vista 20:23, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
I have a feeling someone was pissed at their precious suggestion getting killed... and this is their revenge. Why else have the hack do THIS? --Jak Rhee
This was once the imperium of truth and justice until horus the traitor cut it down in one fell swoop Drogmir 20:27, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Hey all of the suggestions are back to normal! NO MORE BAD SPELLING!!! Drogmir 20:28, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
To the discussion page with this boys and girls. -Torfin 20:33, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Please move this discussion OUT of the previous suggestion so we can move along. --hagnat 21:05, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

For those wondering what happenned:

When a person moves a page to another page, this act also moves all the previous history to the new page as well. The simple remedy to cure this is, of course, to move the page back, thus restoring all history. The template was still around on the page despite the move because templates will still work through a redirect (and it's a very useful thing too...).

But don't worry - we know who is responsible and shall be getting a warning. Special:Log is where you need to go in order to find who moved a given page (and also handily shows block and upload histories as well.) -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 00:14, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Amazing's New Suggestion Template

I've basically collected some of my past thoughts into a full example.

New Suggestion Template Edits

Let me know what you think. Notice how you can edit the Vote area SEPERATELY from editing the main text of the Suggestion becuase the Votes have their own in-set headline with "edit" link. Authors and Voters would now have an easier time editing their respective areas.

===(Suggestion EXAMPLE)===
 {{suggestion|
suggest_time=~~~~~|
suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc|
suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to|
suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.|
suggest_votes=
====Vote Area EXAMPLE====

''Keep Votes:''
<!-- KEEP VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here
<!-- KEEP VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->

''Kill Votes:''
<!-- KILL VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here
<!-- KILL VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->

''Other Votes:''
<!-- OTHER VOTES **BELOW** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Votes here
<!-- OTHER VOTES **ABOVE** THIS LINE - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->

}}
----

Here is the Result:

Tofu Sandwich

Timestamp:	01:10, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A tofu sandwich you can eat, made by giant Leeches from space.

Votes
Tofu Sandwich votes

Keep Votes:

Keep - I love it. - Pete
Keep - Oh GOD this is the best!! - Jim
Keep - Well.. it's okay. Yeah, I guess good enough! - Harvey

Kill Votes:

Kill - Stinks. - Stinkman
- Re: - Can you explain why on the Discussion page? - Author
  - Re: - No, go hang yourself - Stinkman
Kill - Erm.. This would ruin the game. We don't need Giant Leeches. - Tim

Other Votes:

Spam - I am pretty sure this is Spam. - DonkeyZapper
Dupe - Here is the link: Link! - Linkman

Tally: 3 Keep, 2 Kill, 1 Spam, 1 Dupe.

Thoughts on the above Examples

Keep - But use 2 instead of 3 apostrophes for the votelist headers, because having 3 makes things look more cluttered. So Keep Votes, instead of Keep Votes. FireballX301 01:23, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - What Fireball said. The partitioning will make it easier to read, tally, so on.--'STER-Talk-Mod 05:49, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - The Keep and Kill prefixes shouldn't be on people's votes if it's already divided.. Jirtan 20:40, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - I like it, but shouldn't there be a devider for Dupe/Spam votes as well? - --ramby 20:59, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - Am I the only for who the the example doesn't work? Technically I mean. It seems to mess up the page somehow, so that I can't edit the text below these votes, without actually editing the whole page. Also, the edit button above the votes section (of the example) leads to empty edit section, and to edit this comment I had to click on the last edit link on the page, which is below the comments. Ok, seems to be working now. --Brizth 11:56, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - Nice. Goes hand-in-hand with the vote tally system I concocted. -- Andrew McM 12:52, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep comment Amazing, your new suggestion template does break the page, it's in the subchapter of the votes the ==== I think the easiest way to fix it is just keeping it in one edit space and bolding the part. but I'm crap with a wiki so I'll let you fix it. Briljant, or better yet, it's....amazing (ramby dupe and spam votes are rare enough to keep together, and if they aren't rare a devider wouldn't be needed... well, for long anyway...)--Vista 14:43, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re - I'll fix it. EDIT: fixed -- Andrew McM 14:59, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - Re: Yeah I added the Voting Header so that voters can edit the Votes only as opposed to the entire suggestion. :X -- Amazing 21:49, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Kill - I'd change to keep if you didn't force voters to scroll up and down to find their category. Knowing you only have to scroll to teh bottom is a great convenience. -- Rhialto 15:04, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re - Hmmmm, maybe if you had links just below the vote menu to each voting topic? -- Andrew McM 15:07, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Brian Peppers

Hold on, before you delete this, go to YTMND and look through all the sites there with brian peppers in them. Especially the piano teacher one.

Also look up the snopes entry he has. It's a real face, not photoshopped. FireballX301 03:41, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Okay, so it's a real face of a real sex offender. Does that somehow give that suggestion merit? No, it's still a crappy suggestion, and now it's also immoral. --Arcos 21:19, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Merit? Who said anything about merit? Brian Peppers is hilarious. Just trying to give some background on him. FireballX301 23:29, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  - I pity you if you find a registered sex offender hilarious. No matter how he looks, in fact that makes it worse. --Arcos 01:15, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Necronet and Syringe Manufacturing got put in the game!

Why did I pick today for my doctor to be dead! Arrg! --Zaruthustra 17:59, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Also now that brain rotted zombies can be revived (albeit with difficulty) nobody has an excuse to vote kill on a skill suggestion because "Brain rotted zombies can't get it" --Jon Pyre 19:07, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

So you all know whats gonna happen to my ego now that my suggestion got put in the game. I AM A GOLDEN GOD. :P --Zaruthustra 23:06, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Kevan.. if only knew the pain this is gonna cause us..--Jak Rhee 03:48, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Why won't anyone put my Engineer suggestion in game? Its a nice turtling idea. AllStarZ 00:57, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Editting Suggestions Rule Addition

I think we need to get some sort of official ruling on this. Often a player makes a suggestion it gets soem Keeps and some Kills, then amoung the votes someone mentions a problem they have with the suggestion. The author then goes and edits the suggestion to put the change in. Now this is a problem. Everytime the suggestion is changed it means that every single vote made thus far may be made invalid. People who voted Keep may now wish to Kill and vice versa. On top of thatr alot of peopel wont recheck suggestions they've already voted on. It's really a problem.

As such, I move that we enforce a new rule on the Suggestions Page that enforces that if you learn somethign via the votes and want to make an alteration, you should RESUBMIT the suggestion with the changes, instead of constantly editing the suggestion again and again. People planning on resubmittign would be encouraged, but not required, to "pull" their original sugestion themselves simply to conserve space ont he wiki. Shall we have voting? Yea or Nay?

Clarifications By "pull" I meant, as we have seen ~~Amazing~~ AllStarZ do here, one should delete the content of the Suggestion and the votes, leaving the title, and adding text to indicate there was an author withdrawl. Then they should sumbit the new one as a version 2.0 or whatever.

Also, as FireballX301 pointed out I only meant this for edits that alter the content of the suggestion. Clarification, formatting, and spellign edits can be done at any time. --Jak Rhee 00:08, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yea This is of course my idea so I support it. I honestly think that this is a problem and needs to be addressed--Jak Rhee 20:31, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yea Because if you change something during voting many of the kill votes will be for the original version rather than the new one. Also what happens if keep voters dislike the new one? You should still be able to edit your suggestion for clarity though. --Jon Pyre 22:53, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Comment - I edit my suggestions every now and then to make clarifications due to poor wording or other minor details. I'd vote yea on this only for major changes - stuff like clarification of intent or rewording doesn't merit a resubmit. FireballX301 00:41, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- RE I would agree that spellign fixes would be allowed. I figured thats kind of.. assumed in here, as Im only talkign about CONTENT --Jak Rhee 03:45, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yea - I hate when people constantly edit their suggestions. --Brizth 09:00, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yea - When I posted my first suggestion after joining the Wiki, I searched long and hard for a rule clarifying this - and of course couldn't find one. So I thought it was o.k. to edit my suggestion as it went along. When it got to the point where I was changing the content to a considerable degree, I thought it over and stopped my editing. That's only because I have a strong sense of fairness and thought it was not fair to the previous "keep" voters for me to be editing it that much. I can't say the same for other people, and definitely think there needs to be some sort of clarification on this. It's not fair to suggesters now to be hounding them (even if/though they deserve it) about editing their suggestions when there is nothing in the rules about it. So Yea, I say. --Blahblahblah 00:32, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yea -you know that's been a pet-peeve of mine.--Vista 00:49, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yea - Please and thank you. --Thelabrat 00:56, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Comment - I'd note that we could, instead, embrace the possibility of changing votes, and bring the Suggestions page into something more of a workshopping area, instead of merely a voting area. In such a way, we can see ideas being dynamically altered to the best possible example of their type. In such a case, people can vote Kill, until such time that the suggestion passes muster, after which they can happily change their vote. It does mean that, perhaps, you'll have to keep track of more than one day of voting, but I'd bet you'd come up with better suggestions at the end of it. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 03:54, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
- Re Theoretically thats what the TALK page is for.. finessing suggestions before submition. Also, liek I said, they can ALWAYS resubmit with modifications learn from the killings. It worked with Amazing's suggestion on binoculars. --Jak Rhee 04:47, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Comment - Please don't confuse me and AllStarZ. I have pride, you know. Hope you don't mind, I corrected the mistake. -- Amazing 04:02, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yea - I've long had a policy of changing my vote to spam when a suggestion has been fundamentally changed. Rhialto 13:24, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yea Come on, opposites attract. If we were different, then we probably wouldn't hate each other. In any case, yeah, w/e. Now time for Bed. AllStarZ 01:42, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)

!!!!!!!!

THIS IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS! WE CAN'T GET RID OF ONE TOTALLY SPAM-WORTHY SUGGESTION BECAUSE OF SOME SHORT-SIGHTED NEWB. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

Induce Coma

Timestamp:	5 AP
Type:	Item/Skill Addition
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Survivors are able to enter a deep coma that makes their characters appear as corpses to any onlookers. This would be accomplished through a syringe found in hospitals or via a new skill in the first aid tree. Only usable inside hospitals. Waking from the Coma may require 25AP. This is primarily to offset the disadvantage survivors have when unable to check their accounts for a few days due to whatever and almost always checking back and discovering their death. By entering a comatose state, players can effectively remove themselves from the game for small absences of time.

Votes

Spam - Damn, this is retarded. - CthulhuFhtagn 22:26, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT) Changed to Spam - CthulhuFhtagn 22:45, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Kill - Yeah, what he said. --Marluxia 22:31, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Kill - I'm just baffled by the bafoonery of this. Let's lump it with zombie rocket launchers and call it a day - phungus420 2233 19JAN06 (GMT)
Kill - Ha! This was an early suggestion long ago, only for zombies instead, and it was heavily shot down. --Elderdan 22:33, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - Shadows is a good ability! ..and as well, this should be a crossover skill! --Ev933n 22:38, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam One: Practically impossible to put yourself into a coma without doing severe injuries to your noggin or bringing yourself to the brink of death. Two: This should be named Uber Ninja Death Imitation Technique. AllStarZ 22:41, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam "Zarathustra's Law: As the suggestion list gets bigger each day the chances of a poorly thought out invulnerability/hide suggestion approach one". --Zaruthustra 22:43, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
SPAM Suggestions Dos and DOnts! NO HIDING SKILLS! Next person to suggest one, I hunt them down and personally and savagely beat them AND their mother --Jak Rhee 22:53, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - this is already in the game, if you wait 5 days your character disapears, If you think 5 days to long, put up a suggestion that shortens it to 4 or even 3. I'd still kill it but it wouldn't be spam. as it is now this is a 'ninja-hide' suggestion. --Vista 22:56, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - Being in a coma would just make it easier for anybody to kill you anyway. And if waking from a coma was soo easy the world would be a happier place.--Uncle Willy 23:15, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - Why is this still here? Oh- teh k33Ps. Anyway, no hiding! --Signal9 23:29, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - Agree with above. This is where the proposed change to spamination would help. --Pinpoint 23:59, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
SPAM --Matthew Stewart 00:05, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam = Why would anyone want to be placed in a comatose state ? And injecting itself with the stuff ?! No way man. --hagnat 00:43, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - Yet another "play dead" skill. Woo. The only thing that makes this unique is that you need to use Uber Leet Ninja Drugs to play dead like the Uber Leet Ninja you are.--Arathen 01:00, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - I love comas (ninja self induced comas especially). --Blahblahblah 01:02, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - Comas do not make you invisible or invulnerable --Mikm 01:21, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - Mikm is right, comas make you a free meal. --Arcos 01:48, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - Lets see how many spams this suggestion can get. Velkrin 02:08, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - This makes 16. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:13, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam Isn't "being in a coma at the time of the outbreak" one of the RP reasonings to why some people start out as corpses? Implement this, and that makes no sense, and lets face it, this game isn't nearly as fun if the RP stuff in it is damaged! --Volke 02:15, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Spam - Oh the pain of 1 keep keeping this suggestion alive when it should cleary be at least HAM by now Drogmir 03:41, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

18 Spams, 3 Kills, and all being held back because of one simple little newb. AllStarZ 04:45, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

We can and did. And lets face it, its our fault. We should have passed a new spam policy by now. Somebody will always vote keep given enough time (zaruthustra's second law). --Zaruthustra 07:20, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Just few more days, and then the vote for the new system has been on for two weeks. --Brizth 09:05, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

And now we have two keep voters. Both of whom give BS reasons for keeping. But then every other vote is a spam so I think this one suggestion alone will prove the point of changing the spam rules. --Thelabrat 09:41, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

See? You should be thanking grim, Craw, and myself. Without us, it'd have taken until now for the change in Spam rules to be suggested, and you'd never be able to get rid of this suggestion, like you will be able to in a few days. - CthulhuFhtagn 15:34, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT) (This is partially sarcastic, for those who are incapable of detecting sarcasm on the Internet.)

our gratitude is endless--Vista 17:17, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT) (guess what that was)

Fear not. As Brizth said, soon the new system will be implemented. If Spams equal 2/3rds of a suggestion's votes and there are at least 7 of them Spam can be deleted regardless of how many keeps it has. Also moderators will be able to delete any suggestion with at least 3 Spams and more spams than keeps. Let's implement those things ASAP. --Jon Pyre 23:46, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Author's vote

Why does the author even need to vote? Since he is suggesting it, isn't his keep vote implied? --Mikm 23:25, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Nope, it isn't. Not under the current rules. The author should get to vote since they are a person, the same way politicians can cast a vote for themselves. --Jon Pyre 18:41, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Ande sometimes the author votes kill, thus enabling the easy removal of bad suggestions. Weird but true. --Thelabrat 18:45, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Cleanup

For the love of GOD, can someone who frequents this page more often than me clean up some of the unneecessary stuff on this page.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:15, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Talk:Suggestions/Archive6