|
|
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
|
| |
|
| =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.''''' |
|
| |
| ==Adjust Justification rules==
| |
|
| |
| Proposed suggestion policy:
| |
|
| |
| 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'''.
| |
|
| |
| (Blatant copy pasta starts now)
| |
|
| |
| 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.
| |
|
| |
| For example, right now "Keep- lolwtfbbq<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" is more valid than "Keep- <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
| |
|
| |
| 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?"
| |
|
| |
| 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.
| |
| :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'''
| |
| #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)
| |
| #For the sake of irony, as SA. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:01, 1 June 2009 (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)
| |
| #: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)
| |
| #::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)
| |
| # --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 18:57, 1 June 2009 (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)
| |
| #Wonderful idea!! For it 100%! ^_^ --[[User:Shanaylette|Shanaylette]] 03:03, 6 June 2009 (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)
| |
| #--[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 10:42, 6 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| #-- This sounds good [[User:Conbar|Conbar]] 12:20, 13 June 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| '''No'''
| |
| # [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>
| |
| #: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)
| |
| #::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'''
| |
| #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)
| |
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
