Category talk:Suggestions

Page Discussion

Please put new topics at the top of the page.

Archives

Archives for this page are here

Discussion About Talk:Suggestions

As Talk:Suggestions was moved to Developing Suggestions, discussion about that page now takes place at Talk:Developing Suggestions.

Discussion About Category:Suggestions

Put talk about the page Category:Suggestions here

Please add developing suggestions to Category:Suggestions?

Right now, Developing Suggestions isn't in the suggestions category, and in fact there's no link to it at all on the suggestions page (although there is a link to its talk page). I think that adding Developing Suggestions to the suggestions category, and putting a link to it in the appropriate section of the suggestions page, would be a small improvement- but hesitate to do it myself. I don't know if there's some kind of procedure for it, and dislike edit reversions and nasty comments about how I should read the rules before editing- and maybe there would be none, but still, seems easier just to suggest that somebody else do it. Especially when dealing with something as notoriously inflammatory as suggestions. Thanks! --FT 12:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm, there is a link on the suggestions page? It's like, the first thing on there: "Suggestions under discussion." And it's also in the category already.... I am confused.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ohh, I was too, then. I was looking all over that page for "developing suggestions"- I expected that the link would have the same title as the page.--FT 13:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix this system

After 5 years of playing UD I was about to make my first suggestion, but this setup is SO FUCKED UP I'm not gonna bother. It's easier to deal with the DMV. I know that if I try it and get one little thing wrong, there'll be nothing but bitching and moaning. So I'm not going to bother. Ever wonder why so few player actually use the wiki? There's part of it. -- Grogh 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was working on a reboot of the entire suggestions system a few months back, but gave up on it after awhile. A good chunk of it can't be easily simplified, however, which is quite unfortunate, since that's the part you're likely having issues with. —Aichon— 01:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can see to simplify it, is to go back to something like the old system, where all new suggestions go on one page, and then rely on others to do the hard work of moving them to archives. It was quite backed up when this system started, but then, there were many more suggestions at that time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:49 12 March 2011 (BST)

I wish it were easier to search for previous suggestions. Searching for dupes is not easy. Pages are categorized in chronological order which helps piss all if you're looking for specific suggestions. I'd go back and recategorize them so they are listed by title or by theme. Some sub-categories would help too. That idea was started it seems but could be expanded. ~ _{15:42, 12 March 2011}

Going through the categories again, I think I could come up with a better sub-category system. Unless someone is for some reason opposed, I'll put somehing together. All of he archive suggestions will need to be edited with new category info so I'll need some other ops to help. It might take a few days to get the system up also. A little hesitant to take on another project but this one is worthy. ~ _{16:53, 12 March 2011}

I started on a new categorization system which aims to list both rejected and reviewed suggestions into type-based categories. I based it off the existing peer reviewed system. Should hopefully cut down on dupes. I'll come back to it when I've got a bit more time. ~ _{18:31, 13 March 2011}

Suggestion Discussion

Put talk about the process of posting and voting for suggestions here.

Humorous suggestions

Humorous suggestions in the main suggestion system has, for as long as I remember, been viewed as vandalism. I think it is time to remove that. I see two main options. 1 is to allow humorous suggestions to stay on Category:Current Suggestions, but be moved off to Category:Humorous Suggestions after voting is finished, if it gains a number of "Humorous" votes. The other option is to simply put it into Category:Humorous Suggestions as soon as it is deemed humorous, and just leave it open. People who put humorous suggestions up wouldn't be taken to vandal banning (unless they went overboard and spammed the page, perhaps). The humorous suggestions section is an underused area of the wiki, and this may revitalise it, and encourage a bit more light hearted fun -- boxy 09:28, 23 July 2011 (BST)

I'm ok with this. Never should have been escalatable in the first place.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:04, 23 July 2011 (BST)

That rule was always absurd. I would go with the second option, though the first is fine as well. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:57, 23 July 2011 (BST)

How about if it gets 3 Hum... votes it gets moved to the different voting section? --Rosslessness 16:59, 23 July 2011 (BST)

This.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:28, 23 July 2011 (BST)

Just leave it in the main suggestion voting area. There's no need for another page and it's not like were overflowing with suggestions up for vote.       17:45, 23 July 2011 (BST)

But the other page already exists, with a long and illustrious history. --Rosslessness 17:50, 23 July 2011 (BST)

The pages would just be recategorised. I'm thinking that leaving them linked in the current suggestions area for the normal voting period would be best (prehaps limiting humorous ones to 4 or 5 maximum, at any one time, before they get cycled off?) -- boxy 23:36, 23 July 2011 (BST)

Just close or classify after 2 weeks like everything else. No need for needless complications. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:13, 24 July 2011 (BST)

But humourous suggestions (that arn't deemed vandalism anyway) have always been left open for "voting" indefinitely. Seeing as they arn't suggestions that Kevan is likely to impliment, I don't see a need to close them at all, just as long as they're cycled off the "serious" suggestions at some stage -- boxy 04:15, 24 July 2011 (BST)

Which is possible, that can be determined while cycling the suggestion and removing it from Current sugggestion voting and listing it under humorous. There's at least two or three already done in that mathod ages back. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:35, 24 July 2011 (BST)

What is the best way to determine what gets categorised as humourous, though? We could have a system like dupes, where 3 votes qualifies it, but that is open to abuse, where people can just say things like auto shotguns are humourous because they are laughable. Would it be appropriate to make it a sysop (team) decision? Obvious examples can be done on sight, talk page discussion otherwise -- boxy 23:36, 23 July 2011 (BST)

There's already a vote out system in place iirc. Works like spam. No reason to change that really.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:11, 24 July 2011 (BST)

Ah yes. Just make humourous a pseudo-spam vote (which includes the sysop spammination clause). Seems to work for me -- boxy 04:15, 24 July 2011 (BST)

Question. If the below vote passes, what are we doing with users who already have previous vandal incidents over Humorous Suggestions? Are we striking them, or are we just going to say something like: "Tough Titties." --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:08, 1 August 2011 (BST)

AKIAK changes to policy do not make bannings and warnings retroactively repealed. ~ _{21:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)}

I assume that someone could complain and cite their record in order to get it reassessed? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:59, 1 August 2011 (BST)

I'd hope so. Common sense says that it should be, since the rule that forced those vandalism rulings was stupid in the first place. You could kinda imagine it as a twist on criteria 2 on A/DE, though if you want to make it official, you could just get the current sysops to invalidate the old ruling, I suppose. —Aichon— 00:47, 2 August 2011 (BST)

I don't have any myself, but I know that others have in the past, so I figured since we were voting on changing how it works that we should also have an idea of what to do when users come up and ask to have their previous cases reversed/repealed. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:05, 2 August 2011 (BST)

A vote here, on the suggestion system has no effect on past escalations on A/VB. If you want to go back and strike those, you'll need a policy discussion. But I'd be against it. The rule was in place, clearly stating that misuse of the suggestions system in that way was vandalism. Don't open a can of worms like rearranging multiple user's vandal data. It will just cause a huge clusterfuck, which is unnecessary given the ease of washing off warnings these days -- boxy 13:11, 2 August 2011 (BST)

We don't retroactively punish users for new rules and neither should do, we should neither retroactively reprieve them. There is already A/DE and permaban amnesty to deal with changed rules. -- Spiderzed█ 22:03, 2 August 2011 (BST)

I think you both are being overly legalistic. Yes, they broke a page rule. So what? The rule shouldn't have existed, people should never have been punished for it, and the vast majority of people affected by it never acted in bad faith in the first place. I'm not suggesting anyone should go through and clean up A/VD on behalf of those users, however, since I do believe that they should have to do the work if they want to clear their name. But I would suggest that they should be able to file a valid A/DE request on the grounds that their vandalism case has since been invalidated by this change in the rules. Besides which, all of the policy changes I can think of which invalidated old rules explicitly stated that old users who broke the rules would not get a reprieve, while this one does not, so it only makes sense that they'd be allowed to do so. —Aichon— 23:07, 2 August 2011 (BST)

Not really, it was against the rules at the time. The rule functioned to clear suggestions of clutter and while there were infinitely better ways to do it this was the one chosen at that point in time and was inarguably the rule of the land. As a general rule of thumb only perma votes get that level of consideration that we weigh past incidents and their level of validity. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:36, 2 August 2011 (BST)

I just raised the question formally, since Karloth jokingly asked it in voting. I'd rather we set something down when the humorous suggestion change goes into place that specifies that past infractions are not subject to repeal in any way other than the normal A/DE process, so as to avoid any misconceptions that people might have. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:05, 3 August 2011 (BST)

I imagine you'd have to be pretty bloody retarded to have that misconception. Or just really naive. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:02, 3 August 2011 (BST)

We're talking about the suggestion pages here. I believe that comes with the territory. How many times has A/VB had various requests or arguments that fit that bill? A lot? Sure. Hence why you spell it out. Also, the question was already asked. Sure, it was in jest, but it still came up, and we're not even done voting on it yet. Hence why some sort of "No, you can't get previous infractions reversed due to this change." is a pretty simple question to have clarified and formally stated before it goes any further. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 09:20, 3 August 2011 (BST)

I'm sure this discussion is more than enough in that regard should it ever come up, the consensus among sysops here seems pretty clearly to be no. Just point them here if they have any such questions. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:26, 3 August 2011 (BST)

............................................________

....................................,.-'"...................``~.,

.............................,.-"..................................."-.,

.........................,/...............................................":,

.....................,?......................................................\,

.................../...........................................................,}

................./......................................................,:`^`..}

.............../...................................................,:"........./

..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../

............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../

.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/

..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}

...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../

...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../

............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"

............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\

.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__

,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,

.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\

...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\

................................`:,,...........................`\..............__

.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``

........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\

...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................` -- boxy 10:15, 3 August 2011 (BST)

Epic!       14:21, 3 August 2011 (BST)

wow a scholar and and artiest--User:Sexualharrison16:26, 3 August 2011 (bst)

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page. All policies, along with their associated votes and discussions, are governed by the Voting Guidelines established for this section.

Humourous Rules Change

As discussed above, this vote, if successful, will no longer require humourous suggestions in the main suggestion area to be ruled as vandalism. However, "Humourous" votes will allow a humourous suggestion to be removed from the current suggestions category, and placed in the humourous suggestions category. Just like "Spam", 3 "Humourous" votes will allow sysops to move a suggestion, and 7 will allow anyone to remove it (if it fits the criteria of humourous).

The advice to suggestors section (#10) will be changed from

Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and treated appropriately by sysops. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page.

to;

Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are to be re-categorised into the humourous suggestions category. If you post a joke suggestion please put it on the Humorous category yourself.

The vote rules will be changed to include an additional valid vote, "Humourous".

Humourous, for suggestions that are obviously intended to be satirical, or of comedic value only.

Suggestions can be removed with Humourous votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.

The cycling instructions will be changed to describe how to change the category, and remove references to vandalism cases and the use of {{notfunny}}. Also added to this section will be a description of the eligibility of humourous removal. Eligibility for removal to the humourous section is acheived if there are at least 7 Humourous votes. In addition, a Sysop can if they so choose, cycle any suggestion as humourous, regardless of time spent under voting, if the suggestion has three or more Humourous votes (with their own vote included).

This will have the effect of removing the automatic vandalism ruling for humourous suggestions, and allow us to keep them open for voting, just in the more appropriate area -- boxy 07:52, 1 August 2011 (BST)

For

1. Long overdue -- boxy 07:52, 1 August 2011 (BST)
2. As Boxy. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:44, 1 August 2011 (BST)
3. See no harm in this. -- Spiderzed█ 12:03, 1 August 2011 (BST)
4. Seems rather unneeded to me but I suppose it's a good plan if we ever start getting high volumes of suggestions again       12:19, 1 August 2011 (BST)
5. Too many times I've had to rule original and hilarious suggestions as vandalism just because they're "funny". The fallout coinciding with the unnecessary punishment for a bit of fun (when the off-hand humorous thing is so often allowed on other more serious parts of the wiki) isn't worth it. one condition for me; and that's that blatantly repeated attempts at using the suggestions system solely for humorous purposes still fit within the vandalism criteria. though I don't think that'd be an issue if brought up on a case by case basis -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:52, 1 August 2011 (BST)
6. I agree with DDR - blatant abuse of the system is still worth a trip to VB, but automatically ruling a suggestion as vandalism simply because it was "funny" is overly strict. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 14:52, 1 August 2011 (BST)
7. I don't think constructive humour of any kind should be vandal-worthy, especially not when it's in the almost-dead suggestion system. 15:58, 1 August 2011 (BST)
8. Despite the fact that the current system means that I can submit stupid suggestions and not be guilty of vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:49, 1 August 2011 (BST)
9. finally --User:Sexualharrison17:35, 1 August 2011 (bst)
10. Sure. It's silly that people who are just trying to have a little innocent fun get slapped with A/VB cases. That's the sort of thing that leaves a sour taste in their mouth and drives them away from the wiki. —Aichon— 17:51, 1 August 2011 (BST)
11. Asheets 19:57, 1 August 2011 (BST)
12. For, but somewhat begrudgingly. I'm suspect we'll see a flux of humorous suggestions in the main suggestions space when this passes. ~ _{20:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)}
13. for - assuming that the same caveats as required by "spam" are also applied to "humorous" votes (spec. moving restrictions re: ratio of keep/humorous votes). Also, my bloody warnings should be repealed! Cocks. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 20:15, 1 August 2011 (BST)

    You can't have them repealed but just looking at the timeframe of a few of the warnings you can likely be de-escalated. Hqven't looked at your conteibs yet so don't hold me to that. ~ _{20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)}

    You only had one escalation for this kind of thing that I could find, and that's a good example of exactly why humourous removal can't be the same as spam. If a joke suggestion is actually funny, it will get mock keeps regardless of it's intent -- boxy 22:26, 1 August 2011 (BST)

    Yeah, I wasn't being too serious with it, just wondering how the wiki dealt with retroactive warnings. Thanks for finding the jetpack suggestion though, it made me laugh! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:25, 2 August 2011 (BST)

    I'm asking that very question up here, if you are interested. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 12:17, 2 August 2011 (BST)

14. Funny = fun = better for the game. --Uroguy^TMZ 21:26, 1 August 2011 (BST)
15. Too many times sysops don't realize that nothing is forcibly escalatable without intent regardless of stupid policy writing. Also since I kinda took a hand in determining the new rules i'd be amiss to disagree with them now. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:16, 1 August 2011 (BST)

    And no, that's not a snipe at DDR. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:18, 1 August 2011 (BST)

16. Fuck tha police. -- Cheese 23:31, 1 August 2011 (BST)
17. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:10, 2 August 2011 (BST)
18. Humourous :P -- †  talk ? f.u. 14:31, 3 August 2011 (BST)
19. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 18:44, 3 August 2011 (BST)
20. Rubber stamp. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:41, 6 August 2011 (BST)

Against

1. De-criminalization good, zombie catapults bad. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:29, 9 August 2011 (BST)