Category talk:Suggestions

Page Discussion

Please put new topics at the top of the page.

Archives

Archives for this page are here

Discussion About Talk:Suggestions

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

Discussion About Category:Suggestions

Put talk about the page Category:Suggestions here

Please add developing suggestions to Category:Suggestions?

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

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

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

Fix this system

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Suggestion Portal

I think we should change that template on the Suggestions page. I mean, currently, no one is bothering to deal with/add to the Recently Closed Suggestions part, so it would probably be best to remove that redundant section. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:02, 19 July 2010 (BST)

Agree 100%. I was actually thinking through a redesign of the whole Suggestions system, since a lot of it is either outdated or does a poor job of managing the way that the system is currently used by the folks using it. I was essentially thinking that a modified version of DS would act as the hub for all of it, while the Suggestions page would essentially become an archival page only with no parts of it that should ever need to be modified. Recently Closed Suggestions is unnecessary, and I think the distinction between "Today's" and "Current" suggestions is not necessary either and should be discarded (i.e. only have Current ones). —Aichon— 17:21, 19 July 2010 (BST)

With the number of suggestions these days, Today's is definitely pointless. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:39, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Going back to this since I haven't had time to redo the entire system yet, would anyone object to changing it from "Today's" to "Current" in all of the appropriate places? We simply don't get as many as we used to, and maintaining the distinction (which is rarely ever done in practice anyway) requires extra maintenance. —Aichon— 04:45, 17 September 2010 (BST)

I've been meaning to suggest this for a while. Definitely concur. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:12, 20 September 2010 (BST)

I'll give it another day for any objections. If none arrive, then I guess I'll go ahead and do it at some point after that. —Aichon— 20:50, 20 September 2010 (BST)

Do it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:21, 21 September 2010 (BST)

Gonna give it another day. I just posted to the talk for Current Suggestions, which will hopefully attract some more attention. Plus, this topic was previously brought up, so it's only fair to ping folks watching that page too. —Aichon— 00:15, 22 September 2010 (BST)

Require all suggestions to pass through DS first?

Recently there has been an influx of suggestions that have been killed/spammed because they've not yet been run through the Developing Suggestions page.

If that's what's happening, then I think it would be better for all parties involved if we would require that all future suggestions must have a prior discussion in the Developing Suggestions page before the suggestion can be posted on the main Suggestions portal. --Aeon17x 11:43, 1 October 2010 (BST)

Personally, yes. We've actually got some form on this now, that all guides must pass through review first, But I'd rather say something like, ALL new suggestors must submit their first suggestion to developing suggestions for 2 days before posting it in the main suggestions system. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:56, 1 October 2010 (BST)

I kinda like the idea, so long as it allowed people who had made Peer Reviewed suggestions previously to skip DS. It'll just save them some hassle if they don't want to go to DS, but most of us take everything we have to DS anyway just because we know how valuable it actually is. I can only think of two suggestions in recent memory that didn't go to DS and got Peer Reviewed, and they were both by veterans of the wiki. —Aichon— 12:15, 1 October 2010 (BST)

I guess giving a pass for those who made peer-reviewed suggestions is reasonable. How do we identify them though? There's a lot of them now. --Aeon17x 13:12, 1 October 2010 (BST)

I see no problem with this idea or as Ross suggested. I don't know if I'd get behind the idea of past peer reviewed suggestors get a free pass. Might create an elite club or something. Especially since its kind of difficult to get peer reviewed it seems. Most of the good ideas have already been thought of and voters tend to be pretty meticulous on what they accept as worthy. --~ 14:29, 1 October 2010 (BST)

People with previously peer-reviewed suggestions shouldn't get a free pass. Everybody can have a one-off pure gold suggestion like Pumpkin Count, but I certainly shouldn't be given a free pass to post without going to DS, just because of one suggestion. Everybody should be required to go through DS. Case in point, Swiers, who's usually incredible, put forward Barricade Frenzy which should have gone through DS first by the look of the number of kill and change votes. Just because somebody has done well in the past doesn't mean that they always will.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:39, 1 October 2010 (BST)

As I said, the idea would be that people who have demonstrated an ability to use the system are allowed to bypass it if they don't see a need for it, with the assumption being that they know well enough what they need or are willing to do. That said, on thinking about it some more, I think I might just be against the whole idea in general. I think I'd rather just put more emphasis on DS. That redesign I keep talking about but never getting around to is designed so that DS is the hub of the Suggestions system, putting a lot more focus on it, rather than on Category:Current Suggestions. Merely switching the focus to DS may bring more newbs to it, rather than going straight to making a suggestion. —Aichon— 07:25, 2 October 2010 (BST)

Forcing people to wait a day or two isn't necessarily going to help. They could post it on DS and then simply ignore whatever comments they got there. As for the suggestion that a system like this exists in Guides, it does not. Guides requires Guides/Review just like Peer Reviewed requires Suggestions. User:Whitehouse 14:54, 1 October 2010 (BST)

A few of you seem to be forgetting the big picture regardless of which position you're arguing for. I used to be against this but the more I think about it, I guess it makes sense. Arguing that it will stop the amount of noobs that will make shitty suggestions is a really dumb thing to argue. There'll always be retards around and I know a lot of them won't listen to us anyway. Fuck it, unless this is explained REALLY FUCKING WELL, I doubt half of the people you're trying to stop will even USE DS if this rule is implemented, which means we'd have to instacycle them as spam or 'unrefined' or whatever, and that in turn will mean they'll end up in the suggestions namespace and inside the database anyway, so I highly doubt that making this just to stop noobs is going to be beneficial.

But onto the crux of the issue: we have to remember that this is a tool for Kevan to filter through the better suggestions to consider for the game, and if we are going to pretend he reads these and acts accordingly, I think it's probably for the best if we give him the very best suggestions we can possibly offer. However, if the suggestions system was changed from this to become the utopian suggestions review system, all it meant was that the lines between "reviewed", "undecided" and "rejected" would be made all the more blurry, as all suggestions would theoretically be the top notch they could be, with simple majority approval deciding how "highly" it should be rated in Kevan's "to-read" list. The arbitrary designations of whether the suggestions are good enough wouldn't actually help him out much at all, as the current system fails to do so.

In my opinion, there are other things that could be done to make this system better, but it's all unchangeable because it's down to voter opinions and values. For example, devaluing a suggestion because of lack of flavour IMO is an example of bad voting values (obviously ignoring the extreme examples like a suggestion about bat riding tutu robots from Venus) because I'd imagine Kevan wants good concepts and ideas rather than trivial additional information that doesn't actually change the given suggestion's actual impact on the game. Especially when his flavour in updates are so dumb themselves. Moving the voting culture to stop voting on trivial shit and check the concept at hand is an example of how the suggestions system's review criteria could be more beneficial to Kevan as a resource than it is now. That's just my opinion though.

Even if you used recent examples, like some of you have been doing above, I don't think it'd make a big dif. like Swier's recent suggestion. Would it be worth putting this into effect just so suggestions like that (which have a good base concept) would be forced to be put through DS so it could be moulded into a better suggestion? Yes. In theory. But in practice, Seb has already argued against several of the responses on the main page, which makes me think he wouldn't have listened to a lot of the critiquing on DS anyway.

It's so late and I'm so tired I can't even remember what I'm arguing for anymore. I think, basically, I'm for enacting this, but I really don't think it'll do much guys. -- LEMON #1 15:32, 1 October 2010 (BST)

I just think Developing Suggestions is a relatively good filter for incoming suggestions. For every dozen ideas presented on DS, only one or two of them are actually filed in the main suggestions system. It could be a fallacy but I believe all that discussion is doing something by virtue of passively weeding out the crap suggestions, which happen to be what you can call many if not most of the suggestions that don't pass through DS.

As for the suggestions which are still filed straight to the main system without prior consultation on DS: yes, they ought to be instacycled. But I think you can skip on the archiving part, since if they were posted on DS as they should have in the first place they wouldn't have been archived there either. --Aeon17x 16:42, 1 October 2010 (BST)

So...you're suggesting a new Speedy Deletion criteria for suggestions that are posted without having gone to DS first? Because anything less than that and we won't be able to avoid archiving them, since the pages already exist. That seems a bit extreme to me. —Aichon— 07:25, 2 October 2010 (BST)

Ah, so all suggestions are archived if they are not deleted... what if they were sysop-cycled like multi/edited suggestions? That way you can also put a special template on top detailing that new suggestions should be put on DS first, instead of a half a dozen users saying that on their kill/spam votes. --Aeon17x 07:33, 2 October 2010 (BST)

Technically, anyone can cycle those, since the only thing special about sysops in relation to suggestions is that we can spaminate pages earlier and with less requirements than a normal user can. Otherwise, everything we do, you can do too (and we appreciate it when others do, since janitorial work gets old). And yep, if this were to be implemented, that's likely how it would be done, just so that it would match what we already have. —Aichon— 07:56, 2 October 2010 (BST)

Post a big red note at the top of the page saying. Use. DS. I'd even say waive the no flashing text rule. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:15, 1 October 2010 (BST)

I've decided that I'm not going to call for a vote on this proposal. Aichon and Ross is right; it's better if DS is refocused as the center of the suggestions system, instead of forcing it unto new users. And once in a blue moon there does come a suggestion that is undiscussed yet surprisingly good, it's a shame if we don't get to hear about it in case the user who thought of it is terrified of what people on DS say. --Aeon17x 11:55, 3 October 2010 (BST)

Suggestion Discussion

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

Humorous suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reworking of dupes

Changes in the game mean that suggestions which were unworkable before, may now be logical with the current game. To combat this, I suggest setting a limit on how long a suggestion can be considered a dupe, say 8 months as a starting figure. This will be long enough to prevent endless spamming of the system, yet short enough to try ideas again.-- Adward  12:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this wouldn't apply to Peer Reviewed suggestions, right? After all, there's no point in keeping a suggestion that has already been kept. Anyway, I'd be up for something like this. I'm not sure about the eight months, but the concept is good, since a lot has changed since those early suggestions were made. —Aichon— 13:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested this before, amongst other things, but for 12 months. Either way works really.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, this suggestion is itself pretty much a dupe (read further down the page). And no, Kevan decides what gets in and what doesn't – he's implemented stuff from Peer Rejected and from voting before, and there's plenty of Peer Reviewed stuff which is never going to make it in. I really don't think we need more pointless rehash suggestions which will never be implemented. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Kevan doesn't give a toss about the reviewing system, he implements what he wants and based off no merit other than his own approval. Let's put Suggestions up for deletion already? --

 

 

 

 

00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is a bit much, but given the abuse of the Talk:Suggestions page by certain individuals who have no clue of how the system works, I'd say looking at deleting that is feasible and having everything go straight to the main system. The suggestion system and the discussions it has generated have contributed to game changes, it's just that contrary to the views of some people the system is accurately named. It is a suggestion system, not a demand system, you could push through a suggestion with 1000 keep votes and it's still not getting through unless Kevan likes it and thinks it's relevant to the game at that moment in time.

The problem with limiting dupes is the fact that we'd have to deal with pointless shit again and again. We'd get chainsaws, flame throwers and sentry guns all back almost immediately. Kevan has never expressed any displeasure with the way the system works and is operated. The major reason for the dupe system is to prevent pointless crap from filling up the system, allowing Kevan to see the new/evolved ideas immediately. Usually the most vocal proponents of altering the dupe system are those who are so unoriginal that all their stuff gets duped and they take personal offence because they think they are the saviour of the game. Cue Zombie Lord in 10, 9, 8, 7....

You want to change something? Try getting rid of the sysop spam method, there's no reason to give a group of users massive powers when they don't actively participate in the process. Alternately codify the humorous condition, because that's enforced based on who puts the suggestion up rather than the content. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's an idea. Clarifying humurous is less required, as most suggestions that are humurous are pretty blatant.-- Adward  17:45, 15 December 2009 (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.

Humourous Rules Change

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

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

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

to;

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

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

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

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

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

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

For

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

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

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

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

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

16. Fuck tha police. -- Cheese 23:31, 1 August 2011 (BST)

New Cycling Criteria For All Suggestions Pages

The purpose of Developing Suggestions is stated on the page to be as follows:

This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Recently a certain user has been abusing this page by using it for other than its intended purpose. Zombie Lord has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in adding any of his ideas to the main system to be put up for review by his peers, why then do we allow people who have no such interest in using the page as intended to disrupt it?

Case in point, if we look at the page in this form we can see how the overall existence of his contributions is disruptive and harmful to the purpose of the page. The proposals of other users that may be using the system as intended end up being buried under the avalanche of his spammed ideas that he admits he has no intention of ever sending to the main system.

To clarify, Zombie Lord has said he has no intention of taking his ideas to the main system (therefore having no reason to post on Developing Suggestions) and that he doesn't have to take his suggestions to the main system as Kevan reads Developing Suggestion (Kevan doesn't, the system is set up so he doesn't have to and Zombie Lord can provide no evidence to support his baseless guessing).

If he has no intention of using the system as intended, why should we allow him to bury the suggestions of others and continue to disrupt the suggestions pages? If he merely wants to list his ideas and work on them with select users then his user space will suffice for that purpose.

Therefore I propose to add a new cycling criteria applicable to all pages in Category:Suggestions and any sub category thereof, including discussion and talk pages. If passed:

Any edit made by Zombie Lord to one of these pages can be reverted/removed by any user without warning or a notice period. Placing the edit back from a rightful cycling will be considered a bad faith contribution and seen as vandalism.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iscariot (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Against

1. This is a joke, right?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
2. While I think something should be done, I don't think this is the answer. How about we just limit people to two suggestions on DS at a time, then automatically cycle any older ones as soon as new ones get posted? It prevents spamming in general, as opposed to just handling one user. —Aichon— 00:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Horrible idea. - User:Whitehouse 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
4. As Aichon. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Just apply the same criteria that the main system uses: one suggestion and one revision a day. I'd even say epand that to three maybe five days, for both DS and the main system. 02:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
6. No specific user policy please. --Thadeous Oakley 10:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Well, you got away with feigning this as an action of not vandalism so I might as well aid it to die in a fire. --
    
    
    
    
   13:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
8. As Aichon. Targeting a specific user like this is a no-no. Why not instead say no more than two proposed suggestions per user at a time, and after one week of no discussion the suggestion is either dropped or moved to voting? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
9. I support the concept, not the method: take it to arbies or A/VB. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
10. developing suggestions do not need to develop into anything in particular. It works well as a forum for discussing potential ideas and actual suggestions have often come from such discussion (even if tangentially!) --Honestmistake 07:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
11. No.-- Adward  10:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Ridiculous - Even if someone has no intention of taking their ideas forward they should still be able to post it in developing, if it gets enough backing the user may change their mind, if they don't then someone else can salvage parts of it for their own ideas. Also, I think it's grossly unfair on Zombie Lord. It would be the same as having a policy allowing deleting of Iscariot's overly negative comments (which has more of a negative effect on the community than Zombie Lords practices). --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
13. As Thad. Asheets 20:00, 1 August 2011 (BST)