Denied [Add Function] - Allow duplication of clipboard drafts for Templating.

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ModernKiwi

Active member
Apr 7, 2023
6
1
21
New Zealand
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion would add the ability to duplicate a saved draft in the users' clipboard, either through clicking "New Document" and adding an option to select from a draft, or when selecting "Load Draft" adding a duplication button to the left of the select button in that menu.
(Optional suggestion) - Could also look at a way to then be able to share these "template" drafts.

Possible Positives of the suggestion:
  • Allows users to create templates for different types of situations (eg: creating an SCP test template).
  • Could improve the quality of documents submitted as it promotes users to create templates and improve the template for future use.
  • Would reduce downtime for scientists wanting to create detailed documentation for better RP.
  • Currently, the "Template" draft would be edited for an SCP test, and can not save the work without loosing the "Template" format.
  • (Optional suggestion) - Could help newer players to find better ways of writing documentation.
  • (Optional suggestion) - Could provide a form of standardisation for different documents, primarily SCP test related.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
  • This could increase the workload for exec researchers+ as players could abuse this to create a bunch of quick tests to try and grind money (however, that is kind of possible with the existing draft system, so I think the impact would be minimal if any.
  • This could increase the amount of storage clipboard drafts would use as users create their own drafts (however, as this is primarily storing string data (I assume) and element data (eg: header, paragraph, newline, image..) the storage increase from this feature would be minimal.)
  • Users could end up creating many documents (eg 1 template, and 1 draft document for each SCP), a few users doing this wouldn't be an issue, but, could be an issue over time if a lot of players did this. (However, due to the (assumed) storage size required for documents I do not see this as an issue)
  • Could cause issues with the server if a user tries to duplicate a document that is massive (eg 50 pages (Dont know if there is a size limit) with a bunch of elements).
  • (Optional suggestion) - Being able to share templates could mean players could abuse this specific feature by sharing good or excellent quality documents for easy money, this would lead to an increased workload for reviewers as they would need 2 keep an eye out for this abuse, this is why I recommended this as Optional.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This suggestion will help scientists and possibly other roles in providing clean and details documentation by reducing the amount of work needed to create a detailed document with a good layout.​
This suggestion can directly benefit Scientists and SCPs in enhancing RP as this feature would promote players to engage in more details testing due to the reduction in the document creation time.​
Overall server workload would not be increased as this is not active code constantly running, and its impact would primarily be limited to storage impact, this would be minimal due to what is being stored.​
Due to the fact that a printed document contained the users' details and uploads contained the submitters' account details it should be fairly easy to spot abusers.​

Possible changes to reduce the impact of changes (If any/needed):
  • If storage taken up by this change is a concern a limit on how many drafts can be saved could be implemented (eg 10-50), this could also increase based on the users level either in total or of a given role (eg Jr scientist can only have 10 drafts max, Sr scientist could have 50).
  • Limiting the frequency you can duplicate drafts, similar to how you have print credits to avoid someone spamming draft duplication.
If anyone has any suggestions of improvements to this suggestion please let me know, thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.