User talk:Gene Splicer

Archived here to unclutter the discussion.

Your Suggestion

This is indeed a major change, something that limits the use of the suggestion changes how it works completely.--Karek^maps?! 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hydra Defense

Came up with this idea, and I'd love feedback/publicity:

	Cut Off My Head, I Dare You!
	This user or group supports the Hydra Defense in order to stamp out PKing in Malton.

--Jon Pyre 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your vote of confidence! If you want, as Swiers suggested we could combine the two suggestions, maybe work on some extra stuff for it, and both sign it. Oh, and It might jsut be the wiki bolloxing up, but somehow your edit wiped my crazy crazy conversation! --Seventythree 14:51, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Meh, for my money the deleting thing was probably the wiki buggering stuff up. I find it hard to trust any machinery more complicated than a corkscrew. So, you want to develop tis on my talkpage, or yours?--Seventythree 15:00, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Vandalism

You have been reported for Vandalism for removing a discussion from the suggestions talk page. Also it is more preferable that when you try and reduce clutter on the suggestions page that you either sent it to the archive or comment it out rather then place it on your user page. This is your first warning for vandalism. - Jedaz 02:33, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Hooray for incompetence (mine) --Gene Splicer 16:03, 12 July 2006 (BST)

New Vote Type

Archived here to prevent existing discussion from distracting from New and Shiny Things in revised suggestion.

Currently there exist four valid votes, Kill(A bad idea, or a good idea badly implemented), Keep(A good idea in all or most respects), Dupe(already suggested and agreed upon), and Spam(Get off our wiki). I propose a new vote class, Revise. Revise indicates the concept has good merit, but needs serious revision. This would allow the author of a poorly implemented skill to know that it's not the concept that people dislike, just the specifics. It would also reduce the use of Spam as a "Strong Kill", since Kill would be a pretty strong statement on it's own. The tally method would be changed as follows

EDIT Pesatyel pointed out a humiliating error in my maths. I have revised the modifiers to take this into account, and extend them my sincerest gratitude.
EDIT Since the main objection so far appears to be that it makes things harder for the people who maintain the suggestions, go here for something quick and dirty http://genejoker.110mb.com/Votes.php updated Now slightly less dirty

See above for link for latest suggested guidelines.

66% or higher keeps: Peer Reviewed
66% or higher kills/spams: Peer Rejected
50% or higher keeps, ~~more revises~~ twice as many revises as kills: Peer Reviewed
50% or higher kills, ~~more revises~~ twice as many revises as keeps: Peer Rejected
All others: Peer Undecided.

An alternative method of looking at this is to tally a Revise as .5 of a kill and .5 of a keep. Or assuming that for every two people who voted Revise, one would have voted Kill and one would have voted Keep. If you check the math, the above fixed quick and easy guidelines result in suggestions going where they would have anyway.

Finally, this may change perceptions of Peer Undecided from a useless waste of wiki space to a stockhouse of imaginative ideas to create "elegant implementations" for. --Gene Splicer 14:55, 2 July 2006 (BST)

So essentially, a revise is equivalent to the current kill (fix your suggestion variety), kill is equal to "this idea just sucks" and spam would be "this idea is beyond sucking, please erase it from existence.", have I got all that about right? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:02, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Exactly --Gene Splicer 16:58, 2 July 2006 (BST)

If Xoid has it correctly, I'd be all for this idea. Cyberbob Talk 15:06, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Would this replace kill? If not, it seems redundant and a bit complicated (Keep, Kill, Revise, Spam, Dupe). I think most people know what they want from the suggestion and vote accordingly. I belive kill has always implied that the suggestion is a revisable one, otherwise they would vote spam (though, as I said, replacing kill with revise would be clearer). And I don't like (no offense) your altered tally systems. Half points just complicate things.

66% or higher keeps: Peer Reviewed
66% or higher kills/spams: Peer Rejected
50% or higher keeps, more revises than kills: Peer Reviewed
50% or higher kills, more revises than keeps: Peer Rejected
All others: Peer Undecided.

If, say 100 people voted on a suggestion and we had 50 keeps and the rest a mix of kills, spams and revises, why should it go to Peer Reviewed if it doesn't even meet the 66% keep votes? Does that mean that "revise" votes have to constitute 32% of the votes since they are half points (basically, 82% of the votes have to be Keep or Revise)? Because you can't have more "revise" votes then "keep/kill" in that instance. It seems to me the most simple way to do it is Keep (like it as is), Revise (the suggestion is okay, but needs work), Spam (the idea will not work no matter what) and Dupe (ONLY of items currently up for vote or in Peer Reviewed).--Pesatyel 05:28, 3 July 2006 (BST)

Yup, my maths were wrong. Please see EDIT above for that part of my response. For the rest: As of now, I see kill used two ways. "Just no" and "I like the concept, but I don't want it being reviewed with these specifics". Keep is also used in two ways, "perfect" and "I don't like the specifics, but I don't want the concept to be rejected ". In theory, this would result in the following

Keep - I like (guy 1)
Kill - I hate (guy 2)
Keep - I like the concept, but you should change some specifics (guy 3)
Kill - I like the concept, but you should change some specifics (guy 4)

So off to peer undecided. But in practice, sometimes guy 3 and guy 4 (or, rather, the groups they represent) both vote keep or both vote kill, so off to rejected/reviewed with you. Revise is mainly designed to prevent this happening, and also to make it easier to pick suggested improvements from straight kills/keeps. The reason for revives counting a spartial votes is because... well, I'll give another example, with more people

Keep - I like! And always will! (guy 1)
Keep - I like! 5% is just perfect. (guy 2)
Kill - A good idea, but make it 4% instead of 5% (guy 3)
Keep - I like, but make it 6% instead of 5% (guy 4)
Keep - I like. 5% is fine. (guy 5)
Kill - This sucks (guy 6)

This skill is pretty well liked, and passes, four out of six! But now revise is an option

Keep - I like! And always will! (guy 1)
Keep - I like! 5% is just perfect. (guy 2)
Revise - A good idea, but make it 4% instead of 5% (guy 3)
Revise - I like, but make it 6% instead of 5% (guy 4)
Keep - I like. 5% is fine (guy 5)
Kill - this sucks (guy 6)

This skill is still well liked, and to the same degree, but since only a max of three people would ever be perfectly happy, there would only ever be a 50% keep vote and it would never leave peer undecided. This is the danger of the revise option, and the altered peer reviewed/rejected requirements are there to reflect this. --Gene Splicer 17:01, 3 July 2006 (BST)

My only problem with this setup is that this would make the people who sort the old suggestions into Peer Reviewed, Rejected, and Undecided do even more work. We're already backed-up as it is. HamsterNinja 00:49, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Are we really that backed up? You could have fooled me. - Jedaz 00:54, 4 July 2006 (BST)

I don't think this is really necessary. Since people have to justify their votes anyway, most people specify what they don't like about a suggestion when they vote on it. "Kill" doesn't really mean revise anyway; it means, "no, I don't like this idea." If someone wants to see it changed, they often say so in their vote. "Spam" means "this idea is irredeemably flawed, and would be a waste of time to continue voting on." –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 01:03, 4 July 2006 (BST)

That's kind of my point... there's no official "I like the idea, but it needs fiddling" vote. Your only official options right now are "Good", "Bad" and "Really bad". Thus results in people with good ideas/poor implementation being discouraged by all the Kill votes and giving up, and people with bad ideas assuming "kill" means "try again" and resubmitting the same bad idea with tiny variations over and over. --Gene Splicer 02:44, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Hey Jedaz, maybe SOMEONE will notice the backlog is gone! Anyways, what it seems to me you are saying you want is an official clarification of what each vote means. It appears you have an unclear idea on what the kill vote means, which, in truth, I can understand.

Keep means the voter likes the suggestion as is.
Kill means the voter does not like the suggestion in its current form and must supply a way to try and make it acceptable.
Spam means the voter does not believe suggestion cannot be salvaged and must supply a valid reason why.
Dupe means the suggestion is exact or very close to a suggestion in Peer Review or currently open for voting.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that most voters view the votes that way, albeit unofficially. However, it appears in your example above, you replaced Kill' with Revise, as I said. Is that what you intended?--Pesatyel 05:33, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Just found this, and to provide my own experience to the case, i sometimes use kills for "i like it but not like that", and some other times i use keeps with the same purpose. The "revise" vote wuold be a nice addition actually. This kind of discussion wont be better in the Moderation/Policy Discussion page for everyone to vote? this kind of decision has to have the approval of the community, and here it's kinda hidden. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^Talk 05:59, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Good point about the backlog Pesatyel. Anyway Matthew although this kind of thing would get more exposure in policy discussion the suggestions page has an area specificaly set up for this kind of thing. When this goes to vote (if decided that it should) then we can put up a notice to go and make people more aware of it. But putting that all aside, I reckon that having a Revise vote wouldn't be that bad. The only issue that I have with it is that it would create more work just by having to take longer to work things out. - Jedaz 06:27, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Keep, Kill, etc are already officially defined, and they are defined as so:

Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit.
Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit.
Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions.

These are the exact definitions of these votes as listed on the Suggestions page. Also, from the "Peer Rejected" page

"This page is for the storage of Suggestions that have failed Peer Review and have been considered Poor and Unworthy Suggestions."

This gives a very different definition of Kill from what Pesatyel gave. Keep means "I like". Kill means "I do not like, and want this sent to the darkest hole of the wiki"(Peer Rejected). Spam means "Hole not dark enough. Make new hole". There is no "I kind of like" or "I could like" allowed, even though this is often how I (and other people?) feel about suggestions. An official vote for thi would make it much easier for voters to say what they actually mean, and for suggesters to understand how their suggestions are going down. I understand that this would lead to more work maintaining the pages, which is why I tried to post the simplest guidelines I could think of that worked. However, the only Maintainy person to voice in so far has seemed nominally in favour, whch is encouraging. (I have also changed the example to be a bit clearer, Guy 6 was supposed to be voting "Kill" the whole time. Brain hiccups FTW.) --Gene Splicer 02:38, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Yes, I'm aware they way I interpret the meaning of each vote is different from the "official" interpretation. But I feel the "official" interpretations are a little too vague.--Pesatyel 05:17, 5 July 2006 (BST)

It's not that the official votes are vague, it's just that they really don't cover all existing situations. Because of this, people are forced to add additional meanings to them to allow them to vote how they actually feel. Exactly what a keep or kill vote means then becomes subjective to the person voting, which defeats the entire purpose of a count-based voting process. This suggestion introduces the new vote to reflect the areas which they do not cover, so people do not have to distort the existing votes to fit around what they want to say. --Gene Splicer 14:14, 5 July 2006 (BST)

How about dividing it up so it's like this

66% or more of keeps is peer reviewed
75% or more of reviews and keeps is undecided
50% or more of kills is peer rejected
The rest is undecided

What do people think of that? I reckon it's nice and simple and easy to calculate. I'm a bit tired at the moment so I may not have thought about it properly so I'll have a look at it again tomorrow when I've had some more sleep. - Jedaz 13:37, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Well, it's doesn't say where, for example, a 70% keep and revise mix would go. Is less than 75% keeps and revises, but less than 50% kills too. Reducing the rejected requirement to 50% is a bit harsh. Whatever the end guidelines end up being, I think 66% keeps = reviewed, 66% kills = rejected should remain intact. I'm off to bed (I on GMT) but I will post some alternative guidelines tommorrow. --Gene Splicer 02:27, 7 July 2006 (BST)

What do you mean? It says that the rest of the suggestions that don't fit into any of the categories go to the undecided category. Anyway the reason I chose 50% for peer rejected is because thats what it currently at so I reckon thats fair, we don't want to change the system too much just to add in one type of vote. - Jedaz 09:23, 7 July 2006 (BST)

It appears I have been reading the qualifications for peer rejected incorrectly for four months now. How annoying. That said, go here http://genejoker.110mb.com/Votes.html --Gene Splicer 17:56, 7 July 2006 (BST)

My friend, it's a really good system, but you forgot to implement "Spam" votes in the formula! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^Talk 06:09, 8 July 2006 (BST)

Revive notification

As an alternative to resubmiting the suggestion, you can add a "Note:" at the end of your suggestion's description, as long as it's for clarification purposes and doesn't change any of the mechanics of it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 20:53, 12 July 2006 (BST)

Hm?

What was this edit about? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 23:56, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Most likely an edit conflict then. I'll put it back. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 00:22, 3 September 2006 (BST)

Necronet Upgrade

Congratulations - your suggestion made it into Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo 21:05, 10 October 2006 (BST)

Advanced Digestion / Fallback

Cheers - the suggestions you gave me a big help with both made it into Peer Reviewed: Advanced Digestion and Fallback. --Funt Solo 22:35, 16 October 2006 (BST)

Starting Equipment 1.1

Finally got around to posting this one up. --Funt Solo 11:30, 22 October 2006 (BST)

And it's in. --Funt Solo 16:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Record Last Action

You see one wiki-peep getting the Record Last Action suggestion into Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo 23:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Power Network Monitoring Board

The Voting Network Monitoring Board indicates that your Power Network Monitoring Board suggestion made it into Peer Reviewed with an astonishing 100% Keep votes. --Funt Solo 12:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

On the suggestion Let the booze run freely, to let factories manufacture beer, you said you would like to see some factories create things such as generators, but not fuel cans? I'd just like some elaboration, as I would see it beeing the other way around, since fuel cans are "consumable items", such as ammo and FAKs, while generators are not, and it would seem broken to have generator factories, would it not? (I'm thinking over a new version, and this comment intrigued me, so I'm asking for clarification) -Certified=Insane^☭ 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Format!

Hey there, I fixed a minor format thing on you suggestion response. If you precede your re with a ':' to indent it, it might look alright but it'll screw up the counting. You should use a '#' instead.

E.g.

1
2
- RE
3

vs.

1
2

RE

3

See what I mean? Check the code for comparison.

--burgan 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pking

I was just reading through the archives of talk:suggestions and just read your post about PKing. I think it's one of the best logical explanations of the "pking is overpowered" belief I hold. Not that logic will do any good. --Jon Pyre 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Want to start up a new discussion? I don't think it'd make a difference though. We've gone past the age of voters swayed by reason. Now everyone just wants to protect their own little patch of turf. --Jon Pyre 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Advanced Hand-to-Hand Combat

Your suggestion strolled into Peer Reviewed and took down many lesser suggestions with it's street fighting techniques. --Funt Solo 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lunge

Your suggestion is busy lunging at the others in Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo 12:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shooting Yourself

Um, good idea, but it's not my suggestion. Tell that to Protomorph. --J Muller 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

S'okay. Happens to all of us sometimes.--J Muller 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Be more careful...

Hey, just letting you know to be more careful in the future. It looks like you accidently removed the archive section on the suggestions talk page. Please be more careful in the future so this doesn't happen again. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Done...

...on your implemented suggestion: Revive Notification. --Funt Solo 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Machete

Care to check the Machete suggestion again? It now has an axe buff too that makes it more powerful than the machete. --Cataphract 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Encumbrance Fiddling

Suggested second-go stats on talk page.--Funt Solo 17:36, 1 April 2007 (BST)

Advanced Free-Running

As it says on the suggestion page,

"First, you would always have and be able to successfully use the "exit building" option, even in buildings over VSB."

You can't enter a building over VSB, you can only exit.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MEMS|^DHPD 02:44, 13 May 2007 (BST)