View source for Talk:Developing Suggestions

==I've removed my original suggestion==

...from the page and put it on my page. I plan to resubmit it later when I've worked on it, so maybe no one should re upload it.

Also, I have kind of a 'retarded' question, but I'll ask it anyway... Are all the new additions located in the news sections of the game, like, "Survivors are now able to take artifacts from museums to decorate their safehouses" etc.
Are some of those the result of the suggestions page? Have people suggested those ideas and they've been implemented in the game?--[[User:Degree7|Degree7]] 10:04, 11 August 2009 (BST)
:Some of them are [[:Category:Implemented Suggestions|Implemented Suggestions]]. Even if implimented, Kevan often makes little modifications, and has picked rejected as well as reviewed suggestions <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:48 11 August 2009 (BST)</small>
::I think saying he's picked rejected is exaggerating... he's only done it once, I think, [[Implemented_Suggestions#Encumbrance_Warning|and it was on something simple that probably should've gotten to PR anyway]]. --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 15:35, 11 August 2009 (BST)

==Slight Change to the intro==
Any chance we could modify the intro to the page to include mention of item trading/giving along with new guns as being frequently suggested? --[[User:Johnny Bass|Papa Johnny]] 01:02, 20 July 2009 (BST)
:It's not nearly as common so there's not much point, tbh. I'll add <nowiki><big></nowiki> tags over frequently suggested to hopefully make it more noticeable. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:04, 20 July 2009 (BST)

== How is it that Five people run this section? ==
Why is it that every suggestion may have like one random person but like five of the same people ridiculing every suggestion? Does anything ever get passed here? I request a new more democratic way to do these developing suggestions. More people should be allowed to pass through if these five just ignored.--[[User:Dontaco2000|Dontaco2000]] 10:50, 15 June 2009 (BST)
:Umm... what?
:Firstly, developing suggestions is just that, '''<u>developing</u>''' suggestions. These suggestions are never put to a vote, and are never archived (they are deleted off the page after a week of no discussion.) If you mean the actual [[suggestions]] system, that's different, but why are you posting on the developing suggestions talk page? 
:And yes, in the real suggestions system, things [[Suggestion:20080112 Siege Descriptions|do]] [[Suggestion:20070825 Carryall devices|get]] [[Suggestion:20070728 Digestion Change|passed]].
:I suspect what you are really complaining about is the lack of civility shown by some members here - that's fine, ether [[wikipedia:WP:IPAT|IPAT]] and be civil yourself (no one likes hypocrites) Although the main suggestions system does have a "civility" policy (which is really just saying that obvious trolling should be removed off the page,) while the wiki as a whole (which includes this page,) has no civility policy. If you want one, [[A/PD|suggest it,]] but be aware, that it's [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Civil_Conduct_Policy|failed]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Free Speech|a few]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Civility|times before]] (this is for many reasons, which I'm not going to go into here.)
:Also - you seem to be under the impression that Developing Suggestions is controlled by a user, or group of users. No one controls this page. With the exception of obvious [[A/VB|vandalism]], which is dealt with by regular users and [[special:listadmins|sysops]], no one has the right to censor comments, or "control" this page. [[wikipedia:There is no cabal|There is no developing suggestions cabal]].
:Secondly, free speech is central to, [[wikipedia:democracy|democracy]], and that means you can't censor the opinions of those you don't like - even when they are annoying and may not seem to be constructive. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:16, 15 June 2009 (BST)
:Lol. You are so wrong it's funny.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:45, 15 June 2009 (BST)
:An example of why there ''are'' only 5 people who bother to critique Developing Suggestions. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 11:49, 15 June 2009 (BST)
::Consider yourself lucky that you have 5 people who ''care'' who post there. Seriously. And, if you think people are harsh... they're not, generally. 95% of suggestions are garbage. Not usually the fault of the suggester, per se, but because the suggester is a newbie who doesn't know the game as well as those "five people". But those "five people" have pretty much seen all the junk ideas -- about 20000000 times,each -- so their patience for junk is a little low. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:05, 15 June 2009 (BST)
::And if you ignored "The Five"... you'd be ignoring the best advice available... You think we're bad? You never saw Grim in action... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:06, 15 June 2009 (BST)
:::Who are the five? I used to be, you used to be, but i don't think we are anymore...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:08, 15 June 2009 (BST)
::::I am guessing that he thinks I am one of them cos I try to post on pretty much everything that passes through here. Strange if he does though cos I usually reasonably try to be constructive about everything but the most painfully shit suggestions. Of course I was mean to him and that obviously made him sad(der) --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 15 June 2009 (BST)

developing suggestions is a shit page much like the suggestions system in general (close suggestions) --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:33, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Who are the 5? I think i've worked out 3. But who are the others. Please tell. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:14, 15 June 2009 (BST)
:And the 5 are... Zombie Lord, Honestmistake, Pestayel, Wan Yao... and a tie between Rosslessness and Rolfero.  Claim your prize!  Seriously though, you are proposing the opposite of a democracy, or some other weird thing.  --{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 16:37, 15 June 2009 (BST)
::Can I get WanYao's place? I like to think I've made quite a few frequent contributions, and he looks like he's trying to ''escape'' the endless recurring drama-filled stupid that is the Developing Suggestions page. I'm not bashing the page, but it is a bit of a drama-farm.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 15:40, 11 August 2009 (BST)
:::Hmmm, 18 of your [[Special:Contributions/User:Lelouch| last 50 edits]] have been to developing suggestions.  that's a pretty good ratio.  Yes and it seems Wan Yao and Rolfero are less involved these days.  Perhaps you deserve a special prize.  Will a cookie do or would you like something fancy?--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 23:33, 13 August 2009 (BST)
::::hey i want to get on this list too --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 00:33, 14 August 2009 (BST)
:::::If we're talking food-based prizes here, then I'd go for pizza every day. Maybe all of us "ruling users" should get together and form a secret cabal whose only purpose is to allow its members to deny its existence?{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 18:28, 14 August 2009 (BST)
::::::Pfft. We all know that such a group ''doesn't exist''........ --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:46, 14 August 2009 (BST)
:::::::Indeed, and when I get back to my home computer, I'm going to make it ''not exist'' even more.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 19:06, 14 August 2009 (BST)
::::::::Can I be listed as an honorary former non-member from back before the cabal didn't not exist yet? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]] 00:03, 15 August 2009 (BST)
:::::::::No, because it doesn't exist. *writes down Midianian's username* {{User:Lelouch/sig}} 18:52, 15 August 2009 (BST)
::::::::::I'd definately not include mid. In this thing that doesn't exist. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:21, 17 August 2009 (BST)
:::::::::::Already I've said too much and this is my first post on the wiki, ever. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 22:26, 17 August 2009 (BST)

== Music! Music! Music! ==
So where did it go? It was a good suggestion and was on it's way to being peer reviewed...does anyone know what happened to it?--[[User:S1leNt RIP|S1leNt RIP]] 04:44, 8 May 2009 (BST)
:[[Suggestion:20090411_Music!_Music!_Music!|It got there.]] --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 04:49, 8 May 2009 (BST)
Cool, thanks. I never noticed it.--[[User:S1leNt RIP|S1leNt RIP]] 20:22, 9 May 2009 (BST)

== Justification of votes ==

Okay i wasn't sure whether or not this counted as policy discussion so i brought it here, basically i think it's time to remove the need for justification on suggestion votes. Take [[Suggestion:20081019_Crucifixes%2C_read_first%2C_do_not_dupe|Sonny's vote here]], now while not a technical justification it is clear from that exactly what Sonny's opinion of the suggestion is. If "'''Spam''' - bad idea " is legitimate justification why isn't this? I didn't destrike Sonny's vote because Mid is right, technically he didn't justify his vote.

Anyway the whole need for justification is stupid. People can bullshit justifications if they don't like you or whatever, that can't be worked around. So yeah, opinions? Do i go through policy discussion or just leave it here and see what people think? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:42, 23 October 2008 (BST)

:Wiktionary defines Justification as ''"A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence."''. Sonny clearly states ''"this shit"'' in his response, this is his belief of the suggestion and therefore ''justifies'' his Spam vote. I'm therefore unstriking Sonny's vote. There needs to be some sort of clear discussion about this, as anything after the actual vote in question can be considered to be a justification. Deciding if something is a ''good'' or ''acceptable'' justification is an act of moderation and therefore disallowed on this wiki. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:03, 23 October 2008 (BST)
::Yeah. I agree. However i don't really see how we need such a policy. I mean a vote of "'''Keep'''" should be just as valid as "'''keep''' good idea!". Dupe votes obviously have to reference the previous suggestion but other than that the whole thing is stupid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:05, 23 October 2008 (BST)
:::I like the idea of keeping the justification portion as it gives instant community feedback to a suggestion. I am opposed to anything that demands an ''acceptable'' or ''good'' justification due to moderation concerns. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:15, 23 October 2008 (BST)
::Since we're going with hair-thin distinctions here, I'd say the {{CodeInline|<nowiki># justification ~~~~</nowiki>}} means that "justification goes here", not that "anything that's located here is a justification". --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:29, 23 October 2008 (BST)
:::Correct, however Sonny did justify his vote. He voted Spam as he thought the suggestion was shit. By the guidelines he is not required to justify why he thinks it is shit, he must only justify his vote, which he did. Your removal of his vote was incorrect. While ''"The weasels told me to!"'' may not be a ''helpful'' justification, it is still a justification as required by the guidelines. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:40, 23 October 2008 (BST)
::::Well, if you '''''really''''' want to get technical about it, just because Sonny thinks it's "''fucking shit''", doesn't mean that he voted '''Spam''' because of that <tt>;)</tt>. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:03, 23 October 2008 (BST)
:::::The reason I called him on it and said it wasn't justification was because he didn't explain why it was spam. If he thought it was shit, he should have voted kill, not spam. Spam is for duplicates, frequently suggested etc, not for ideas people don't like. If he wanted to call it shit, he could, but should use kill, not spam. [[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 16:39, 23 October 2008 (BST)
::::::Hang on, wait a minute! This wasn't even the response I was talking about! 
"Spam - Cause it had Crucifixes in the title--/~Rakuen~\" is what I was talking about. And I said it because the word 'crucifix' doesn't make it spam. [[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 16:41, 23 October 2008 (BST)
:Justifications are important, as suggestions aren't like policies or deletions. They don't get implemented just because they get over two thirds Keep votes. I'm pretty sure Kevan reads the votes, and they provide helpful information when properly justified. If it was up to me, I'd require better justifications than just "bad idea", but as it's not up to me, I just strike those that are unjustified. Excessive aggressiveness isn't helpful in any way, and takes extra effort over "bad idea". And if you want to make a policy about suggestions, you go [[Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]] (actually, this discussion should be there, not here) and then [[Category_talk:Suggestions#Policy_Votes|here]], not A/PD. Also, removal of mandatory justifications was attempted [[Category_talk:Suggestions/Archive2#Adjust_Justification_2|about a year ago]], and failed. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:26, 23 October 2008 (BST)

==Page Move==
So the old T:S page got moved? Yay! [[User:Linkthewindow|<span style="color: DodgerBlue">Linkthewindow</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Linkthewindow|<span style="color: DarkRed">Talk</span>]] </sup> 21:30, 20 October 2008 (BST)
:Yeah so now its the same mess as before but with a better name {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 04:52, 21 October 2008 (BST)
::Sounds like kevan rudd's policies.... *ba doom chi* --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:54, 21 October 2008 (BST)
:::So true... [[User:Linkthewindow|<span style="color: DodgerBlue">Linkthewindow</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Linkthewindow|<span style="color: DarkRed">Talk</span>]] </sup> 06:10, 21 October 2008 (BST)
::::My god, you're Malton's own Bob Hope! {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 06:17, 21 October 2008 (BST)

==Discussions moved from [[Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions]]==
===Decrease time for deleting abandoned suggestions===
As of the right now I would gladly delete what is very likely at least 80% abandoned suggestions.  However, due to the week mark I cannot and hence, I request that we change the time for deletion to 4 days to save space, preserve neatness, and get rid of the insane annoyance I have with dead suggestions.  No one even bothers to check more than the top five most of the time anyways.

--[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 22:54, 12 August 2008 (BST)

===Discussion (Decrease time for deleting abandoned suggestions)===

Maybe it's just me, but I consider all suggestions.  I prefer leaving the 5 day thing as it is, as anyone who hasn't been around for even a couple day will need that time to catch up if they need to.  Besides, 5 days goes fast enough.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:19, 2 September 2008 (BST)


----

===Reworking Suggestions Heading===
Currently, the top section of the suggestions page is very cluttered. I'm assuming that is because small additions and changes of 'How to' over time has just sort of messed it up. I'd like to get it cleaned up, as we have huge level two headings marking small statements. I think we could get the archives, overflow, and further discussion put into the same category, as well as other small adjustments. This would make it easier for new users to understand the page better. I'd have no problem with working out a format, and putting it here for review. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 12:50, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Alright, I'm starting work on it here.
This is the first version. If you make changes, please make note of them on this discussion page. Thank you.<br><br>
[[SuggestionsTemplate]] <br><br>
- [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 16:07, 8 August 2008 (BST)


====Discussion (Reworking Suggestions Heading====
Fair enough. Create yourself a sandbox page, and make an example of what you want, and well work through it. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 13:19, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Well, putting the whole page under a single level-one header is a bit pointless. Also, the information on how suggestions are cycled should '''not''' be under "Further Discussion". How about something like [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Midianian/Sandbox&oldid=1242880 this]? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 17:58, 8 August 2008 (BST)
:Sorry, I'm still working out a few kinks of my understanding of headers and what not. I've revised it, based on some of your own and some of Ross' suggestions, take a look. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 18:14, 8 August 2008 (BST)

----

===Rewording How To Section=== 
I made this suggestion on the wrong page, so have moved it here. 

I'd suggest the removal of the word 'friendly' from the following text in the 'Suggestions: How To' page:	 
			
"If this is your first time making a suggestion, consider taking it to the Talk:Suggestions page before starting in on the voting process as described below. The ''friendly'' people there can help you avoid formating errors and will let you know if the suggestion stands a decent chance of passing a vote, has glaring problems, or (good or bad) has been made and voted on already in the past."	 

Obviously, all online communities develop their fair share of aggressive gatekeepers who want to piss their angry musk over newcomers to dissuade them from further contribution, but as this is meant to be a friendly introduction to chipping in - often made by more enthusiastic newcomers to the game - the name-calling, self-righteous rage and blanket assumption that people have an agenda to simply serve their own characters are pretty shitty. Assuming you want new contributors, of course.	 
 
====Discussion (Suggestion Tolerance)====	 
Replace with "friendly" --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:27, 27 July 2008 (BST)	 
	 
HAHAHA! This is one of the best suggestions that has ever been made. [[User:Tylerisfat|Tylerisfat]] 22:44, 27 July 2008 (BST)	
  
This is not a Urban Dead suggestion and as such does not go here, and constitutes as spam.--{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 23:13, 27 July 2008 (BST)	 
		 
''"Assuming you want new contributors, of course."'' - We want new contributors, we just don't want you. Go away. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:19, 27 July 2008 (BST)	 
:Indeed. I endeavor to remain neutral in terms of suggestions, but I have no problem with attacking blatant morons who stick their two inch high soap box in the wrong place because they think it's clever. Shape up, Leave, or get banned when you eventually cross the line.--{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 23:32, 27 July 2008 (BST)	 

The suggestion is genuine, as is the justification for why it was made. It wasn't made in order to make me feel clever, but in the hope of altering the text so that new people wouldn't be suckered into thinking that their first attempts at contributing would be met with warmth or helpfulness. 'Friendly' real does seem inappropriate. And which 'line', Techercizer? Apart from misplacement, what have I done wrong?[[User:Ned-kogar|Ned-kogar]] 00:35, 28 July 2008 (BST)
:That's not the place for it, [[Talk:Suggestions]] is for game suggestions development, not proposed reworkings of the system, that goes here(on this page). Other than that nothing, but if you ask me it doesn't seem like you care, just that you wanted to poke the bear or complain to someone, which is a great way to cause drama and get trolled all across the wiki.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:29, 28 July 2008 (BST)

With respect, you're mistakenly second-guessing my motivations. I really like this game, I like the ethos of Kevan's projects, and I was surprised to see the level of hostility by some individuals, particularly given that the Suggestions Development page is meant to be a place to try stuff out and get used to how things are done. I genuinely think it makes the community you have unattractive to newcomers. Removal of 'friendly' would at least make for less of a bruising surprise. [[User:Ned-kogar|Ned-kogar]] 11:09, 28 July 2008 (BST)

Problem is that we have been in operation for a really really long time. As a result almost every conceivable change has been discussed '''to death'''. There have been over a hundred postings of gun suggestions (probably 200+) on this wiki, in both the main system and on the development page. Every single trenchtastic upgrade (Military weapons! cars! etc!) has been shot down so thoroughly that they have the same effect on the suggestions community as an infection. Suggestions has become a [http://gmta.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/swarm.htm swarm hive], with at least three different swarms nesting there, and a number of others periodically sweeping through. Predictably, we wouldnt have this problem if people thought their suggestions through, read the do's and do nots as well as frequently suggested, and searched the damned archives (It takes 10 minutes people!). --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 12:43, 28 July 2008 (BST)

Ok. Fair enough - it seems you have to know the game (and the accepted way(s) of playing it) pretty well before making a suggestion, even in the preliminary suggestion area. Always hard to join a long-established community. Nice terminology, btw.[[User:Ned-kogar|Ned-kogar]] 11:57, 29 July 2008 (BST)
----

===Wiki Suggestion Suggestion===
The mockery suggestions are getting out of hand. Suggestions made clearly to mock other users (Gardenator's 2 suggestions making fun of me, and Zaphod Beeblebrox's 1 suggestion making fun of DrPain) should belong in a different section, like one for Humorous Talk:Suggestions.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a suggestion is being made for trolling purposes instead of as a genuine attempt to talk something out before bringing it to a vote.  If these most recent mocking suggestions are serious and not humorous, put them to a vote now.

There is a definite difference between a suggestion which some people might think is dumb, and a suggestion which is made clearly to mock and ridicule, or as a pure joke.  The latter has no hope of ever going to a vote because the author did not intend for it to ever go to a vote when they made the 'suggestion' but rather for griefing and flamebaiting purposes.

It's bad enough this is happening with sigs (people making long sigs as insults instead of the intended purpose of a signature). Now we have have entire suggestions dedicated to slamming other users (in Gardenator's case, slamming me).  As it stands, all the mock suggestions serve to do are to overload the talk:Suggestions page faster. I'd like to see this change happen as a minimal attempt to have some sort of civility, unless the wiki is meant to be another 4chan. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:41, 3 June 2008 (BST)

:Historically, its a place where all suggestions can be developed. Humourous or otherwise. I mean when the people who remove ''these'' suggestions put themselves up for vandalism, you can see the problem. A few of the older (longer) users of the wiki develop suggestions on their own pages/ ask for direct feedback from other users they value the opinion or knowledge of. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:27, 3 June 2008 (BST) 
::In these cases though the only purpose is to directly insult another user. By doing it on the talk page for developing suggestions they just make it that bit more likely that people will go straight to the main page and a valuable method of refining the good bits from shit suggestions is lost. I don't think putting them up should be treated as vandalism (even though it could easily be argued that it is) but really; funny though "toolboxes" was its just not what the page is for!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 19:39, 3 June 2008 (BST)
:::So? Suggestions? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:43, 3 June 2008 (BST)
::::It is a humorous suggestion and we have a page for those.... its tucked away in a dark corner and barely worth visiting but it is there. The problem is that the nailgun and toolbox suggestions were deliberate (and funny) parody of something on the page they were posted on and would not have worked elsewhere... maybe a rule that such postings can only stay for 24 hours before you must move them to humorous? By then the point has been made and a simple link from the parodied suggestion to the new location would make it easy to find for those who might care but would not SPAM the page and detract from its real purpose.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 19:50, 3 June 2008 (BST)
:::::Fair enough. I guess a policy or decision may have to be made. You don't want people getting treated diffrently. [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning&diff=prev&oldid=857065#Rosslessness]]--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:56, 3 June 2008 (BST)
:::::Parody is allowed humor, just because someone gets butt-hurt doesn't mean we have to indulge it, the suggestions ''were'' funny, they were funny ''because'' they were parodies of crap that was actually suggested. Whether they were meant to be insulting isn't as big of a problem as that Tselita would have been insulted ''anyway''.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:46, 4 June 2008 (BST)
----


The page is screwed up now.  The box on the left that's supposed to be an outside is smashed very narrow and very long, and that's screwing the positioning of everything else.  It looks horrible.  I use IE though, not sure if it matters.  It wasn't this way a month or 2 ago (was normal then).--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:28, 29 May 2008 (BST)
:The table of contents is in a table with the Archives, Further Discussion and How To sections in the cell next to it. I'm guessing this is so that the table of contents doesn't squish the suggestions themselves. And it looks the same in IE and Firefox. --{{User:Midianian/Sig}} 20:46, 29 May 2008 (BST)

== Changes? ==

Is it just me, or is UD getting... played out? We need some new elements to the game :( --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 02:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:It could do with something entirely new, and not zombie or survivor focused, just something that can be enjoyed by both sides. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah. I agree. However, I think the game's only half of it - I came for the zombies, stayed for the community. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

== Too long! ==

The page is getting too long and it's tearing itself apart! The line on the left is broken (it starts halfway down the page) and some kind of mysterious "Media:Example.ogg" has appeared at the bottom of the page and the rest of the stuff at the bottom has been devoured! Whatever do we do!? --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 01:22, 30 March 2009 (BST)

It's happening again. Also, the "Suggestions up for Voting" at the bottom was eaten a long time ago and hasn't been restored. --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 22:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)
:It still [[Developing_Suggestions#Suggestions_up_for_voting|exists]] (unless someone else restored it), it's just empty because people are doing it [[Developing_Suggestions#Advanced_Rot|this way]] now, which I think is better anyway. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 14:33, 10 April 2009 (BST)
::Does anyone know how long is too long before current developing suggestions should be moved to the [[Developing_Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]?  Right now there are 12 suggestions in discussion and they are very long with a lot of templates and some pictures.  What's the cut-off point?  I was thinking 10 discussions and move the least active of discussions after that into the overflow.  Any thoughts on this?--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 00:32, 19 August 2009 (BST)
:::It's too long when it breaks. The discussions can vary in length enormously so it's pointless to assign an arbitrary number. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]] 12:01, 19 August 2009 (BST)
::::Frankly overflow has been used once in the last year. Gnerally when we have about 20 suggestions being developed. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:25, 19 August 2009 (BST)

== Why do people hate new flavor? ==

I've been looking over past logs, and a lot of entries seem to be shot down simply because it was 'too complicated'. Case in point is about a clothing bloodied status getting killed not because it makes the game unfun but because it's 'too complicated'. Bullshit! It's entirely flavor text that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. How could they possibly whine about how complicated it is?--[[User:Parakirby|Parakirby]] 07:23, 27 April 2009 (BST)
:It would help if you linked the actual suggestion you are talking about, however if you are talking about the clothes get bloody 1 layer at a time its worth pointing out that it made very little sense and added nothing but a slight complication on the current situation anyway. As for flavour in general its always going to be a matter of taste and if it adds nothing to the actual game it almost certainly will not get added anyway. That said purely flavour suggestions usually do better than those with actual effects so I can't say I agree that they are always shot down. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:38, 27 April 2009 (BST)
:You '''do''' understand the amazingly flawed logic behind the suggestion at hand, don't you? In real life, how often do '''you''' bleed on the outside layer of your clothes and ''not'' the inside layer? Most users voted against it because it made no sense, not because it was too complicated. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 14:02, 27 April 2009 (BST)
::See, I voted for that suggestion and it seemed to me that what you were getting was other people's blood. Never thought of it the other way around. -[[User:CaptainVideo|CaptainVideo]] 00:06, 28 April 2009 (BST)
It's also about the fact that Kevan has precious little time (as do we all) and people would rather see him implement other things instead of using his time to code something that amounts to pretty much nothing. Additionally, how many people are going to notice "oh my clothes appear to have gotten bloody on the outside/inside first," really? --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 00:10, 28 April 2009 (BST)
:Haha, sorry, I posted this after 36 hours without sleep and staying awake on 2 litres of coke.--[[User:Parakirby|Parakirby]] 14:28, 28 April 2009 (BST)

== Reworking the Intro Again ==

Just here to get some opinions on another, not too major, rework of the current header. You can see the proposed example at [[SuggestionsTemplate]] and you can discuss it on [[Talk:SuggestionsTemplate]]. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 02:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)

== Removal ==

I think we should shorten the kill-time on these suggestions in order to reduce clutter; three days sounds good. Do I need to take this to A/PD, or is that just a local policy?{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 01:00, 19 August 2009 (BST)
:No. Changing it from 7 days to 3 days is counter-productive. It's fine the way it is. Or, I guess 5 days wouldn't hurt. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|BlueViolet}}-- 06:52, 20 August 2009 (BST)
::Leave it as it is. Yes its annoying when some newb comments "this is good" minutes before the 7 days deadline, but its not page breakingly long. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:42, 20 August 2009 (BST)
:The short time limit for suggestions on this page is there because it used to end up with so many templated sigs on the page, that it regularly broke. The only reason we should shorten the time that suggestions are left here is because the page is being broken again <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:51 20 August 2009 (BST)</small>

Here's another removal aspect: we put a notice on DS asking people with no plans to submit their suggestions to delete them; that gets the clearly broken ones out of the way (when the can be convinced), cuts down on the suggestions on the page, and doesn't cause anyone's idea to be taken down prematurely.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 03:39, 6 September 2009 (BST)
:Amen. I second it. --{{User:Brainguard/Sig}} 14:28, 6 September 2009 (BST)
::I also agree. It would help sift out the problematic suggestions as they have been dismissed. Some people already do it, but it would be good to get everyone doing it.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 16:55, 6 September 2009 (BST)

So, do I need to take this to A/PD or just make the change myself?{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 16:27, 7 September 2009 (BST)
:Which one? If you're shortening the time on deleting them, yeah, it probably warrants a vote; if you're just adding a "please clean up after yourself" message, then no, you can just go ahead and do that. --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 19:21, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Lelouch, I don't like your "this suggestion sucks" template.  It is confusing, because it looks as though the suggester is being threatened with a vandalism warning if they do not remove it.  Instead, just draw their attention to the guideline about removing the suggestion if they do not plan to take it to voting.  Some (including myself) will not have noticed it, because they have read the guidelines before and were not aware that they had changed.<br/>
And I agree about shortening the kill time.  Even 3 days is too long.  I'd reduce it to 48 hours or maybe even 24.  You don't need everyone to see it.  If a flaw is so obvious that it makes a suggestion unsuitable for voting, someone else will notice it and comment on it. --[[User:Explodey|Explodey]] 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)