Category talk:Suggestions: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Wow, I typed thisup before I went to sleep, it's been sitting here all this time too. Haw haw haw)
(Undo revision 2086121 by ZOMBIEMANISBACKAAGAIN (talk))
 
(233 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
==Discussion About [[:Category:Suggestions]]==
==Discussion About [[:Category:Suggestions]]==
''Put talk about the page [[:Category:Suggestions]] here''
''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! --[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] 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.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 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.--[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] 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.
-- [[User:Grogh|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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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 <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:49 12 March 2011 (BST)</span></small>
:::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. {{User:Vapor/sig}} <sub>15:42, 12 March 2011</sub>
::::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. {{User:Vapor/sig}} <sub>16:53, 12 March 2011</sub>
:::::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. {{User:Vapor/sig}} <sub>18:31, 13 March 2011</sub>


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


===SPAM Change===
I propose we increase the minimum time a Suggestion must remain before being removed as SPAM from 6 hours to 3 days. At least that way people could actually weigh in before something disappeared. It would also allow an Author a better chance to remove a Suggestion from Voting to rework it.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:04, 6 June 2009 (BST)
:I'd support that... the 6 hour limit was a compromise when it last got discussed and while it works ok i think it should be extended to at least 24 hours. Given that many people don't log on over weekends 72 hours is perfectly justifiable. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 21:18, 6 June 2009 (BST)
:Instead, how about suggestions go through Developing Suggestions and have people weigh in on it there? --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 21:22, 6 June 2009 (BST)
::Don't start with me Bob. You know I mean that 6 hours is NOT long enough to get a good average response on a Vote and is far too easy to abuse.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:26, 6 June 2009 (BST)
:::The entire system is too easy to abuse.--[[KyleStyle_For_Everything|<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> ]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:36, 6 June 2009 (BST)
:::Don't start what? Disagreeing with you? It still takes seven votes minimum with 2/3 majority to spaminate a suggestion. If you don't want your suggestions spaminated, don't make them spammy or take them to DS first so people can tell you "this is spammy, and a bad idea." --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 22:07, 6 June 2009 (BST)
:DS mandatorization is my next project. Don't blow it.--[[KyleStyle_For_Everything|<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> ]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:25, 6 June 2009 (BST)


===[[User:Rosslessness/Random Rambling/Sandbox36]]===
Put talk about the process of posting and voting for suggestions here.
 
5 minutes work. Its not perfect by any means, but all parts of both templates now seem to be in agreement about what the procedure is. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:09, 1 June 2009 (BST)
 
===Suggestion Justifications===
As many of you have seen from the edit frenzy involving Iscariot and I, there's a slight problem with the suggestions rules/guidelines. For one, there's a contradiction in the middle of it. Two, there's a severe lack of definition in what would be considered a valid justification. And because I know Iscariot won't make a move to fix anything, I suppose it's me or someone else. Might as well try now, right?
 
If nothing else the contradiction should be fixed at least. We can:
 
1. Remove the line in the guidelines that states
 
"It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion."
 
2. Add in a bit of info stating what would be a valid definition.
 
3. Remove the requirement of a justification entirely.
 
Number one should be a definite thing to do, if number three is ignored.
 
My reasoning behind point two is because someone saying "Keep - WTF? --Mr. Signer" shouldn't be more of a justification than "Keep - --Mrs. Signer". There really is no justification behind Mr.'s vote because WTF? doesn't say anything worthwhile in it at all. I mean, sure it's saying something, but are those four characters telling anything about why the voter believes the suggestion is a good idea? No. But it still is allowed because it's still a justification according to many users.
 
My reasoning behind number three is double pronged. For one, even if we remove the justification clause, there are still people who will justify their votes. If we remove the clause, the only people I'm expecting to not write anything other than their votes are the people who pretty much do that now. For two, Developing suggestions takes care of most of the commentary in votes as it is. If it goes there first, more often than not there isn't a need to really say anything because it's already been discussed on DS.
 
Thats all I have time for right now. Discuss, be back in about 6 hours.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:34, 29 May 2009 (BST)
:I'm all for your second proposal (fix your numbering, btw,) - removing the requirement to justify entirely. As you've said, a lot of discussion goes on on D:S anyway, and "Keep - It's good" doesn't say much more then "Keep." Likewise, "Kill - this fails hard" doesn't say anything more then just a simple "Kill". {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 02:30, 30 May 2009 (BST)
::I actually think all votes should use justification. So what, it makes things a little harder, but I feel people overlook the fact that the vote itself doesn't matter as much as Kevan's ability to read through the votes, and understand the community's input/opinion on the suggestion at hand. A lot of peer reviewed stuff doesn't get put into the game, and I think, if people want peer reviewed suggestions to actually have a higher chance of making it into Urban Dead, we should be doing everything we can to give Kevan a better idea of how we feel about a suggestion/tweaks we would recommend. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 03:09, 30 May 2009 (BST)
::I think that's the third proposal, not second (you really should fix the numbering, SA). Anyway, I agree on removing the requirement, though it should still be '''STRONGLY RECOMMENDED''' (just not mandatory). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 03:17, 30 May 2009 (BST)
:::Exactly. Forcing people to justify just leads to votes like "kill - it sukxorz" {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:54, 30 May 2009 (BST)
::::Yeah, so think about it if you were Kevan. "Kill- it sukxorz' is just as productive as "Kill". So why not make it mandatory and force people to outline their problems/praises with the suggestion? I just think it'd help Kevan, no matter whether the suggestion got reviewed or rejected. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 06:30, 30 May 2009 (BST)
:::::Because everyone will put stupid and inane justifications as it is. And even if we make a good enough explanation as to what is valid, people will find a way around it.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:32, 30 May 2009 (BST)
::::::Stupid/Inane justifications= struck by sysop. If we get nazi on such a rule, we would have full reason to be nazi on the others too. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:35, 30 May 2009 (BST)
:::::::Who gets to decide if it's stupid and/or inane? If it's sysops, then whats preventing us from being a dick and "considering" a-user-we-don't-like's every vote is inane? What about the people that say "Keep - I like it" or "Kill - I hate it"? Would there's be a valid justification even though it helps Kevan in no way decide whether an item is added to the game or not?--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:50, 30 May 2009 (BST)
::::::::I'm saying we already have the power to remove 'inane' votes, so there isn't even a change there from our normal status. Misconduct is what prevents sysops from ruling against people just because we hate them, as the current system already implies :/ And the people that do that just jip the system like they currently do under the same circumstances. Either way, it will strongly encourage the community to pipe up in areas which they feel might need to be heard, etc. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 13:11, 30 May 2009 (BST)
:::::::::No, right now all we can do is strike out unjustified votes (which everyone can do) and use the Note to remove trolling votes. Inane ones are still technically valid, as long as they have some sort of justification. Honestly though, I don't think it will encourage anyone to do anything more than they already do. The ones that seem to want to be heard are the ones who already are heard and are vocal about things. Also, what if someone really has no reason other than they like it? They can't place why, but they just like it? Is an "As above" really helping Kevan in the end? No, not really. If they can get by with it as a justification, then why not just remove the requirement altogether? There will always be crappily-justified votes that are allowed to slip through no matter what we do (unless we make the suggestion system completely hated with the requirements for a single vote), so if we just remove the requirement it removes all the hassle. People still get to justify their vote whenever they want to, but they're not forced to if they don't want to/it's already been explained by someone else.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 13:26, 30 May 2009 (BST)
:::::::::::Someone may want to change "''[[Template:SugVoteRules|Inane Vote Removed]]''" then. I'll still stand by the belief that we have the obligation to give Kevan as much input as we can, forced or not. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 14:28, 30 May 2009 (BST)
::::::::::::If you loo, he removed it using the Note, which is supposed to be reserved for trolling. You could consider that example a good example of trolling+removal, I personally don't though. But an inane vote has, and probably will be for a long time, been allowed.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:34, 30 May 2009 (BST)
:::::The problem is that some suggestions you simply don't have anything to say about (other than "I like it" or something similar). This is especially true of Keep votes and simple suggestions (and this is the reason why I stopped persecuting unjustified votes).
:::::Also, making them non-mandatory will not suddenly make everyone stop justifying their votes. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 14:45, 30 May 2009 (BST)
 
Exactly where does it say that anyone (even sysops) can remove a vote for not having justification? The little note box says that votes '''must''' be justified, signed and timestamped but the actual rules have only ever said that justification is strongly suggested meaning that it is not enforcable. Is there a policy which I have not read that deals with this in clear and concise terms... --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:52, 30 May 2009 (BST)
:"Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote. " Point three in the invalid votes section. It's always been customary (Since the justification rule was added without a vote if I'm not mistaken) that anyone can help maintain parts of the wiki. It's kind of the point of free editing for all. Although you get people that get nazi-istic every once in awhile, the basis tends to work. Here though, it's not just the people, it's also the guidelines and rules. They're unclear and need to be changed in some way.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 18:35, 30 May 2009 (BST)
::So it says in the same section that its a strong recommendation and that its against the rules... One of those needs to go and I think it should be the requirement to justify because without strict, impartial policing making people justify just will not work. Apart from anything else "I don't like it" is a valid and completely pointless justification; do we really need to make everyone with nothing constructive to say type that?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:27, 31 May 2009 (BST)
:::Yep, which I state that contradiction in the beginning of this section and that it at least needs to be fixed. :) --<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:54, 31 May 2009 (BST)
I'd just like to pop in and state my patented, trademarked, copyrighted claim that "Justifying your votes wells isn't hard if you're voting legitimately." Most suggestions are pretty cut-and-dry when it comes to why you would want to vote one way or another. Failing that, "As X" or the lesser "As above" is also extremely easy. Heck, I was hesitant to add this here because most of what I wanted to say was already said. Then SA prodded me. Oh look, House is on. --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 19:51, 30 May 2009 (BST)
 
Why not just force every suggestion to go through DS? Every suggestion posted for voting must have a link to (or C&P the discussion on the talk page)? Any suggestion that is not run through DS is removed entirely. If it is a good suggestion 7 (or 5) days of discussion won't hurt it and if it isn't then those days may save it. It will stop half-assed ideas from being posted and used as DUPE votes when it is re-worked. It is really for the protection of the suggester as much as it is to make sure every idea brought forth is in it's best form. 
 
This will also make it so that there is no need to justify '''any''' vote because anything other than '''KEEP''' should have been presented while on DS. If you can't contribute to the discussion of a suggestion you hate then it is too late to try to slip in a few last minute digs on it in voting. Striking votes based on the justification is too subjective especially since votes can be struck by anyone at this point.
 
The big thing I think everyone is missing is that the voting doesn't really matter since Kevan has the final say and sometimes implements even failed suggestions. You can't act like this is really that big of a deal. The DS part is where it really matters. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:39, 31 May 2009 (BST)
 
What is your aim in making changes?<br />
The suggestions section of the wiki has long been one of the main pillars of this community. It is a place that users come together to debate about the game that we all play. It is the main place where everyone who contributes to the page is challenged to justify their views on what Urban Dead is, or what it should be. It is a great source of tactical and technical information for newer players because experienced users do justify their votes. The requirement for such justification means that even the quickest of spammed suggestions isn't a complete waste of server space.<br />
So, some lazy bastards get away with lame justifications because we mostly can't be bothered going through the drama of striking their votes. Does this mean that we should do away with justifications completely, and dismantle the debate style of suggestions? Because if you do remove the requirement for even a lip service justification, you will end up with many suggestions getting nothing but Keep, Kill and Spams, because, frankly, those most qualified to provide useful insights have heard it all before, and often mistakenly think that every newbies suggestion is so obviously flawed, they don't need to provide the obvious (to them) justification, and that simply stating their general disapproval of it should be enough.<br />
And that will be a sad day indeed for this wiki. We need to be encouraging communication, and sharing knowledge, not just holding polls <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:35 1 June 2009 (BST)</small>
 
===Suggestions, March 2009===
As some of you may know, [[User:Linkthewindow/Projects/Suggestions Statistics|I've been following]] the trends of Suggestions this year. Mostly because I like graphs.
 
In that spirit, here's a graph for first quarter suggestions, 2009.
 
[[Image:March 2009.PNG|250px]]
 
(If that's a bit unclear, click to enlarge.)
 
--{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:That said, I ironically fail at making graphs. The data is all on [[User:Linkthewindow/Projects/Suggestions Statistics|this page]], so if anyone feels like taking another shot, go ahead. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::The only reason you fail at graph making is that you don't give the stats time to reveal any meaningful pattern, Link. Timespan is way too short in that one <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:32 21 March 2009 (BST)</small>
:::Indeed. But while your here.
 
:::[[Image:Stat.PNG|250px]]
 
:::An amazing correlation seems to be developing between the use of developing suggestions and the outcome of the voting process......--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Not surprising really. Most people get the message on developing suggestions... what is amazing is that some don't. Perhaps they like the conflict.
::::[[Image:Stats!.jpg|150px]]
::::So there ;) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:25 26 March 2009 (BST)</small>
::::We should throw that up on Developing Suggestions... {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I think that's a bit misleading. I'll look if I can make more honest pies. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 12:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Here's my view:
:::::[[Image:DS-pies.png|250px]]
:::::--[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 
===Spam Abuse===
Lets make some friends.........
 
Whilst I appreciate the spam vote has a purpose I feel it is being abused, it is meant to be used for SPAM suggestions such as "Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels" it is NOT a Strong Kill, some suggestions are doomed from the start such as a large amount of Crucifix ideas because of the mentality of the wiki user.
 
For example: [[Suggestion:20090304_Crucifixes_Use_Ideas|Crucifix Use]] Yes, we knew it was doomed but Spam Votes such as these: 
:"Crucifix suggestions = Insta-spam",
:"No crucifix suggestions",
:"Frequently suggested and shot down",
:"No thanks" and
:"Crucifixes should never actually do anything."
Hardly qualify as spam votes, they should be under kill/dupe. Just because someone thinks an idea is stupid does not mean it is spam.
 
Abuse of the spam system can prevent plausible suggestions getting a fair opportunity for voting by cutting their time short and getting them moved to spam as opposed to the appropriate page. Is there any way we can start enforcing the "Spam votes are not a "strong kill"" system, striking inappropriate spam as "inappropriate spam" is the first thing that comes to mind but there has to be a better way. The "Valid Votes" guide clearly outlines what is what but people don't seem to care. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 12:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
:I sympathize (there have been discussions along these lines before), but trying to change the way '''Spam''' is used would be an exercise in futility. We would be better off updating the policies to describe the way the votes are actually ''used'' than trying to enforce that kind of interpretation of them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
::This topic is a '''Dupe''' of several previous discussions and all have died because some people feel they have a right to define '''SPAM''' as anything that they do not personally like. The best we managed in the past was to get a buffer zone to prevent '''SPAM''' being removed before most of the community even knew about the suggestion... I think Jon Pyre once had a suggestion removed in under an hour which was frankly ludicrous when you understood who and why the SPAM votes came from.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Since SPAM votes are being cast in an abusive manner about 90% of the time, why not just get rid of the option? Let Sysops decide what is SPAM.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::::They already do; under the current guidelines, there is not any REQUIREMENT that suggestions with spam votes be designated as such, and I think there's even a few cases where they were allowed to stay up well past that time, or even were sent to peer rejected rather than spam.<br>I don't see spam being abused or even esspecially abusable; a suggestion that gets enough votes to be designated spam would NOT pass if just left up for a longer time.  In effect, spam just says "this is unpopular enough that its not worth having it cluttering up the voting page."  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::No they don't. Anyone can spaminate a suggestion if it qualifies as Spam. The sysops may refrain from doing it themselves but they can't stop someone else from doing it.
:::::I don't see the point in spaminating a suggestion if it's been under voting longer than a week, so I don't pay much attention to whether it qualifies as Spam after that (hence some have made it to two weeks even if they qualified for Spam). Also, Spam is for removing early, if it's already been under voting for two weeks I cycle it into Rejected.
:::::I still think the biggest problem with Spam is that it's ''called'' Spam. It feels very harsh for suggesters to get their suggestion classified as spam, and it makes the voters act more hostile. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Why not replace spam with '''Vandalism''', it would mean '''Breaches Wiki rules''' and spam could just be made into kill?--[[User:Super Nweb|Super Nweb]] 04:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Then we would just get hordes of newbies who don't know the rules getting warned ''because'' it's called vandalism. It may be annoying, but it isn't vandalism. Repeditiy posting the same pointless suggestion? Maybe. Humorous? Yes.
:::::::Secondly, making suggestions that get spammed an escalated offense will mean that people will vote spam on the suggestions of people they don't like to get them escalated. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::As opposed to them voting SPAM just to spite certain users? I personally don't think SPAM votes should be a criteria for removing a suggestion at all. If the suggestion is just plain bad it does no harm to leave it up for the duration and should only be removed by the author or; if it could be seen as vandalism; by the sysops. At the end of the day leaving it up to burn is not going to cause any real harm is it? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the most often used reason here is that removing it is to keep all the "This suggestion is retarded" votes and personal attacks to a minimum. We already know it's going to be rejected, so why keep it under voting when all it's going to do is gather abuse? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Because removing something as SPAM within a day or two (hell I would say 3!) means many who might like the idea won't get to vote '''keep'''. More importantly & more probably it means that those who don't like the idea but have something constructive to add don't get to vote '''Kill'''. Kevan has a tendency to implement things from the reject pile at least as often as from the keeps but I doubt if he bothers trawling through all the '''SPAM''' --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:47, 30 March 2009 (BST)
:::::::::::Are there any going into the spam bin that you actually think worthy of implementing? I agree with Midianian, if something is going to be shouted down as spam, there's not point drawing the abuse out for 2 weeks <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 15:00 30 March 2009 (BST)</small>
::::::::::::Not recently but there have been borderline cases in the past and while I agree that drawing it out for the full 2 weeks is stretching things I do think a policy of Author only removal in the first 3 days would be a good balance. Of course the power for Ssops to remove clear cut cases should remain as such things are pretty much vandalism anyway. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:15, 30 March 2009 (BST)
:::::::::::::Fun fact: I took 11 suggestions more or less randomly from Reviewed, Rejected and Undecided. On average, 54% of all votes on a suggestion were cast '''in the first 24 hours'''. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 16:00, 30 March 2009 (BST)
 
I think the thing about '''Spam''' votes is that in the back of my head, it feels weird that 7 people can summarily remove a suggestion from consideration. Now, it also takes 6 hours, but honestly that's either a lifetime (for Wiki regulars) or a heartbeat (for casual users). '''Spam removes casual users from the process.''' The vocal, active minority decides for everyone. I doubt that a real winner of a suggestion has gotten Spaminated, but I know (and I would wager, everyone else knows) that the potential is there-- so when I see people knee-jerk '''Spam''' votes within ten minutes of the Suggestion being up feels like someone is trying to "game the system." And those people probably are.
 
I also don't think people understand what '''Spam''' votes are supposed to be. Some people think of it as a super-strong Kill vote, others think it's for game-breaking things, others for ridiculous things, and some people think it's a personal attack meaning "fuck you." For instance, look at [[Suggestion:20090326_Burglary_(fixed)]]; nearly every Spam vote uses Spam as a different mechanism. It's clear that the community doesn't know what Spam is supposed to mean. And the Suggestion author might plead with them, but they don't ''have'' to change their vote, and no one has the ability to ''make'' them, so 99% of the time their vote remains Spam (and on that topic, I think that Cheese quoting the rule ''Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment'' is pretty weak, considering the author did not comment on a ''single'' Kill vote).
 
The final thing I will say about Spam votes is that unless sysops are going to act more like mods, then people are going to continue to misuse and abuse Spam, accidentally or on purpose. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 15:39, 30 March 2009 (BST)
 
I pretty much agree with {{User:Extropymine/sig}}. But also, The SPAM vote makes a mockery of the voting system. If someone wants to avoid "the abuse" of a suggestion going down in flames, they only need to remove it from consideration. SysOps (and only SysOps) should be allowed the privilege of voting SPAM.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 11:12, 17 April 2009 (BST)
:Sysops should in no way have the regulation to destroy suggestions, the community has the right to vote on them, thats what makes them '''peer''' reviewed. Similar to what Extropymine said, have you ever actually ''seen'' truly good suggestions get spaminated? Every suggestion that I have seen get spaminated deserved either that or a kill in my opinion. And until that happens, I'll always be willing to vouch that the system works. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 11:27, 17 April 2009 (BST)
::Bullshit. SPAM is abused by a small minority to keep the majority of voters from ever even seeing the suggestion. If they are going to be Killed, let them be Killed, but let's at least see the damn vote.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 11:51, 17 April 2009 (BST)
:::Don't tell me what I say is bullshit, I guess you didn't read the part where I expressed that this was my ''opinion''. I would like you to give me a spaminated suggestion within the last 2 years that you honestly believe should have become part of the game. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:38, 17 April 2009 (BST)
::::If it's bullshit I'll tell you and what you said is. You said "Sysops should in no way have the regulation to destroy suggestions, the community has the right to vote on them, thats what makes them '''peer''' reviewed." SPAM makes a mockery of PEER review if it lets a tiny minority decide that the majority of PEERS shouldn't even see the thing. That's not PEER review, its a small group deciding what should and should not even be considered before other PEERS even get to chime in. It's elitist bullshit.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 12:54, 17 April 2009 (BST)
:::::Okay, so what '''you''' propose is that instead of letting the community (or that of which actually '''have an interest''' in the suggestions system) decide on which suggestions get spaminated, you want to actually pass the flawed system onto an even smaller minority, who have been picked as sysops merely to be dedicated janitors on this wiki? Who is spouting "elitist bullshit" now? Sysops have absolutely nothing to do with the game Urban Dead. They hold power merely on this wiki, and giving them the rights to manipulate the suggestions system is stretching beyond their responsibilities and roles as sysops. If you have a problem with the spam system being misused by a communal minority, don't pass the burden onto an even smaller group of designated wiki janitors, many of which don't dedicate themselves to the suggestions system anyway. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 13:07, 17 April 2009 (BST)
::::::Giving the vote to SysOps was just a half-measure idea. Ideally, the whole SPAM vote should be dropped as an option.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:17, 17 April 2009 (BST)
Back in the days of a single suggestions page with no limits on how many suggestions a day the same author could post '''SPAM''' did indeed have a valid use. Now each suggestion is on a page of its own there is no reason why it should be kept and it doesn't. I see why people want to keep it but I just don't agree that we need a mechanism to allow us to clear the damn things away so quick. By all means keep '''SPAM''' as a category but leave the suggestion up for the full 2 weeks of voting and let everyone have the chance to voice an opinion, if its still regarded as '''SPAM''' then it's wasted a few people a few minutes each... so what? Personally I think much the same could be said of '''DUPE''' votes, at the very least it would stop people complaining (rightly or wrongly) that things were removed because of unfair voting. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:28, 17 April 2009 (BST)
 
Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and '''spam'''. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 01:53, 21 April 2009 (BST)
:But I don't like spam! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:59, 21 April 2009 (BST)
 
===Neutral/Impartial Votes===
While the majority of voters have an opinion occasionally a suggestion appears that people just don't care about. Has the possibility of having Neutral/Impartial votes been discussed before? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 15:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:That's also called "not voting". What's the point of another category of votes that do not matter either way? Comments can be made on the talk page of the suggestion. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::Although there is no actual point with to voting neutral with regards to it getting reviewed/rejected it helps provide information on how many people have bothered to look at the suggestion and provides further information for Kevan when looking at potential updates... Theres is difference between 7+ 3- 2 neutral and 7+ 3- 20 neutral (a little extreme for an example but I hope you get the point). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't really see how it would make a difference. Kevan has implemented suggestions even from Peer Rejected, so it's not like he decides what goes in just by the numbers. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::If you dont like it enough to want it in the game kill/change it with the suggestions you'd like to see or just make a comment on the talk pages. Basically, feature exists. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 
===[[Suggestions]] Change===
 
I think there's a problem in how people are currently introduced to suggestions on the wiki. On the main page, there's a link to [[:Category:Current Suggestions]], on which is a wall of text about creating suggestions and at the bottom the list of today's suggestions and then the rest of current suggestions. The other way is through the game's [http://urbandead.com/faq.html#ideas FAQ], which links to [[Suggestions]], where you are greeted with today's suggestions and an even bigger wall of text.
 
I think Category:Current Suggestions should be a page where you only have to go if you're making a suggestion, or binge-voting. The link on the main page should be pointed to Suggestions, which should be turned into a clean portal-type page that merely links to all the relevant pages instead of trying to include all the information on a single page. Something along [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Midianian/Sandbox&oldid=1376775 these lines]. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:I liked this a month ago, and I still like it :). Perhaps we should all write a community guide to making a suggestion? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::Not bad. I'd still have a giant sign saying. DEVELOPING SUGGESTIONS near the top. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Hmm... linking to Developing Suggestions at the top kind of make sense. You'd have the whole suggestion life-cycle in the correct order starting from discussion, then today's suggestions, then there's the button for other suggestions still in voting and then recently closed. How does [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Midianian/Sandbox&oldid=1378693 this] look? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Not bad at all, But i'd make it more simple. Click here to properly develop your suggestion before voting. or something less long winded. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::I think that would be better served on [[:Category:Current Suggestions]] (which should also be revamped), because that's where you go to make a suggestion. [[Suggestions]] would be just a portal pointing people in the right directions. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 
I'd think a pure portal would work better, no recently closed sections etc and the space used to describe the various sections, then a lot of this page could be streamlined out. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:One of the reasons I included the recently closed suggestions on the page was that new users would see what kind of suggestions are made and where they end up. What do you mean with "various sections"? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 
===Dupe Votes===
While I appreciate that people spamming the same old suggestions over and over again is never a good thing, I think that the '''dupe''' vote leaves a lot to be desired. I made a suggestion a couple of months ago that very nearly made it through into peer reviewed, apart from that fact that in the last few days, it was found to have been a dupe from about three years ago.
 
I put it to you that the game and the wiki have both changed a great deal since that time, certainly there were very few, if any, of the same voters voting on the original suggestion as were voting on mine, and even if that wasn't the case, shouldn't new ideas be judged fairly by the users at the time, being aware of the current game climate and mood?


I would propose that a dupe vote can only be valid if the duped suggestion is under a year old, '''or''' has been peer reviewed. This means that frequently suggested suggestion still get removed as usual, and is a sufficiently long amount of time to allow interesting ideas to be re-submitted to what would potentially be a whole new bunch of people. What say you all? --{{User:Sage Carr/sig}} 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
===Humorous suggestions===
:Dupe exists the prevent the system having to endure yet another machine gun for an entire two weeks. The final resting place for a suggestion does not matter in the slightest, look at all the popular but completely retarded stuff in Peer Reviewed, and then contrast that with the Ruin update and Ankle Grab that came from Peer Rejected.
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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 09:28, 23 July 2011 (BST)</small>
:I'm ok with this. Never should have been escalatable in the first place.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 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. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 16:57, 23 July 2011 (BST)
::How about if it gets 3 Hum... votes it gets moved to the different voting section? --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]] 16:59, 23 July 2011 (BST)
:::This.--[[User:Yonnua Koponen|<span style="color: DarkOrange">Yonnua Koponen</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Yonnua Koponen| <span style="color:Gold">T</span>]][[DvB| <span style="color: Goldenrod">G</span>]]</sup><sup><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=840689 <span style="color: DarkGoldenrod"> P</span>] </span></sup> [[User:Yonnua Koponen/Sandbox|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]][[Discosaurs|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]][[{{TALKPAGENAME}}#Donkey|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]] 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.{{User:Mazu/sig}} 17:45, 23 July 2011 (BST)
:::But the other page already exists, with a long and illustrious history. --[[User:Rosslessness|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?) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 23:36, 23 July 2011 (BST)</small>
::::Just close or classify after 2 weeks like everything else. No need for needless complications. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 04:15, 24 July 2011 (BST)</small>
::::::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. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:35, 24 July 2011 (BST)


:The problem is the two early cycling systems, one is designed for those that actually know the system and suggestion, the other is based on the misguided notion that a group of users are more authoritative about a specific system. Fix that, as well as the escalations procedure and dupe will by and large go away. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 23:36, 23 July 2011 (BST)</small>
::How about a Dupe system where instead of destroying the suggestion immediately, you merely add on the votes from the previous dupes (Unless it's peer reviewed, in which case suggesting is pointless). So, if last time it was 12 keep, 13 kill, but your suggestion gets 15 keep, 4 kill, then it passes this time, because more people like it currently.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 12:49, 2 June 2009 (BST)
:There's already a vote out system in place iirc. Works like spam. No reason to change that really.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 04:15, 24 July 2011 (BST)</small>


The suggestion to limit Dupe votes to those under a year old is in fact a dupe of a previous discussion :) I for one support the idea as the game is very different from 3 years ago (hell its changed a fair bit in the last few months) What really needs tightening up though is how dupe votes are validated, currently we can have 3 shout "DUPE" and a suggestion dies if its even vaguely similar even if 20 or so others disagree with them. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 23:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Question. If the [[Category_talk:Suggestions#Humourous_Rules_Change|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." --{{User:Akule/sig}} 21:08, 1 August 2011 (BST)
:Then dispute it. Cases have been re-entered into the system through arbies before. If you think you can prove a significant difference then say so. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:AKIAK changes to policy do not make bannings and warnings retroactively repealed. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>21:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)</sub>
 
::I assume that someone could complain and cite their record in order to get it reassessed? --{{User:Akule/sig}} 23:59, 1 August 2011 (BST)
===Should we have a requirement that all suggestions go through [[Developing Suggestions]]?===
:::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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 00:47, 2 August 2011 (BST)
Putting it simply, should we make it so that all suggestions need to go through [[Developing Suggestions]] before they're submitted for voting? Right now, all that seems to be submitted is dupes of old suggestions or just pure spam. Is it really worth having a page made for the suggestion just for it to be locked up 6 hours later with a great big Spam template or about half an hour later with a Dupe template?
::::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. --{{User:Akule/sig}} 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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 13:11, 2 August 2011 (BST)</small>
By putting things through [[Developing Suggestions]] we can sort out the dupes and the rubbish and stop them from getting to voting in the first place leaving the decent ones to be voted on. Developing Suggestions is well used and there are some genuinely good suggestions born from it because of the discussion. We already have a 3 day minimum discussion on Policies (granted they aren't the same as suggestions) so why don't we apply the same thing here? -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
::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. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 22:03, 2 August 2011 (BST)
:Yes, but not a three-day limit. One day would be better. We must make it clear on the page that this is a requirement, and finally, who can remove non-DS suggestions? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 23:07, 2 August 2011 (BST)
:*This has actually [[Category_talk:Current_Suggestions/Archive#Add_a_line_to_the_suggestions_page|been discussed]] [[Category_talk:Current_Suggestions/Archive#Make_Discussion_Mandatory.3F|a few times]] in the past. It boils down to this; Not every suggestion needs to be discussed and all forced discussing of them would do is cause more drama and template breaks on [[Developing Suggestions]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::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. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 23:36, 2 August 2011 (BST)
:::What about just making the wording stronger -"It is strongly recommended that you take your suggestion to the [[Developing Suggestions]] page first-most suggestions that don't go through this page don't get accepted." {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::I just raised the question formally, since Karloth jokingly asked it in [[Category_talk:Suggestions#For|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. --{{User:Akule/sig}} 01:05, 3 August 2011 (BST)
::::That seems like a good compromise. Although considering there are ''very'' few new suggestions coming in, and those that are are usually brought by swiers to developing suggs anyway I'd say forcing people through developing would be beneficial. It should certainly be obligatory for newbies.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I imagine you'd have to be pretty bloody retarded to have that misconception. Or just really naive. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 08:02, 3 August 2011 (BST)
:::::Now ''that'' just makes no sense. What is with all the newbie haet these days?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::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. --{{User:Akule/sig}} 09:20, 3 August 2011 (BST)
:::::That would just cause way too much drama. How do we define a newbie? Also, assuming that ''all'' newbies post bad suggestions would make them feel unwelcome, and as Karek said, newbie hate is bad. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 04:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::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. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:26, 3 August 2011 (BST)
 
:::::............................................________
Is it the week of retarded suggestions? Yes let's have a rule that removes suggestions and invalidates votes ''and'' either escalates or lets off users based on sysop whims. Fucking brilliant! You ever thought of doing stand up? It's ideas like this that validates my belief that the sysop spamination condition should be removed, because sysops obviously have no fucking idea about this system. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 16:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
 
:::::.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
===Should talk pages be protected after a suggestion has been cycled?===
:::::.........................,/...............................................":,
Myself, Nubis and Boxy have been talking about whether or not a suggestion's talk page should be protected after cycling at [[A/PM]] (discussion [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections#Some_unprotected_suggestions|here]]. The voting page already is, just not sure about the talk. I personally think it should be protected-voting has closed, and no-one has these watched anyway, but I would like to see what everyone else thinks first. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 14:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::.....................,?......................................................\,
:I have my suggestions watched, and I feel that it does no harm if someone edits the talk page of a closed suggestion if they feel like commenting. It doesn't affect the voting stats in any way <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 14:42 17 December 2008 (BST)</small>
:::::.................../...........................................................,}
::I also have my suggestions watched. Plus, I keep all suggestions on my watchlist for a month or so after they're closed. I really don't see a reason why the talk pages should be protected. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 16:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::................./......................................................,:`^`..}
:ritalin says protect them.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 16:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::.............../...................................................,:"........./
 
:::::..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
Protect them, leave a nice template at the top that points out that voting and discussion was closed and leave a link to Talk:Suggestions so they can take their ideas there to a receptive audience. I do not want to be responding to some idiot's thoughts on a year old gun suggestion solely for his benefit. Talk:Suggestions is not just there to get feedback, it's there for ''public'' feedback so other newbies can see how stupid certain ideas are. I repeat myself enough over there as it is, I don't want to be repeating myself more just because the sysop team can't be bothered with protecting an additional page. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)  
:::::............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
 
:::::.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
My vote is don't protect them. Just because.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
 
:::::...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
:I'd say not bother. Maybe add a template saying that voting is closed and new suggestios are on developing suggestion? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
::I quite like that idea-perhaps we should open a subpage of D:S specifically for discussing suggestions where the voting has closed (or at least putting up a link to the current discussion on the old page?) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
:::Why the hell do we need a subpage? Why can't whoever decides to waste everyone's time by bringing back what's already gone through the system put ''"This references suggestion X"'' at the beginning of their post? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 06:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
 
:::::.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
Discussion doesn't end with voting, this has long since been understood to be the case and a major part of why we ''don't'' protect suggestion talk pages. It would just serve to inconvenience users.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
 
:::::.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
By the way, one very relevant reason to use the talk page happens to be suggestion Revision, which is a special process for suggestions and shouldn't have to require going through Talk:Suggestions again and again when you have relevant voters paying attention to the talk page of the suggestion.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
:Another good reason to keep them open would be so that, if a new suggestion is made and somebody uses the old suggestion as a "dupe" reference, this reference could be noted on the talk page of the old suggestion. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 02:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
----
:::::.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
:::::........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
:::::...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................` <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 10:15, 3 August 2011 (BST)</small>
::::::::::::::::::Epic!{{User:Mazu/sig}}  14:21, 3 August 2011 (BST)
::::::::::::::::::: wow a scholar and and artiest--{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>16:26, 3 August 2011 (bst)</small>


=Policy Votes=
=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 [[Suggestions/Voting Guidelines|Voting Guidelines]] established for this section.'''''
''This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page. '''All policies, along with their associated votes and discussions, are governed by the [[Suggestions/Voting Guidelines|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 [[:Category:Humorous Suggestions|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).


==Adjust Justification rules==
The [[:Category:Current_Suggestions#Advice_before_Making_a_Suggestion|advice to suggestors]] section (#10) will be changed from


Proposed suggestion policy:
{{codeinline|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.}}


We remove the need for any sort of justification of a vote in it's entirety, but still leaving the section in the advice area that states that justification is '''STRONGLY RECOMMENDED'''.
to;


(Blatant copy pasta starts now)
{{codeinline|Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are to be re-categorised into the [[:Category:Humorous Suggestions|humourous suggestions category]]. If you post a joke suggestion please put it on the Humorous category yourself.}}


My reasoning is double pronged. For one, even if we remove the justification clause, there are still people who will justify their votes. If we remove the clause, the only people I'm expecting to not write anything other than their votes are the people who pretty much do that now (Like me). For two, Developing suggestions takes care of most of the commentary in votes as it is. If it goes there first, more often than not there isn't a need to really say anything because it's already been discussed on DS. Unless said poster ignores what we've said on DS, which then all we say is "You should have listened to us" and stuff.
The [[Template:SugVoteRules|vote rules]] will be changed to include an additional valid vote, "'''Humourous'''".


For example, right now "Keep- lolwtfbbq<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" is more valid than "Keep- <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
{{codeinline|'''Humourous''', for suggestions that are obviously intended to be satirical, or of comedic value only.}}
:{{codeinline|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.}}


Why should this be? Why should we be forced to justify a vote if something like 80% of the time it's something completely mundane and un-explaining of their position like "As this person/above/below" or "I just don't like it/like it" "This is awesome" "why isn't this in game yet?"
The [[Suggestions:Cycling_Instructions#Humorous|cycling instructions]] will be changed to describe how to change the category, and remove references to vandalism cases and the use of {{tl|notfunny}}. Also added to this section will be a description of the eligibility of humourous removal. {{Codeinline|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).}}


If that's the case, there is no real need for justifications of our votes. And there will ''always'' be people that do it, should a suggestion require it.
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 [[:Category:Humorous Suggestions|area]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 07:52, 1 August 2011 (BST)</small>
:As I've told you on IRC, this needs to be discussed first. I don't have a problem with it, however. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:00, 1 June 2009 (BST)
::[[Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Justifications|Wait]], disregard that. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:01, 1 June 2009 (BST)  
===Voting===


'''Yes'''
===For===
#Honestly, I'm tired of the rules being contradictory, so I'm fixing them like people told me to do. I've never had such  a big problem before, but if some users are going to start a fight about it and not help fix the problem, it's left to me! Yay! I feel so self-righteous right now. :D --<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:58, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#Long overdue <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 07:52, 1 August 2011 (BST)</small>
#For the sake of irony, as SA. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:01, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#As Boxy. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:44, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#For the purpose of simplicity and transparency enforced justification should be scrapped or tightened up. Ruling what does and does not count as reasonable justification would just lead to accusations of bias, making justification a strong recommendation only would not and as SA says, most genuinely useful comments would still be made. More importantly to me though is the slight chance that this might stop pointless '''WTFCENTAUR''' bullshit annoying the hell out of me. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:29, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#See no harm in this. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 12:03, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#:Why would pointless '''WTFCENTAUR''' bullshit be negatively affected by a policy essentially removing even the minimal restrictions on how it may be used that we have in place now? Not disagreeing with the rest of your vote but damn do you have a fondness for pulling clangers out of your hat. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 18:57, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#Seems rather unneeded to me but I suppose it's a good plan if we ever start getting high volumes of suggestions again{{User:Mazu/sig}}  12:19, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#::Well there is always the vague hope that they might be too lazy to bother if they don't have too... In any event I would like to see this changed because the requirement to justify doesn't address the need for feedback. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 20:09, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#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 -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 13:52, 1 August 2011 (BST)
# --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 18:57, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#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. {{User:Chief Seagull/Sig}} 14:52, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#Requiring any old justification is just wikilawyering, and it's impossible to require any sort of substantive justification. Therefore, SA wins. --{{User:Paddy Dignam/sig}} 00:55, 2 June 2009 (BST)
#I don't think constructive humour of any kind should be vandal-worthy, especially not when it's in the almost-dead suggestion system. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:58, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#Wonderful idea!! For it 100%! ^_^  --[[User:Shanaylette|Shanaylette]] 03:03, 6 June 2009 (BST)
#Despite the fact that the current system means that I can submit stupid suggestions and not be guilty of vandalism.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 16:49, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#Although, I did really enjoy all the goon votes against Tselita with NAILGUN LOLZ no matter what the suggestion was. But that right there should be reason enough for removal of justification requirements.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 10:02, 6 June 2009 (BST)
#finally --{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>17:35, 1 August 2011 (bst)</small>
#--[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 10:42, 6 June 2009 (BST)
#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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 17:51, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#[[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 19:57, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#For, but somewhat begrudgingly. I'm suspect we'll see a flux of humorous suggestions in the main suggestions space when this passes. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>20:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)</sub>
#'''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. [[Image:argh.gif]] --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 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. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)</sub>
#:You only had one [[Suggestion:20080626 Jetpacks|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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 22:26, 1 August 2011 (BST)</small>
#::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! --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 09:25, 2 August 2011 (BST)
#:::I'm asking that very question [[Category_talk:Suggestions#Humorous_suggestions|up here]], if you are interested. --{{User:Akule/sig}} 12:17, 2 August 2011 (BST)
#Funny = fun = better for the game. --[[User:Uroguy|Uroguy]]<sup>[[Zookeepers|TMZ]]</sup> 21:26, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#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. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:16, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#:And no, that's not a snipe at DDR. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:18, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#Fuck tha [[User:Grim_s|police]]. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:31, 1 August 2011 (BST)
#--{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:10, 2 August 2011 (BST)
#'''Humourous''' :P --{{:User:Thanatologist/Sig}} 14:31, 3 August 2011 (BST)
# --{{User:Armpit_Odor/dnsig}} 18:44, 3 August 2011 (BST)
#Rubber stamp. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 03:41, 6 August 2011 (BST)
# [[User:Wyronth|Wyronth]] 06:04, 13 August 2011 (BST)


'''No'''
===Against===
# [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Category_talk%3ASuggestions&diff=1464896&oldid=1464867 Suggestions debating] brings this wiki together, and provides constant reinforcement of the basics to new players. Allowing experienced users to legitimately say nothing but keep, kill or spam (and a lot will!) because they have "heard it all before" will only make this wiki a worse place <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:44 1 June 2009 (BST)</small>
#De-criminalization good, [[20070412 Zombie Catapults|zombie catapults]] bad. --<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]] 00:29, 9 August 2011 (BST)
#:Though a lot of veteran users don't give such good answers because one person will say something that is a good enough point, and then everyone else will simply "as above" it. Or they'll say something like "This suggestion just really sucks". If we made using DS mandatory (Which is on my list of things to get implemented), voting discussion will not be needed. The discussion on DS is brought over to the suggestions talk page for Kevan to read through when he feels like it. It's like discussing in the votes why we like or dislike it, but i's already on the talk page so it doesn't take up space.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:23, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:FUNT! --{{User:Akule/sig}} 00:34, 9 August 2011 (BST)
#::The whole community doesn't comment on developing suggestions. What you get there is a sampling of views, and suggesters need to evaluate who to listen to, who has a good gauge on what the full community reaction will be, and whether a suggestion is worth bringing to voting. The real show should always be the actual voting pages, where everyone (not only the hardcore wikiers) contribute. Don't relegate them to nothing more than a poll after the discussion has finished <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 16:46 1 June 2009 (BST)</small>
#:::"Discussion is what the discussion pages are for... and seeing each suggestion has it's own now, why not use it, with a link. I think the heavily structured system we have makes for a very good method of summing up the pro's and con's of a suggestion without having to trawl through pages of chat. Suggestion pages themselves are better off having considered opinion on them, rather than lively discussion. IMO -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:33, 26 May 2007 (BST)"
#:::If you think the discussion pages are made of discussing things, then why are you against keeping the discussion to talk pages and DS?--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 23:09, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:Boxy, if you are saying that not everyone goes to DS (so they don't get the chance to debate an idea) and only the author can respond to a vote having to justify a vote on here isn't adding to the "debate".  You should realize that most author responses on here (from people that don't use DS) are acting like the NO vote is a personal attack against their genius. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 10:02, 6 June 2009 (BST)
#As I mentioned above many days ago, I will always put discussion above the mere voting... I still believe that we, as the community, have the onus of giving as much input into a suggestion as possible. For Kevan's sake. And if we give Kevan as much input/information/discussion as possible, then I firmly believe there is a better chance that our suggestions will become implemented. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 13:54, 1 June 2009 (BST)
# No one wants an idiot voteing no cause they hate the guy who made a suggestion. Simples --[[User:Athur birling|Athur birling]] 14:24, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:A) People can do that as it is. They just mask their vote  with "I don't like it". B) See A.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:46, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:C) People '''do''' just that already and most of them justify it with things like "suggester is a moron". That of course is a different issue. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:35, 1 June 2009 (BST)
# Justification and discussion are important and I believe useful to newbs like me.--[[User:C Whitty|C Whitty]] 14:52, 1 June 2009 (BST)
# If your to stubborn to add even lolwtfbbq to your vote, then your best off not to vote at all. This change is unnecessary.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]], <span style= "color: gold; background-color: darkblue"><span style="text-decoration: blink;">''Europeans, don't forget to VOTE!''</span></span> 16:09, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:Yes, I'm that stubborn when to do otherwise and do as you say is making a mockery of the suggestions system. You people want input? Then fucking give it. Adding '''lolwbbq''' isn't input. If you're inane enough to use that as a justification then you shouldn't vote at all. It's nice to see you on the opposite side now that I've pissed you off though.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:16, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#::I never picked a side until now. The only reason I acted back then, was because I felt it was unnecessary to strike votes over such a small thing. The only reason this is being brought up is because of a petty drama fest incident. This isn't necessary. Also if I actually cared about what you think about me then I would have voted yes. I don't care so it's a no. You don't know me and I don't care about it. Now to wait for (cyber)bob to come and troll my post. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]], <span style= "color: gold; background-color: darkblue"><span style="text-decoration: blink;">''Europeans, don't forget to VOTE!''</span></span> 17:13, 1 June 2009 (BST)
# If your opinion is strong enough to compel you to vote, then it merits written expression.  This promotes discussion and consensus.  Also, how annoying would it be if I just voted against with no explanation here? --{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 18:12, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#''Keep- lolwtfbbq<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'' Would logically be struck as being inane. ''Keep- I like cars<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'' on a suggestion about Chainsaws would also be struck as it is not a vote on the merits of the suggestion. As everyone except Iscariot and the Keeps, er actually partially the keeps. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:19, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:The why isn't it ever struck? They're normally left alone because "That's a valid justification because the rules don't define what one is"--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:48, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#I'm in favor of justification, inane or not. At least mandatory justification gets people that otherwise might be lazy (like myself) and come up with a reason for their vote. If it weren't mandatory, legitimate justifications might just be dropped for only "Keep," "Kill," or "Spam." Yes, we'll get inane vote justifications, but it's better than nothing. --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 18:24, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:No, it's not. Honestly, just saying the same thing over and over does not tell Kevan anythign new that he hadn't been able to figure out for himself or gather from one of the more expressed votes. What would be better is to drop it and then force people to use DS. That way we get rid of the clutter on the suggestion that comes with ''expressing your bullshit inanity while the majority of people vote as above because a few people who vote first say the one thing that matters about the suggestion'' (not referring to anyone in particular, if this is misinterpreted) while also preventing horrible ideas from ever making it on to their own page, unless the suggester chooses to ignore everything we say. We can streamline the voting process, bypassing a lot of bs restrictions and requirements, and then make using DS a requirement giving the suggestion a much better way at getting discussion and input. Right now we have this clause: "Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting."
#:What does that say? That the suggestions discussions should be short, sweet and to the point. Little other talk is to be had, which means long drawn out discussions about why one thing or another should or should not be in the suggestion is ''advised'' against in the rules. Not to mention the fact that in the god damn rules it explicitly states "Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions. This page and archived suggestion pages only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss the suggestion or vote here, please use this page's Talk page (Suggestion talk:SugVoteRules). Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. The Suggestions talk page can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted."
#:So, based upon the rules, not only is there a contradiction in justifications requirements, it also ''says'' that suggestion should really be left to a more streamlined vote. That talk and discussing should take place elsewhere. Even one of the voting examples show this. If we dropped the justification requirement and made DS mandatory, we'd not only make things easier, but more inline with what the rules already say.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:43, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#::I'd have voted yes if this was a double-pronged policy change that made DS mandatory ''and'' removed any justification requirement for votes. However, this is just the second half of that and "we should do the first half too." --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 20:54, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:::You have a fiar point there, but I was thinking people would complain if I took it more than one step at a time.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:00, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#::::Sometimes you have to do things in combination to be effective - can't always do something halfway and not be sure of the outcome of the other half. --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 21:01, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:::There was discussion a while ago about making D:S mandatory, but it didn't get anywhere for a few reasons. I'll find the link when I get home. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 22:28, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#'''Change'''.  Why?  Because justifications are a valid reasons to say why the suggestion is crap and what not.  Just change it so it bans obscene justifications and then you might get a yes from me. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} ({{User:Axe Hack/Stat}}) 02:25, 2 June 2009 (BST)
#:You can still say a suggestion is crap even with this change. It's just not required to justify. And even without obscene ones, whats the point of "Keep I like hamburgers"? It doesn't do anything for anyone anymore than "Keep".--[[KyleStyle_For_Everything|<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> ]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:28, 2 June 2009 (BST)
#Sorry Angelman, I just don't like it.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 15:01, 2 June 2009 (BST)
#A better solution would be to ''require'' people to take their ideas to Talk:Suggestions first. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:55, 8 June 2009 (BST)
#:If we required it, like I plan to try for later, it still doesn't change the fact that people are forced to justify and will do so in a manner that we really don't need. So the majority of the suggestions merits are lain out on DS. All that means is it's going to be harder to justify your vote without repeating yourself. And if you're going to repeat yourself in your vote, then whats the point of forcing DS in the first place? Hell, in a community where we can get away with the newbie bashing that we do, WHY DO WE EVEN CARE ABOUT HELPING NEWBIES BY JUSTIFICATIONS? We have Boxy preaching for people to be able to verbally abuse other people on anything Suggestions related, yet here he tries to say that we should have justifications to encourage discussions on a vote that not only is it supposed to be pretty damned streamlined from the start, he's also said he's going to help keep it that way, all in the name of helping newbies. Removing justifications from suggestions wouldn't drive away new players, it's the shit we allow to happen in the suggestion process that does. If everyone would see that, hell, it'd remove half the incivility we see in this wiki.--[[KyleStyle_For_Everything|<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> ]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:37, 8 June 2009 (BST)


'''Spam'''
'''Passed''' with 21 ''for'' votes and 1 ''Zombie Catapults'' vote. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>07:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)</sub>
#Policies belong in policy discussion. This is not a policy, this is a guideline change. You'd think the sysops might understand the difference. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:33, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:(Right up at the top of this section "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. " But you'd know that if you bothered to learn how to read. Fuck, I'm a colonial and I can figure that out.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#::Policies go through policy discussion, calling this section policy is no different to calling it a fish, I know you're a stupid colonial, but as a sysop I'd expect you to understand the difference between policy and guidelines. My expectations are far too high. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:50, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#:::[[UDWiki_talk:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Suggestion_Categories|*]][[UDWiki_talk:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/SuggestionPolicyChange|Cough]][[UDWiki_talk:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Change_suggestions|*]]Stupid "brit".--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:08, 1 June 2009 (BST)
#::::You're using something from wiki-prehistory? Slight flaw in your your ''flawless'' point, Talk:Suggestions is the correct name for what is now known erroneously (due to sysop incompetence no less) as Developing Suggestions. So, you've managed to prove this is in the wrong place. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 08:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)
#:::::Lets take a look into wiki here....
#:::::#[[Talk:Suggestions]] leads you to a disambiguation page that states "Category talk:Suggestions - discussion about the suggestion system in general" Huh. That means that Suggestions policies might go on that page!
#:::::#[[Developing_Suggestions]] and it's talk says:
#:::::#:"This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on."
#:::::#:"Discussion concerning this page takes place here(Discussion-Talk). Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place here (this page)." Huh. That means Developing suggestions and it's talk is not the place for policy votes, and it actually states that the place for suggestions in general, including the policies about it.
#:::::#A/P and A/PD say nothing about Suggestions policies going or not going through A/PD, but when you cruise the archives of past policies, you see that a few suggestion related ones where the suggesters were told they go on Talk:Suggestions. Now, being that the page has been moved and split up since then, you'd think they go where everyone and everyhting says now.
#:::::But no. You'll just keep looking for an excuse to have this removed outright because it's me huh? Look. If you're too stupid to realize what policies go where, fine. We can't change that. But damn, if you're going to try and get a valid policy removed, especially when you don't know what the fuck is going on, I really hope you have fun feeling retarded.--[[KyleStyle_For_Everything|<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> ]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 13:26, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Latest revision as of 05:18, 8 August 2013

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. ~Vsig.png 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. ~Vsig.png 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. ~Vsig.png 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.--Karekmaps 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. --Karekmaps 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. --Karekmaps 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.--Karekmaps 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. ~Vsig.png 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. --Karekmaps 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. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 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. --Karekmaps 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 -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 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. We're coming to get you, Barbara 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. ~Vsig.png 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. Argh.gif --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. ~Vsig.png 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. --UroguyTMZ 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. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:16, 1 August 2011 (BST)
    And no, that's not a snipe at DDR. --Karekmaps 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. --AORDMOPRI ! T 18:44, 3 August 2011 (BST)
  20. Rubber stamp. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:41, 6 August 2011 (BST)
  21. Wyronth 06:04, 13 August 2011 (BST)

Against

  1. De-criminalization good, zombie catapults bad. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 00:29, 9 August 2011 (BST)
    FUNT! --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:34, 9 August 2011 (BST)

Passed with 21 for votes and 1 Zombie Catapults vote. ~Vsig.png 07:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Category_talk:Suggestions&oldid=2086188"