Talk:Suggestions/24th-Jan-2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< Talk:Suggestions
Revision as of 16:04, 13 February 2007 by SporeSore (talk | contribs) (→‎Enhanced Scent Trail)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Suggestions Discussion

Enhanced Scent Trail

Timestamp: --SporeSore 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill tweak
Scope: Zombies
Description: I am not sure if this is a dupe or not. Playing as a zombie, the Scent Trail skill sounds like a lot of fun. In practice it is useless. My zombie hardly ever manages to hold onto someone's trail. I am suggesting that both of the following would fix this. 1) Increase range from 10 to 20. 2) Allow scent trail persist even if the zombie dies. After all, dead zeds get to hear feeding groans. These could be implemented as high level skills in the Scent Skill tree. Comments?

Discussion Hmmm...20 blocks feels like a bit much. 15 might get a keep from me, but I'd be willing to bet others would vote spam on that. However, being able to keep someone's trail after death makes perfect sense. But doesn't it do this already, though? I never really make use of Scent Trail due to the aforementioned pointlessness. Anyway, if it doesn't already possess that trait I'd vote keep for that part of it. You may be better off suggesting them separately. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that just retaining the trail after death would be enough. The Mad Axeman 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Scent Trail is one of those skills that works well enough for members of a (metagame) organized horde. With many cooperative zeds in the same place, one of them more often gets a valid trail, and then he can communicate the location to all the others, and they have the manpower to do something with the info. But for lone zeds, it doesn't do much. Still, I don't think allowing killed zeds to use the trail is a good idea- it removes one of the very few benefits that comes from killing a zombie, and would encourage "revenge killing" out of all useful or enjoyable proportion. --Swiers X:00 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Only once in 3 months has my zombie ever held on to a scent trail. It is a completely useless skill. As a zombie you nearly always are dead when you return to the game and the chances are the survivor who attacked you is behind a barricade. --SporeSore 20:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Leave it as a light suggestion (so the community will be more likely to accept it), keep it as expanded to 15 blocks, and available for use after death. It is certainly in need of an update though. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But if it worked after death, it would be impossible to defend yourself against. - BzAli 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You can defend yourself by running far far away. I can tell you my survivors always are inside an EHB after killing a zombie. If they aren't they deserve to die for being greedy. Really, how many times have you been attacked by the zombie you attacked the previous day?

I now see this must be presented as two different suggestions: Enhanced Scent Trail(EST)1 and Enhanced Scent Trail 2. EST-1 would increase range to 15. EST-2 would allow scent trail to work even if you are killed, but only at half range i.e. 5x5 for normal and 7x7 if you have EST-1 I. How does this sound?--SporeSore 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal discussion of policy changes for the suggestions page, as per the Voting Guidelines.

Dupe Debate

I've copied the following from the voting section that Pyre pulled from the page, as I'd like a chance to respond. I've taken the section from my vote and onwards, as it's the responses to my vote I'd like a chance to answer. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. No - I believe the dupe vote needs stronger reforms. Two of the voters here, both moderators, have recently abused the dupe vote (basically using it as ultra-strong spam), so I don't trust the moderation team to make sound judgements in this regard, either. I'm considering an arbitration case to get a neutral judgement on the matter, and to stop those moderators from abusing their position of trust. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - What the fuck? I did use a dupe vote once recently, here, and it was coincidentally the third dupe vote on a suggestion that was a fucking dupe. Just because you voted keep on that dupe suggestion didnt make it any less of a dupe, the trivial difference in the suggestion was insufficient in my mind. I find your being sore over the matter, and your baseless accuations of moderater impropriety both absurd and insulting. By the way, im still waiting for you to file your baseless misconduct case against me from the historical groups discussion where you flat out accused me of such misconduct. Either back up your threats with actions or fuck off, and dont treat other peoples opinions as worthless and invalid because you just so happen to disagree. --Grim s-Mod U! 12:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Are you on crack, Funt? I haven't voted Dupe on anything in ages. I await your case with as much trepidation as Grim. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 12:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, Gage is the other mod, not you -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, where did he use Dupe as a strong Spam? --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 12:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Familiar Zeds vs. Non Familiar Zeds -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
            • If Funt had read what Gage wrote in response to the guy, he would've seen that Gage admitted fault. The fact that Gage was confused does not mean that it was abused. Even Funt, master of all that he surverys, can (and does) fuck up from time to time. –Xoid M•T•FU! 13:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Oh, I missed Gage's apology too, but I figured it was just a misunderstanding, because it's such a hard problem to explain, as can be seen by my repeated attempts to get the point across in my previous link. It will be a hard suggestion to get through without being spammed/duped -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. No - As Cyberbob, Gage, Grim s and Boxy. –Xoid M•T•FU! 13:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to the discussion over Familiar Zeds vs. Non Familiar Zeds: that's not the suggestion I'm referring to in my vote here (although I did mention it in a debate section on this page). I would say, as you've brought it up, that I missed any admission of fault from Gage for removing a suggestion that didn't even have any votes on it. Could someone point that out to me? Also, if he did admit fault, why didn't he then revert his removal? I'm a bit confused over this.
What I was referring to was the Are You Sure You Want To Drop That? suggestion. Given the detail and nature of the suggestion (if you look), the version removed as a Dupe had a key difference from the original. You might say that the difference isn't enough for it not to be a duplicate - but if you look at the link I've provided, plenty of people, well after it was labelled a Dupe, found that they still wanted to vote Keep for that suggestion. It seems clear to me that (in this case) the power of the Dupe vote is simply too much. Those are not the same suggestion. And it's not just me that thinks so. The MAJORITY of the voters agreed with me. And yet their voice is snuffed out by the MINORITY. (Gage didn't vote on that suggestion, but he was the mod who took the decision to remove it as a dupe. There is precedent for not removing a suggestion with 3 or more Dupes - just check the archives - and I assume that's based on the judgement of the person who does the removal.)
A lot of you are saying "a dupe is a dupe", but that's simply not true in this case. What's a dupe to one person may be a markedly different suggestion to someone else, and one that's worth keeping.
Grim s - I won't "fuck off" - I'll stand my ground on this issue, thanks. I know I can be wrong sometimes - but at least I'll debate an issue - if you all you have to offer is telling me to "fuck off" when I've raised a valid concern over voting powers, well, that's just another reason you shouldn't be a sysop. Also, I may consider arbitration cases, or misconduct cases, and I may even discuss the fact that I'm considering them - but there is no onus on my part to carry out any case against anyone. I would have thought, that if you knew someone was considering such strong action, you might take a moment to reflect on your behaviour - clearly not.
Please, take an objective look at the suggestion that was removed and the voter comments. Between the author and the voters, a concensus was being reached of a workable solution to a problem considered worthy enough of discussion by the community. That was shut down by a far lesser group - two of them moderators, on an easily arguable point. Now, is that really how you want the wiki to work? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Dupes are dupes. That was a dupe, it got duped. The changes that Pyre talked about would break the system. Why? Because almost nobody ever bothers checking a suggestion after they voted to see that someone has managed to find a duplicate. Filling peer reviewed with dupes is not something anybody wants. Maybe a slightly more stringent requirement for a dupe is in order (perhaps 5 dupes for something to be duped and requiring a mod to check first?), but anything beyond that is going to cause problems. –Xoid M•T•FU! 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
And yet, in the case we're talking about, the new suggestion had a key difference from the one in Peer Rejected - and was popular with voters, and could have ended up in Peer Reviewed (as a new Peer Reviewed suggestion). Xoid, you're ignoring the majority opinion. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
One problem vs. many? Let's see, I go with 'one problem', thank you very much. –Xoid M•T•FU! 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I confess, I don't understand your last comment at all. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The rejected one had pop-ups no matter how many items you had. Mine had pop-ups for only when you had 1 item in your inventory. There's a major difference between many items and 1 item. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
(@Both of you:) We have one fuckup (which is still contested by those who perpetrated it) vs. making it practically impossible to get rid of any duplicate suggestion (of which there have been far more that haven't caused drama when they got removed, than those that have). What to choose? Gee, that's a tough one. –Xoid M•T•FU! 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The majority likes my suggestion, but a mod removes it for the minority? That's some democracy we have on this wiki. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
So, let's say a majority of people are for a policy that advocates you get castrated. Yet a mod gets rid of it because it's stupid drama causing bullshit. Wait, THAT'S NOT DEMOCRATIC! CALL THE U.N.!
Also: practically everything I've ever said to JMuller about his "democracy is teh greatest" crap applies here. "Fixing" a rule so that one potential (and rarely encountered) fuckup is no longer possible, at the expense of creating countless more is hardly reform for the better. –Xoid M•T•FU! 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The castration example is pure hyperbole, but thanks for expanding on your point - at least I can see where you're coming from now. I'd argue that it's not a simple case of black & white (ie either have overpowered dupe ability or no dupe at all). There must be a workable compromise. I don't think the current system works - it's too open to abuse. I've yet to come up with a reasonable alternative, though - so until I find anything constructive to add I'll bow out of this debate. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Several Pop-ups Vs 1 Pop-up = Not a duplicate. If you're searching for ammo during a breach at your local PD and have a habit of dropping the wrong item when you're trying to get rid of ammo for the pistol you don't have, you'll want a pop-up but probably not several. That right there is enough justification for it to not be a dupe. If there's any difference beyond mere flavor whatsoever, then it is by definition not a duplicate. The words "very similiar to" are so open to interpretation it's not even funny. Under that line of logic the pistol should be removed from the game because it is a dupe of the shotgun (or vice versa). I mean, both are stronger and more accurate than melee attacks, and both require ammo. What? You mean the different ammo capacities and other stuff like that? Oh, those are tiny differences to me, so they don't count. Oh, better yet, how about the baseball bat and length of pipe? Those have exactly the same stats. The only difference is that they are found in different places, which isn't anywhere near enough to prevent the two from being "very similar". If a suggestion is similiar to a previous suggestion, vote kill/spam and say "Pretty much the same thing has been suggested before, and it failed because such-and-such" or "Pointless, because there's something just like it already in peer-reviewed". Is that so hard? If we're going to keep the dupe vote around, let's make sure it's only being used to remove things that really have no discernible difference, rather than things that are similar but have some difference that we might consider tiny but another may consider important. If nothing else, it's worth it because it cuts down on drama like this. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote above in the discussion area "how about allowing suggestions to be made that slightly improve upon/update suggestions already in peer reviewed that would otherwise be labeled dupes? Such suggestions would replace the one it's improving upon in peer reviewed if they are successful". I think this would solve the problem you guys have with over zealous dupe removal, and will fix it in a way that will actually help to maintain the usefulness of the suggestions archives, rather than filling it up with suggestions that are largely the same -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the first sane ideas I have seen in a while.--Gage 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I don't see the "improvement" for the suggestion under discussion (its STILL retarded whether its a dupe or not. Guess I should have voted spam then?)--Pesatyel 09:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If Are You Sure You Want To Drop That? WASN'T a Dupe, it was spam for being incredibly stupid. Except for a guy who JUST started, WHO carries around ONE ITEM where the suggestion would even come into play? Hell, even ZOMBIES carry around more shit than THAT!--Pesatyel 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we separate the spam and dupe section. If people feel a suggestion is a dupe, they can submit the link, and people vote on it like this example:

Dupe section

  1. NotDupe- Such and such a difference is very important -voter 1
  2. NotDupe-voter 2
  3. NotDupe-voter 5
  1. Dupe -Notice how I am free to vote both in this poll as well as the one above it.- voter 1
    Yes voter1, and you also could have voted keep,kill or spam. Whether a suggestion is good or not is a separate question from whether it has already been suggested, and this system allows you to answer both questions. --commenter2
  2. Dupe -voter 3
  3. NotDupe -voter 6
  4. Dupe- Now that there are 3 Dupe votes and a 2/3 majority in that the suggestion is a Dupe of ExampleSuggestion3, this suggestion can be removed straight away by anyone. -voter 3

--Toejam 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this novel suggestion, don't remove anything until the voting period is up? it may be crap but so what... then at the end if it has x number of matching dupes then replace the old version in peer reviewed.--Honestmistake 12:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you know what I just noticed? The rules for removing suggestions already state that one cannot remove a suggestion as a dupe for being similar to another suggestion. It says that there can't be any viable differences. Directly copied from the suggestions page:

  • Duplicate - If the removed Suggestion is a duplicate, you must:
    1. Confirm that there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate.
    2. List the number of Dupe Votes received.
    3. Provide a link(s) to the Suggestion that it duplicates.
    4. Optionally note the Linked Suggestion status: Reviewed/Undecided/Rejected.
    5. Sign the removal.
    6. Be Polite and make no additional comments.

"Confirm that there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate."

The word "viable" does not leave room for interpretation here. If the difference could possibly be important to someone, then the suggestion cannot be removed as a dupe according to the rules. The real problem here isn't what defines a dupe; it's that the rules regarding it aren't being enforced. We need to either start enforcing the rules, or change them. --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

How about this, then (combination of everyone's ideas so far, I hope):

  1. A suggestion may be removed as a Dupe as long as there is a Dupe vote linking to a very similar suggestion in the archives, and at least two supporting Dupe votes. The Dupe votes go in the Spam section, and count as Spam votes in the event that the suggestion is not removed as a Dupe.
  2. If there is some difference between the new suggestion, and the archived one, the author may resubmit their duped suggestion with a prominent Note indicating that they wish to update or improve upon the archived suggestion. This resubmission is immune from Duping, and any Dupe votes placed will be struck and discounted.
  3. At the end of the voting period, a note is added to the archived suggestion, detailing the proposed change, the % of Keep votes, and the current date. Additionally, if the new suggestion improves the placement of the archived suggestion (ie either Rejected to Undecided or Undecided to Peer Reviewed) it will be moved to the new section. (The Note must also indicate that a move took place with the new vote.)
  4. Finally, the author of a new suggestion may indicate that their suggestion is an aim to improve upon an existing one, without going through Step #1 (above).

Does that do it? Too complicated? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, although I'm not too keen on notes being tacked onto suggestions already in peer reviewed, unless there is the 2/3rds support necessary for the "update" to get in there itself... -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 05:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Note will say what the vote was - so it might say 2/10; 20% - rejected change. The other option is either to delete the whole thing (in which case, there's no record, so someone could suggest the same thing the next day), or to save the whole thing in Rejected (which means you'll end up with duplicates all over the place). Easiest is just to add the Note, even if it failed, even to a Reviewed suggestion. (It's really difficult to keep this both simple, and to cover all the possibilities - I can see now why we have the very simple system of Duping.)--Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That could work. Put more detail in if the update gets a 2/3rds majority though? Could work when a better improvement drags a suggestion that was originally in peer rejected, up to peer reviewed. The old peer rejected becomes a note on top of the successful suggestion... I guess we don't have to spell all this stuff out though, it'll be up to the guys who implement it (nudge, nudge) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose what we have to remember is that this will be a rare occurence. Most people probably won't put their suggestion back up after it's been duped - especially so if the dupe is in Peer Rejected. Should I put this to the vote, d'you think? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Cant do much worse than the last couple I guess -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just make sure it's clear that the update when added on doesn't claim to be better than the original but a different perspective. I'd hate to see a suggestion of mine like this:

Let Zombies Use Clubs I think zombies should be able to use clubs. IMPROVED VERSION: Let Zombies Use Clubs is retarded. Let them use guns and samurai swords instead.

It'd be less grating if it was like this:

Let Zombies Use Clubs I think zombies should be able to use clubs. RELATED SUGGESTIONS: 2/20/07: Let Zombies Use Guns and Samurai Swords I think zombies should be able to use guns and samurai swords.

--Jon Pyre 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Need an anti-dupe vote do we? To keep this from being abused, when someone tries to add to a suggestion that isn't close enough? Makes you appreciate the simplicity of what we already have, eh -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see that, yes. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you take out the part about dupes becoming spams? Someone could think a suggestion is really good, but a dupe. They wouldn't want their vote counting as spam. --Toejam 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe dupes could be placed in any of the other categories, keep, kill or spam? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
how about counting dupes as keep, kill, spam depending on the voters choice? that way if it gets spammed it dies anyway... if its killed not it on the suggestion as a rejected but similar suggestion. If it does prove more popular than the original it should then and only then replace the original with a note and link to that effect!--Honestmistake 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New Dupe Rules (Second Revision)

I propose the following changes to the Dupe vote:Pulled for another revision. --Jon Pyre 04:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dupe votes are no longer confined to the Spam category. Instead you may vote Dupe/Keep, Dupe/Kill, or Dupe/Spam, and place it in the relevant category. This indicates "I think this is a Dupe and should be removed, but if it is not removed as a Dupe this is how I would like my vote counted".

Dupes must have at least seven Dupe votes and have been submitted at least six hours ago before removal. This is similar conditions for spam removal, but unlike Spam the Dupe vote does not need a majority.

When Duped suggestions are deleted they are moved, with votes, to the discussion page. If seven or more users present a reasoned rebuttal to the Dupe votes pointing out original merit the suggestion can be resubmitted for voting a future day, immune to the Dupe vote this time. A note should be made on the suggestion letting voters know it is a restored Dupe so they do not vote Dupe on it. An author might be advised to choose to revise their suggestion instead of submitting as was to make it more original, but they have a choice either way.

This gives a few hours for Dupe votes to be responded to by the author or other voters before removal. And when removed if enough voters believe it is original the suggestion can go back for voting the next day. This allows Dupes to be removed easier than Spam but restored if enough voters believe it is unique.

PLEASE VOTE BELOW THE LINE

  1. YES Allows for easy dupe removal, but gives more time for an author to respond to Dupe votes. If a significant portion of the community disagree that it is a Dupe it can now be resubmitted at a later date. Also seperates the very different Spam and Dupe votes. Currently voting Dupe on an idea you like but think isn't original can have a favored idea sent to Peer Rejected. --Jon Pyre 04:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - too complicated.--Gage 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re I think it is pretty simple. I can sum it up in one line: It allows people to vote dupe in any category, requires 6 hours of voting and seven dupe votes, and moves the suggestion to the discussion page where it can be restored if seven voters disagree with it being a Dupe. I probably should have been more concise above. --Jon Pyre 05:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. No - Here's the text for version #3 "Any suggestion that is Duped and removed from voting may be re-submitted as is, as long as the author displays, in a prominent position, a notice that it is a near duplicate of an existing suggestion in the archives (with link), aimed at updating or improving upon the archived suggestion. The resubmitted dupe suggestion is then immune from further dupes, and if the vote approves of the updated suggestion, it shall replace the one it was duplicating in the archives. If unsuccessful, it shall not be archived, but removed at the end of it's voting period." -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. No - I will vote Yes on Boxy's solution. It's a simple add-on to the existing rules, and it neatly solves the problem of the rare abuse of the current Dupe rules, whilst also adding the extra benefit of maybe improving on old suggestions. (It's not perfect, but a solution that covers all eventualities is proving just too complicated.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 12:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. No - What Funt said. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. No - As boxy, with a further alteration: necessitate that the 'new' suggestion have a greater-than-or-equal to vote as the old. –Xoid M•T•FU! 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re: - I don't think that's necessary. When it comes to voting on the dupe the second time, voters would also be taking into account whether they think the improvements make it worthy of replacing the old suggestion. But given that a suggestion needs 2/3 keeps to make it into peer reviewed, perhaps it's not as simple as just a majority vote means it replaces the suggestion. How about >50% yes votes means that the dupe suggestion replaces one in peer rejected, and >66% means that the improvement is bumped up to peer reviewed? Replacing suggestions already in peer reviewed automatically requires a 2/3 (>66%) yes vote? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re: The problem is suggestions with a ridiculously high percentage of keep votes vs. an "improvement" which barely made it through. Frankly though, I prefer Funt's new idea, it gets around both the problem of removing history as well as what I was trying to solve. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, see what you (and Funt) mean. But it needs some way of determining if it's an improvement over the old one, I mean there's no point replacing the ones in the archives, if the replacements are no better. If they're already in peer reviewed, well it's likely that even a slightly worse suggestion is going to get up if just voting on merit alone (rather than in comparison to the old one) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 09:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think there's a need for saying one is better than the other. If suggestion A is noted as being "90/100 (90%) Well Accepted As Is" then you could simply add a note that says "Should use blancmange instead of jello; 8/10 (80%); accepted change on ??/??/??". The person reading the suggestion (ie He Who Shalt Not Be Named) can make up their mind which bits they like, in terms of any kind of implementation. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    At the risk of over-posting - I was being a bit "duh" - I see what boxy means - what about a vote that could potentially move a suggestion from rejected to reviewed (or whatever). Hrmn. (Some would argue it doesn't matter - but Reviewed is easier to navigate than Rejected.) I guess it wouldn't hurt to (on the rare occasion that this will happen) move a suggestion from one section to another (in an upwards direction only), as long as you don't delete the original votes (as detailed above). Anyone reading it could see clearly that it was something that had spent considerable time in Rejected before a small change shifted it. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. No - --CaptainM 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. No - I would also vote yes on boxy's solution, only I would prefer that the original suggestion not be deleted if the near-dupe is successful; it may be necessary for posterity (and what proud suggestor wants to see their prized peer-reviewed suggestion chased out of it's rightful place on the wiki by a bullying clone?). --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    I feel kind of the same, Reaper. How about this: if the new suggestion succeeds at vote (ignoring Xoid's greater than suggestion), then instead of replacing the original, a note is added with the suggested change along with the change's vote tally. That wouldn't be any more difficult than cycling a suggestion is currently. The original would survive intact. The change would be noted. Everyone wins? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. No - but yes on the general idea. Resubmit vote with some/all of suggested changes, I guess. --ExplodingFerret 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Deleted for revision by Jon, saved for posterity by me. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions/24th-Jan-2007&oldid=560399"