Category talk:Suggestions

Page Discussion

Please put new topics at the top of the page.

Archives

Archives for this page are here

Discussion About Talk:Suggestions

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

Discussion About Category:Suggestions

Put talk about the page Category:Suggestions here

Suggestion Discussion

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

DUPE Vote clarification

I think we need to pin this down, one way or the other. I propose that a DUPE Vote is only valid if the end effect of a suggestion is exactly identical even if the mechanics used to achieve that result are totally different.

If two suggestions use completely different mechanics to achive the exact same result, it should be judged a DUPE.

If the end effect is not exactly identical, the DUPE Vote should be judged invalid.--Zombie Lord 20:27, 9 June 2009 (BST)

If we get lots of suggestions that are really similar, we just continue to fill up the other categories - Spam, Killed, Undecided, and Reviewed. Duping is a necessary mechanism to weed out previously thought-up ideas, but the devil's in the details - and similarity is arguable. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:50, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Who decides wheter a dupe vote is valid or unvalid? --Rolfero 20:56, 9 June 2009 (BST)

That's a good question. It can never be down to one person, it's gotta be community consensus. That's hard, though, when we have a very limited number of people voting and someone has to cycle dupes and make that judgement call. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:57, 9 June 2009 (BST)

That's why I think we should pin it down to some degree. It's too powerful a vote for loose definitions. We either need to lessen its impact or clearly define what constitutes a DUPE. Same thing with the SPAM Vote. Just my opinion. --Zombie Lord 21:02, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Spam votes are another discussion, for now. From the voting guidelines: "Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions." See, if we pin it down to "exact" duplicates or ones that are "exactly identical," all I'd have to do is change the name of the suggestion and it wouldn't be dupe-able anymore. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:05, 9 June 2009 (BST)

But the name of the suggestion won't matter in-game. However, if it were one suggestion that suggested you to purchase a skill or something similar to gain An Effect, and another that stated that you would, for example Always have that Effect, I don't think one should be called a dupe becuase of the other one. --Rolfero 21:15, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Indeed, but if you suggest An Effect and I suggest A Condition that does exactly the same thing, it's not an exact duplicate and you couldn't use dupe votes on it if dupes were only for exact duplicates. Semantics, yes, but that's where wiki-debates come in. It needs to be explicit but have some leeway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:23, 9 June 2009 (BST)

If this Condition suggestion suggests something that would In-Game be EXACTLY like the Effect, yes, I would consider it a Dupe. --Rolfero 21:32, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I'm only arguing for effect duplicates, not that the suggestion must be exactly the same in all regards. Under what I propose above, a name change won't matter if the end effect is identical. I suppose this could be approached from a different angle though, lessening the overall power of a DUPE Vote itself. Something like removing the Dupe section and making the Dupe vote a sub-vote of the Kill Vote. That is: Kill-Dupe, requiring the same justifications as the old Dupe Vote. Then adding a NON DUPE sub-vote to the Keep Vote (Keep-NON DUPE), requiring it's own justification as to why it's not a DUPE. If both meet whatever requirements we decided upon, DUPE/NON-DUPE votes would just cancel each other out on a one for one basis (Not effecting the Keep/Kill portion of the Vote.)--Zombie Lord 21:36, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Allow me to rephrase, I accidentally fell down a well and bonked my head several times. So say I suggest something that adds 5% more endurance, allowing up to 105% before you can't pick anything up. If that fails, I could suggest a 6% boost and that could not be duped under this change because the end effects are different and not exactly the same. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:21, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Which is why I added the alternative idea. It lets individuals decide on a case by case basis without allowing a small majority far too much power.--Zombie Lord 22:27, 9 June 2009 (BST)

New draft of suggestion templates

Its not perfect by any means, but all parts of both templates now seem to be in agreement about what the procedure is. Cross posting to protections. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:38, 9 June 2009 (BST)

The diffs, just a pity they don't agree with the results of the poll down the bottom of the page at the moment -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:31 9 June 2009 (BST)

Balls. Serves me right for not checking the vote since I did this. In that case I only request the edit to Template:SugVoteRules--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:01, 9 June 2009 (BST)

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.--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. --Honestmistake 21:18, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Instead, how about suggestions go through Developing Suggestions and have people weigh in on it there? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 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.--Zombie Lord 21:26, 6 June 2009 (BST)

The entire system is too easy to abuse.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:07, 6 June 2009 (BST)

DS mandatorization is my next project. Don't blow it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:25, 6 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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". Linkthewindow  Talk  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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 03:17, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Exactly. Forcing people to justify just leads to votes like "kill - it sukxorz" Linkthewindow  Talk  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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:26, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Someone may want to change "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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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... --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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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?--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. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 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. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:39, 31 May 2009 (BST)

What is your aim in making changes?
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.
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.
And that will be a sad day indeed for this wiki. We need to be encouraging communication, and sharing knowledge, not just holding polls -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:35 1 June 2009 (BST)

Suggestions, March 2009

As some of you may know, 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.

(If that's a bit unclear, click to enlarge.)

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  10:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That said, I ironically fail at making graphs. The data is all on this page, so if anyone feels like taking another shot, go ahead. Linkthewindow  Talk  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 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:32 21 March 2009 (BST)

Indeed. But while your here.

An amazing correlation seems to be developing between the use of developing suggestions and the outcome of the voting process......--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 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.

So there ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:25 26 March 2009 (BST)

We should throw that up on Developing Suggestions... Linkthewindow  Talk  11:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit misleading. I'll look if I can make more honest pies. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my view:

--Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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: 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. --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. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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.--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.--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.
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."  Swiers 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. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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?--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. Linkthewindow  Talk  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? --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? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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 --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 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:00 30 March 2009 (BST)

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. --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. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 15:39, 30 March 2009 (BST)

I pretty much agree with ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners}. 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.--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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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.--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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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.--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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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.--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. --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. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:53, 21 April 2009 (BST)

But I don't like spam! Linkthewindow  Talk  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? --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. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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). --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. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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. --Karek^maps?! 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 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 these lines. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 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? Linkthewindow  Talk  15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. I'd still have a giant sign saying. DEVELOPING SUGGESTIONS near the top. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 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 this look? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 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. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 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. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 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"? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 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? --Sage|Carr ^Cobra 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:49, 2 June 2009 (BST)

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. --Honestmistake 23:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we have a requirement that all suggestions go through Developing Suggestions?

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?

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? -- Cheese 23:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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? Linkthewindow  Talk  03:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• This has actually been discussed 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.--Karek^maps?! 03:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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." Linkthewindow  Talk  03:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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.--xoxo 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that just makes no sense. What is with all the newbie haet these days?--Karek^maps?! 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 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 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. Linkthewindow  Talk  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 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:42 17 December 2008 (BST)

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. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 16:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ritalin says protect them.--xoxo 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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote is don't protect them. Just because.--– Nubis ^NWO 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? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 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?) Linkthewindow  Talk  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? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.  Swiers 02:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

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~~~~" is more valid than "Keep- ~~~~

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. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:00, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Wait, disregard that. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:01, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Voting

Yes

1. 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 --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 12:58, 1 June 2009 (BST)
2. For the sake of irony, as SA. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:01, 1 June 2009 (BST)
3. 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. --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. --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. --Honestmistake 20:09, 1 June 2009 (BST)

4. --Cyberbob 18:57, 1 June 2009 (BST)
5. Requiring any old justification is just wikilawyering, and it's impossible to require any sort of substantive justification. Therefore, SA wins. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 00:55, 2 June 2009 (BST)
6. Wonderful idea!! For it 100%! ^_^ --Shanaylette 03:03, 6 June 2009 (BST)
7. 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.--– Nubis ^NWO 10:02, 6 June 2009 (BST)
8. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:42, 6 June 2009 (BST)

No

1. 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 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:44 1 June 2009 (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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:46 1 June 2009 (BST)

   "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?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. --– Nubis ^NWO 10:02, 6 June 2009 (BST)

2. 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. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:54, 1 June 2009 (BST)
3. No one wants an idiot voteing no cause they hate the guy who made a suggestion. Simples --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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. --Honestmistake 15:35, 1 June 2009 (BST)

4. Justification and discussion are important and I believe useful to newbs like me.--C Whitty 14:52, 1 June 2009 (BST)
5. If your to stubborn to add even lolwtfbbq to your vote, then your best off not to vote at all. This change is unnecessary.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. --Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 17:13, 1 June 2009 (BST)

6. 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? --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:12, 1 June 2009 (BST)
7. Keep- lolwtfbbq~~~~ Would logically be struck as being inane. Keep- I like cars~~~~ 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. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 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"--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:48, 1 June 2009 (BST)

8. 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. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 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. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:28, 1 June 2009 (BST)

9. 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. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 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".--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:28, 2 June 2009 (BST)

10. Sorry Angelman, I just don't like it.-- Adward  15:01, 2 June 2009 (BST)
11. A better solution would be to require people to take their ideas to Talk:Suggestions first. --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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:37, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Spam

1. Policies belong in policy discussion. This is not a policy, this is a guideline change. You'd think the sysops might understand the difference. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:50, 1 June 2009 (BST)

   *Cough*Stupid "brit".--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

   Lets take a look into wiki here....

   1. 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!
   2. 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.

   3. 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.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:26, 2 June 2009 (BST)