Update "Summary of Rejected Suggestions"

I am a frequent lurker on the suggestions forums and see a lot of the same suggestion being rejected over and over again. Sometimes these suggestions are rejected due to reasons in the "Summary" thread, but they're not explicitly stated there, and I think they should be. I think it's more likely that a user will scan that thread before suggesting than read the last several pages of the rejected suggestions forum. The "Summary" has not been updated in two years and I think that these would be some good additions. Also, if I somehow missed one of these being in the "Summary", please let me know ^^"

1. Gigantamax, Dynamax, Beta, etc. The former two are rejected due to PFQ's sprite size limitation, and the latter due to the original artists' wishes. They are not listed on the "Summary" but are suggested frequently. I believe they should be added, perhaps with a note saying something along the lines of "If a new game has recently come out, it's safe to assume PFQ's art team is working on it. However, if we have released a new generation on-site and you don't see a new feature [Dynamax, Transform ability, etc.], then it's safe to assume it won't be coming to PFQ." Some examples of this being rejected recently are here, here, and here.
2. Fields for Eggs/Eggbox/etc. This has been suggested quite a few times. I only found these four threads and none had a very clear staff answer for rejection, but I gather that it's because it would "break the game", due to it already being fairly easy to hatch eggs if you max the egg timer.
3. Mass Release/Mass Sell. Frequently suggested and frequently rejected due to being open to abuse if an account is exploited. Additionally since QoL is a "site-sanctioned" userscript I think a note could be added that QoL makes this feature available, though still clarifying it's not created by the site and the mass-release won't be made an official feature for a reason.

If anyone has suggestions for additional items let me know!

Support all the items and reasons, also it would be easier to be helpful to others as sometimes I see a suggestion and think "I SWEAR I've seen this one rejected before for a good/very firm reason and so likely it won't be approved this time" but then I try to link to the post and can't find it myself in rejected. I think more of the firm "no's" should be added, and I think a section mentioning that the QOL userscript exists (along with a disclaimer that although it is allowed and endorsed, the things you do with it are not the site's responsibility, as they do not wish to provide some of the features as truly official means for a reason) could be helpful!

Bump!

Full support! It takes so much time to go through the regected threads sometimes, and it's very easy to miss things. To add to this, I find that some of the reasons for things already there are kinda vauge, so perhaps adding more information to them too. For example, this reason for the scours not having time variations: "...are part of what broke the Scour system on PF1. We'd prefer not to repeat that." For newer players (or even older players that didn't play on the original site/don't remember much) there's no actual explanation on how it was broken. Not that I see this sugested often, but having explinations like this are too vauge and doesn't alow descussion on possible ways of fixing it so that it could be implemented. Especialy if this is on the top of the thread: "If you feel you have an argument that trumps the reason for rejected, particularly if you are able to show how the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks, please make a new Suggestions thread about it." How can we come up with an argument if there's nothing to argue against? EDIT: Typo

Bump!

Another frequently suggested and rejected is group chats here here As well as a forum search bar boop boop boop

Bumping because I’ve seen some of these suggested again the last week or so, also those are some great additions Vaporeon.

I’m bumping this again because I’ve seen a lot of these get suggested again. No, it wouldn’t solve the problem of people not reading the thread before they post, but it’d be a lot easier for everyone to just post a quote from that thread as a rejection reason rather than hunting down multiple old threads. And hopefully at least some people would read it before posting.

For the sake of transparency I will be moving this thread to under consideration. The moderator team has been working on updating the rejected summary thread internally for sometime. There is no current ETA for when it will be completed but the thread will be updated eventually!

This has been completed!