PvXwiki talk:Build Masters

Archives

---

1. Archive 1

Status

Sorry for being so late, RL is really busy atm. I have a preliminary version running on the test server. Here are some details that can answer some of the above questions:

• Build Masters will form a new user group, just like admins or bcrats. Any user can be member of any group. Thus a user could be only admin, only BM, or both. Membership in any user group is granted and revoked by the bcrats.
• BMs will have the right to roll back votes and to revert rollbacks. Admins who are not BMs won't have that right any more. [can be changed]
• BM's votes will count 150% [can be changed] for determination of the overall rating. They don't count extra for determining the number of votes (and neither in the histograms shown on the rating page).
• The CheckUser right is granted to the CheckUser user group. Bcrats are free to add BMs to that group.
• BMs cannot delete pages, including build pages. However, a page tagged for deletion by a BM might be deleted by an admin with little further investigation.

What needs to be decided before implementation is: how much weight should BM votes get, 150% or more? Who should be the initial BMs? – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 05:48, 6 January 2008 (EST)

imho, Admins should still retain the right to rollback/revert votes. Admins have traditionally been the sort of "peace keepers" of the wiki, and I think that allowing them to have this right will allow for their position to remain clearly and visibly above that of a BM. I don't carry any opinion on the vote weighting, necessarily, though I do think that anything over 200% would be unfavorable, strongly. As for the initial BMs, I believe Skakid and Unexist might be the only quite unanimously chosen BMs who are both active and well-recognized by the community. Perhaps, for testing purposes, Wizardboy or some other glitchfinder might make a nice temporary to hound out problems. I'm not sure that'll be necessary, but it's a thought. cedave _{(contributions_buildpage)} 06:00, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, admins need to retain their current powers but admins should also be able to be Build Masters through the same process. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 21:50, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Vote Weight needs to be at least 2 times. Would instantly make the BM's selection more exclusive, and there would be no potential for abuse of power, just like the nature of a RfA. Shen(contribs) 10:03, 6 January 2008 (EST)

The vote weight should not be above 200%, at the very most, and 150% would be preferable. I like preventing non-BM admins from removing votes, as someone may be a very good admin, but not know anything about builds. Lord Belar 12:45, 6 January 2008 (EST)

200% is optimal imo. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 21:50, 6 January 2008 (EST)

If admins won't be able to remove votes, then BMs should definitely be checkusers. Otherwise, admins could find socks but couldn't remove their votes and BMs could remove sock votes but couldn't confirm whether or not they're socks. So in the event that at some point we ended up without any admins who were also BMs, that wouldn't be ideal. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 14:33, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I'll change the code such that all admins can remove votes. Making all BMs also checkusers is a good idea, but that doesn't require any coding, anybody can be given the checkuser right by the bcrats. We still need consensus about the BM's vote weighting! – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 15:50, 6 January 2008 (EST)

150% works, but if enough people want it higher, then change it to 200%. Lord Belar 15:51, 6 January 2008 (EST)

People have opposed Vote Weight, but unless they wish to present a legit argument as to why 200% isn't in good taste, I'm inclined to say the silence means consent. I say 200%. Shen(contribs) 16:01, 6 January 2008 (EST)

200% is fine, but no higher. If the weighting gets too high, no one other than BM's need vote, as it won't matter. Lord Belar 16:05, 6 January 2008 (EST)

200%. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 16:14, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Ya I say start like a test run with it at 200% but if it seems to make things to unbalanced it should go to 150% but no lower XvivaX 19:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Blech.. I'll consent. BMs are being put in place for a reason. Might as well make that reason damn clear. 200% agreed by me. cedave _{(contributions_buildpage)} 01:01, 7 January 2008 (EST)

150%. — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 17:29, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I agree with 150%. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

So does that mean you support this policy/accept your nomination? Shen(contribs) 17:39, 10 January 2008 (EST)

No and no. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Why not and crap. Shen(contribs) 17:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Because I don't like weighted voting. But since this is going to be implemented, I prefer 150%. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:51, 10 January 2008 (EST)

You know I'm obliged to ask why. Shen(contribs) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Read the archives, his arguments on weighting were presented, and tbh are mostly crappy and have been refuted.Bob fregman 17:56, 10 January 2008 (EST)

None were refuted outside of "BM's might wiki better". — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (EST)

(EC)That was quite a while ago. Nevertheless, if he insists on maintaining them, I'd like to be able to debate about it. Shen(contribs) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)

So can you offer a brief corrolary/essay? Just so we can start anew. Shen(contribs) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Not really. People wanted to test this out, so I just said "sure, why not?" If the trial proves to be somewhat successful, then keep the policy. If there's no significant change or improvements, it should be scrapped. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Agreed. Shen(contribs) 18:04, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I think in general BMship is a great idea. However, I think maybe BM's should be broken up into 2 sections, such as PvP and PvE. Some people (such as high up GvG players) will probably specialize in something. Having someone focus on one section can allow thorough and good monitering of builds. To an extent, even breaking it into categories such as Farming, AB, GvG, etc, could work. That's just my take, but whatever. I /support either way. --GuildofDeals 15:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Generally speaking, we'd hope that BMs who didn't know about (for example) GvG, wouldn't remove votes on GvG builds (for anything other than the most obvious reasons). If BMs started doing so (it would become reasonably obvious since, in order for it to be a problem, we'd have to start seeing a bunch of improperly removed votes), we could demote them. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:02, 12 January 2008 (EST)

The more I think about this the more I compare it to admins having vote removal power. Although... vote weightings could be slightly problematic (you can't choose to not weight your own vote, and sometimes you want to vote on something that's out of your specific area of expertise). Perhaps a checkbox (checked by default) for whether or not to apply higher vote ranking? Is that possible at this point? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 04:12, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I guess that is kinda the unwritten law. If you are a great PvE player and become a Buildmaster, then you'll probably stick around the PvE section, unless someone says "this douche put a 0-0-0 on Cripshot" or something. --GuildofDeals 09:09, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Weighted votes are lame, if you're gonna say certain people's votes mean more, just have them vote on everything. Then you don't have to worry about us lowly newbs ruining scores on your good builds. Moush 17:19, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Bit late to the party. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 20:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

@Armond: It's difficult. Technically, it's not the votes that are marked as special, but the users. Any vote made by a build master is scaled up in the calculation of the overall vote. Btw: This also means that promotion/demotion of a build master immediately changes the weighting of all his votes. If that's a problem we'll have to mark each individual vote as placed by a BM. But this would involve a change of the database structure, that is, more effort. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 17:33, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, yeah, that would take a lot of work to fix. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 20:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I like the idea, but many people will probably be argueing with BM votes if it changes the rating dramatically, even though the point is to moderate rating. I'm thinking if two BMs vote on a build, it would pretty much mkae a few other votes obselete, I'd prefer a limit of one BM per build.--Relyk 11:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)

...If people have a problem with people better than them voting, that's their problem, imo. Also, the archive got lost somewhere. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 12:36, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Wizardboy got it. When the proposal was renamed after having been implemented as a full-out policy, the "subst:" part of the archive changed accordingly, so Wiz just substituted the actual archived talk page. Shen(contribs) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (EST)

PvXWiki:Buildmasters

Just make this that and add a list of BMs. Why is this still proposed if we already have a BM (Skakid9090)? --GuildofDeals 18:40, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Not just skakid anymoar. - Unexist 04:45, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Top Build Master

Unexist--Relyk 23:20, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

More like UnexFAIL — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 23:21, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

FireTock. Moush 04:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

lol.Frans 04:52, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Lul, unexist is not best bm here. Fishels[슴Mc슴]Mootles 14:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No fishy, you are! —ǘŋƐxɩsƫ 13:15, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Quit

I quit for the moment. I'm trying to quit gw(i'm getting very addictive) and I need to quit pvx for that moment too. I'll be back later, when I'm sure I won't gw anymore that much. Still will check my page and stuff weekly, tho. —ǘŋƐxɩsƫ 07:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT) I suck and couldn't resist, so had 2 keep pvx'ing. —ǘŋƐxɩsƫ 17:12, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Eurospike is pretty tempting eh? --Tab Moo 17:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

PvE and PvP?

I think this has been discussed somewhere before, but I can't seem to find it and this seemed the best place. Basically i think we should have PvE and PvP admins, it's fine saying someone can be a BM, but being as they're there to make sure every build/teams in the right category, that currently would mean that a BM would have to be awesome at every aspect of GW, and while that can be a good thing, it also limits the number of BMs available. So i suggest making 2 separate (3?) BM's. Ones for PvE build/teams and ones for PvP Builds/Teams (and a possiably 3rd for those god like ones mentioned earlier that are just awesome). Obviously his would mean perhaps making another User group, so that a PvE BM can't use weighted voting on a PvP build. This of course would mean that we would mean we would ahve a larger user base to select future BM's from. This of course becomes advantageous if Certain Policies are passed. Probably forgot some point somewhere, will add if i remember =s. Anyway-Thoughts? PheNaxKian (T/c) 11:43, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

imo, with the system as is doesn't make a big difference (if i was the one who had to do the work to change this, i would say i'm too lazy and gtfo. lol). If they're experts in PvP only, the chances are they are likely going to vote in pvp section more frequently and same for pve. I think the question more lies in would they hire people as BMs for being just good in one category. -- Grumpy (T|C) 11:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

While i agree with the votting issue, you also have to think about the remvoing of vote, for insatance i barley PvP (i've only everg GvG once barlye touch TA or AH and usually just RA or AB if i PvP at all) so would it make sense for me to go onto the admin noticeboard and see someone posting about a vote on some PvP build and remove the vote, not really having any idea of what's happening in PvP atm? That principle really applies to all BM's sure they can ber good at both aspects, but those that are only really goodt at one part of the game, they can't necersarrily remove all the votes. PheNaxKian (T/c) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The problem remains that the PvE admins would be left with hardly any work. The main part of the builds posted here are for different forms of PvP, and that's also where the main aim of the game is. Having admins for both would be an overkill and just plain stupid. Godbox 13:31, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

There are actually more pve builds (358) than pvp builds (348). Plus, not like we pay them, nothing wrong with overkill. xD -- Grumpy (T|C) 13:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Overkills are always baed. And regardless of the number of builds this site gets bombed with mainly PvP builds and it's also the PvP meta which changes most often, while the PvE on stays fairly stale. Godbox 13:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I posted on a couple of peoples talk pages asking there thoughts (Auron DE and Wizardboy being the main). I've had a response from Auron who explained that they originally intended to have separate categories, but it was lost/forgotten in the implamentation/trial period. But he seems to think it works OK as it is (not great). He says that BM's for the most part don't/shouldn't vote in areas they aren't knowledgeable about. Having just looked through the actual policy though it doesn't specificly mention anything about that though, while i understand all current BM's are like Gods, should we put some kind of note in the votting/Removal sections mentiong not to do so in areas the BM isn't good with? PheNaxKian (T/c) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

That's quite self-explanatory. You don't become a BM if you're a total idiot, and if you aren't then that note would be needless. Additionally the most BM's got a basic enough comprehension of all areas to be able to vote and remove votes there. Godbox 15:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry to throw a wrench in the gears, but they rate page can't detect what the build is tagged for atm. So this is IMPOSSIBLE. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   15:17, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Also, PvX doesn't need too many rules. PvX != GWW, so we are allowed to trust Admins/BMs to do stuff right, without needing specific clauses for lawyering if they do it wrong. Dejh 15:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

In BMs we trust. Godbox 15:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Unnecessary. As per the original proposal here, "Build Masters are encouraged to designate an area of expertise to assist users looking for help in a specific venue". If PvX would benefit from a more PvE oriented BM, then you'd need not to create a specific group. Also, if such a BM's vote rationale is sound for PvP builds, no need for a distinction. -Shen 17:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

addenum

PvXwiki:Don't Argue With Build Masters — Skakid 13:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

lol

active bms are active~WaffleZLOL(contribs) 01:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's '09, I'd kinda already expect this game to die out. Let's just camp for GW2 then make a new & fail pvx. ---Chaos- 22:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tab, Ska, and unexist

Since all three have quit + uninstalled gws, should we remove them from BM list and switch to retired?--TahiriVeila 05:13, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to have to disagree. While he cbf'd with Reasons, Tab still removes retarded votes when he bothers to log in. ··· Danny Pew Pew 20:53, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

dont you mean tab still retardedly removes votes when he bothers to log in? AthrunFeya 21:07, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

actually, his vote removals proved a v good point. tab is not retarded. ··· Danny Pew Pew 21:50, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

actually, it just made things a lot more awkward. technically there'd be about 3 votes left in the whole of the pve section if i removed all the things that were not relevent. really i'm yet to see the nonretarded side. AthrunFeya 21:57, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

tbh, if you're supporting Toraen for admin, then you should support enforcement of Real Vetting. but i cbf'd either way. ··· Danny Pew Pew 21:58, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen Tab contribute positively for ages, but atleast he still comes around. Wouldn't call it being active tho. ---Chaos is gay - 00:34, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Review of BM status

The last six months as a build master have shown me a number of things and recent conversations have reminded me of something that I've felt has been an issue for a while. BM seems not to be about giving advice or an opinion people should (and actually do) regard more highly. The status itself in fact commands respect from very few users (which I think is key to be able to do some of the tasks they need to do effectively). BM seem to be more focused on telling members of the userbase they are incorrect, their builds are inferior, etc.

More often than not, I have carried out actions in the knowledge admin intervention will most probably be required at some stage. This is especially the case when dealing with confrontational users who are over-protective of their creations. Particularly adding or confirming WELL tags never goes down well with any user, much of the time ending in users persistently disputing anything a BM has to say. It isn't much of a surprise BMs have been promoted and left so quickly. Also removing votes from certain users can be problematic. A job that means you can tell users they're wrong but not effectively deal with the consequences of that action seems all in all a bit stupid.

I don't really know what to suggests. Maybe give BMs the power to deal with unwieldy users or, better yet, remove the status entirely. Despite currently being a BM, I would certainly support the latter notion. - AthrunFeya - 20:13, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I know that Auron, I, and other admins have had numerous conversations about removing the position altogether. The issues you list have been around for a while and have been apparent to most of us....and I just don't know if there's a way to solve them w/o removing the position. I would, however, like to hear the opinions of the other BMs, admins, and especially Auron (or DE). Karate Jesus 20:18, 20 January 2010

Most people who have gotten BM enjoy flaming people which causes problems (including me :>). I don't think it's really a problem with the BM position, otherwise you'd just have people who knew a lot about builds as admins. Unless I'm missing something here it doesn't really solve anything by removing BMs, because wouldn't you still need people who knew about builds to be around to remove votes etc? That would just mean BMs would become admins or we lose out on people who can remove votes who know about the game, since I'm pretty sure most people who got BM weren't really admin worthy, and vice versa. --Crow 20:37, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think what she's suggesting is that we go back to the way things used to be - namely, using the AN and build talk pages. That way when votes are removed there's at least some discussion around why and if there is a shitstorm (which there undoubtedly will be) the admin is already there to handle it. Good players would still be well known and probably consulted before removing votes, but I tihnk there would just be more review. At least, that's what I think she's saying. Karate Jesus 20:44, 20 January 2010

^ Being given the tools to easily begin a shitstorm you'd think its seems reasonable to be given the tools to end said shitstorm. Also giving any tools to people who like flaming really, really was never a good idea to begin with. - AthrunFeya - 20:47, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Personaly, i wouldn't be that sad to see the position go. I've long since thought the position was pointless (when it first started it could have gone either way, but i think with only one or two active BMs it's just not worth it).

Now I should also mention that removing the position leaves only admins with the vote rollback ability.

This has it's own pros and cons. The main problem I see with that is people coming along and going "This admin is shit at the game, why is he removing votes and QQ blah blah etc." most recent example I can think of, slightly different but you get the point

On the upside (thanks to KJ for pointing this out (MSN ftw)), people wouldn't be as inclined to go "oh, that Crow fellow gave it a 5-5, so I have to do that otherwise he'll remove my vote". They will be more willing to vote differently (not having to worry as much about someone coming along and removing it because they voted differently).

I may as well say it, I think BMs should be removed. I think the position was more of a problem than an advantage a long time ago. ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:02, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

That logic is a bit dumb with the thing about me voting and somebody else copying. If I'm being retarded (or any other BM) and removing votes when it isn't needed then I should be demoted. --Crow 21:24, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you actually do that, I'm saying that some newer users might think "oh he's a BM, he can remove my vote if he wants, so I better agree with what he says" kind of things. ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:27, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't they just do that with admins too? --Crow 21:28, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Also, from what we've seen newer users tend not to do this anyway, they just call BMs nazis or something stupid like that. --Crow 21:29, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

(EC)it doesn't say we're admins on the vote page though. On votes we appear to be normal users, where as BMs get the "Build master (200% vote)" thing. Though I see your point.

True, You can ignore that point if you want then. ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:30, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

(EC ×2)Not if we follow policy (there needs to be discussion, report on the AN, or it has to be obvious). And there's nothing that indicates our votes having more weight than others. What I meant on MSN is that not having BMs would probably open up more discussion on votes/vote removals and hopefully cause people to actually vote with reasoning. Karate Jesus 21:31, 20 January 2010

The problem with all of this is that most new users tend not to listen to reason, and those that do wouldn't be put off by somebody having a BM tag. While the role of BM isn't perfect, I still think it's better than any other option. If you're going to take it to AN to get the vote removed, you may aswell just have BMs to skip out the AN at least half of the time, while also having BMs for newer users/those unsure about builds to go to. --Crow 21:45, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

"The problem with all of this is that most new users tend not to listen to reason"

That's exactly the point. Hell, old users often don't listen to reason. The problem is that BMs have the power to start these types of shitstorms and don't have the ability to end them. They have to find an admin to do take any action if it gets bad, which kind of defeats the point. Karate Jesus 21:54, 20 January 2010

Is it possible to block a user from rating only? I doubt it, but just wondering. ----~Short~ 22:02, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Um....I'm not sure. I don't think so, but it's something I could look into. Karate Jesus 22:07, 20 January 2010

Then the problem isn't having BMs, it's BMs not having enough power to stop retarded people. There are going to be new users/stupid people crying on the AN whether BMs are there to remove votes, or people with brains crying on AN when BMs aren't there to remove votes. --Crow 22:11, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because I was just thinking that you don't want to give BMs blocks, kinda obvious why. Thanks KJ. ----~Short~ 22:14, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Its not the actual vote which bothers me. It's the shitstorm you create when you remove certain peoples votes or add/confirm WELL tags on certain peoples builds - that kind of behaviour can certainly lead to a ban. - AthrunFeya - 22:21, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Could we not just demote all BMs, give BMs ability to ban and then revote for who we think are the more mature people who also know about builds (don't know if there are any though!). --Crow 22:15, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

A mature wiki-user with good knowledge of the game? Sounds a bit too much like an admin to me. ----~Short~ 22:17, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Can we do that for everyone else and just not give me the ability to hand out bans/delete pages? I don't think there's any way in hell auron will let me have a banstick, but i like removing votes :< --TahiriVeila 22:18, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Most admins don't have extensive knowledge of the game/builds, no offense! --Crow 22:19, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's true, we don't. But admins aren't meant to. There's a reason wikis are based around discussion and consensus. Those "tools" were originally supposed to be used to verify/dispel votes. Karate Jesus 22:25, 20 January 2010

That whole process for removal of votes would take longer to sort out than a shitstorm after a vote removal/WELL wouldn't it? Since people would still be bitching even though there is consensus, they'd just come out with the typical "this is a conspiracy" "halp im being oppressed" bullshit. --Crow 22:30, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

That can happen anyway, currently. - AthrunFeya - 22:32, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Lau inspired me, i'll be willing to step down right now if you perma saint.--TahiriVeila 22:21, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit silly. But on the topic of vote banning - I think that would only perpetuate the issue. For example, if someone is giving poor votes or troll votes, then restricting their ability to vote will probably only cause them to rage. If they rage, then they'll get banned....when we could have just banned them in the first place since banned users can't vote anyway. Oh, and PvX:Real Vetting gives us the ability to ban people for troll voting. Karate Jesus 22:25, 20 January 2010

K so I'm confused, if there will still be a shitstorm when consensus is reached among people prone to causing drama, how will removal of BMs help? If anything wouldn't it just generally speed things up because at least 50% of the votes BMs remove without consensus don't cause drama, and the ones that do would be inevitable anyway? --Crow 22:36, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that was the point. I can't speak for everyone else, but my point was that the BM position often discounts the purpose of any wiki - consensus. By removing votes without discussion, all kinds of drama stirs up (unless the vote is just obviously ridiculous). Without any real power, the BM position is neutered, which makes it ineffective at reducing problems.

There are only two real solutions. 1) Give BMs more power; or 2) Remove the position. I don't think there's a middle ground on this one, sadly. Karate Jesus 22:56, 20 January 2010

After talking to Crow on MSN, let me clarify something. By 'consensus' I'm not suggesting that we let every idiot in the world explain how his Wammo build is amazing. However, the admins aren't idiots and we hope that most of you aren't either. In the end, discussion on a build will give most of us a general feel for where a build should be in the ratings. That's all I meant. Karate Jesus 23:04, 20 January 2010

Crow's Idea

Ok, after talking with Crow on MSN for a bit, I'll try to type up a synopsis of what was said. Basically, the BM position is neutered. Without any real power, short of removing votes, problems tend to surround the position. They get flamed constantly (just wait until the Feb. skill balance) and due to their lack of power, they're only able to reply by flaming back, using their popularity as a backing, or having to spell out each and every reason that a build may be poor. Honestly, even them adding a WELL tag or moving a build can result in ridiculous drama.

Policy allows for admins (who know the game well) to be granted 200% weighting while voting. Crow's idea on MSN is that we demote all BMs, and RfA them. If the community trusts them with admin tools, then they can be granted the 200% weighting for voting. Then the admin/BM would have the ability to back up vote removal with actual power and hopefully it would cause some responsibility around policy.

Crow and I are well aware the the current BMs have the shot of a snowball-in-hell of getting a succesful RfA; however, this would allow for responsible users who actually know GW well to be reviewed for the 200% weighting in the future and possibly fix some of the vetting issues at the same time. Karate Jesus 23:38, 20 January 2010

So do admins not confident in their knowledge of the game just avoid voting due to the 200% weight? -- 23:49, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

(EC ×1)You make it sound like it's a bad thing to have to list out the reasons a build is poor. Ok, yeah they don't have to list every single reason, but surely reasoning it out is a good thing? Spaggage talk 23:50, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I feel I should point out that you can start an RfA for a user who is a BM, they don't need to be demoted first >.>.

The problem is you're saying "backs them up with power", but how so? Are they going to be running around banning people? or deleting builds? or both? I don't see how that helps the issue at all,

"oh this guy is an ass wipe he keeps removing my vote saying my reason's terrible, even though I've played it successfully in RA a bajilion times!" *ban* "This guy is abusing his powers, he bans anyone that disagrees with him"

and the such. ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:51, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

@Shaz, KJ said that you can individually give admins 200% vote weighting, without giving it to all of them. --Crow 23:52, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

oic, thanks -- 23:54, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

@Phen, it would be used in just the same way admins would normally ban people for causing excessive drama about builds/people. Where is the problem with that? --Crow 23:54, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

(EC)^ and Phen, you missed the point. What I mean by 'power' is that they could actually take action if needed, just like any admin could. What I mean can be summed up with this quote:

"Without any real power, short of removing votes, problems tend to surround the position. They get flamed constantly (just wait until the Feb. skill balance) and due to their lack of power, they're only able to reply by flaming back, using their popularity as a backing, or having to spell out each and every reason that a build may be poor."

Without any real ability to back themselves up, BMs are only capable of resulting to out-flaming the users that question them, rather than reasoning with them. I want that to be the other way around. And the community would still have to vote on whether or not they trusted the BMs with the tools. Karate Jesus 23:55, 20 January 2010

That came out as confusing. Let me put it simply. The suggestion is that the BM position is removed and the Admin policy is re-written to explain that admins can receive 200% weighting if the community agrees to let them. Then you RfA all the BMs. Most likely, none of the current BMs will make it. But it would do that job. Karate Jesus 23:59, 20 January 2010

Am I missing something here? Surely it doesn't have to end up as a flame war? Could a BM not just be patient and use their knowledge/experience of the game to explain why the build is poor/inferior/whatever? BMs are BMs for a reason right? Spaggage talk 00:02, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the time even when BMs/admins explain a WELL tag or a trash vote people (newer users especially) decide to start flaming and say that the BMs/admins are wrong etc. --Crow 00:05, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

^ That, it gets old really, really quickly. - AthrunFeya - 00:08, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

(EC)That's the idea, but sadly that's rarely actualized. One of the main reasons is that build conversations are based around who is better at the game, which commonly results in flaming. The reason that many people will actually listen to what admins say on this site isn't because it's just reasonable (at least, hopefully), but because we actually have the power to force a user to stop. It should never be threatened, or laid out that way to a user, but in the end....sometimes that's all a user will listen to. And when a BM removes a vote, they have no way to end any drama that could be caused, so reasoning with the user often just ends in exasperation. Karate Jesus 00:06, 21 January 2010

(EC)@crow. I didn't have any problem with it in specific, I was more curious as to what you/KJ meant in terms of "backing up with power".

@KJ, so you basically want to RfBM the admins, but remove the "this user is a build master" part out of it? (we can't selectively say "these admins should get 200% vote" without adding a separate user group (i.e. BM)). So a..."request for double vote weighting" or something like that. Sorry if I'm sounding a stupid/slow here, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page =p.

like I said earlier, you can RfBM admins (when the system was first introduced i believe all admins underwent an RfBM)

Anyway, if you're happy with just saying "there's no BM's but certain admins (as deemed by the community) get additional weighting" I'm happy with that. ~ PheNaxKian talk 00:10, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

He didnt say RfBM admins, he said RfA current BM. - AthrunFeya - 00:14, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

"the Admin policy is re-written to explain that admins can receive 200% weighting if the community agrees to let them"

That sounds like RfBMing admins. I get the whole "RfA BM's" part as well, but he said himself, the chances are that none of the current BMs will get admin. >.> ~ PheNaxKian talk 00:22, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

(EC ×1)@Crow. I think that if a BM has tried to reason with the person disputing with the decision and they have chosen to ignore those reasons/start flaming/start a shitstorm, then hell, flame the idiot. I trust that BMs are BMs for a reason and if they've honestly tried to explain/teach the person what's wrong with that build/concept then I'm happy. To me, the problem comes when a BM just goes straight to the flaming or gives a reason, albeit valid and correct, isn't enough to sway someone who may not completely understand some mechanics/habits/whatever. Basically, if BMs do nothing wrong, then they have no grounds to complain or anything right? Spaggage talk 00:18, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that some of the BMs (especially some of the older ones) have gotten sick of people constantly disputing them, and when a new user says they're wrong, they just can't be bothered dealing with the usual obvious replies they're expecting from the new user and so skip straight to the flaming. I'm not saying it's excusable but there's a fairly obvious reason for it. Having admin powers to tell the flaming user to calm down and look at things more objectively would make situations like these much easier to handle. --Crow 00:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ir figures. Maybe I'm just being too idealistic. But by having admin powers, instead of just flaming them, one could flame and ban/threaten to ban them, no? Obviously that shouldn't happen but it could. And I imagine that wouldn't that wouldn't help the whole "PvX bans whoever disagrees with them!" thing. I just think that if someone is unwilling to listen to a BM then, they're not going to be much more likely to listen to an Admin. I guess there's only one way to find out? Spaggage talk 00:31, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

i think the point was that BMs undergo an RfA first, we aren't just going to auto-promote them. ~ PheNaxKian talk 00:51, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Ok, so then what about current admins. I think they're level headed and patient enough to explain things out but I it think it's fair to say that the level of knowledge/experience of an admin doesn't rival that of a BM. If someone was to oppose an admins reasoning, they could well be right and the admin would be trying to use their authority to try and persuade/"persuade" them and things may turn out even worse. Spaggage talk 00:56, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

After a skim over most of the discussion about BM's being removed and not having the power to deal with situations they will (inevitably) cause, from what I can see the main issue does not come from BM's not having enough power, but BM's not having the respect they deserve from their position. The issue is new users joining up to PvX and simply posting their builds that they think are great (when they clearly aren't), and a BM removing good/great votes and well tagging a build. As you can see from what I am saying, the issue is users not understanding that Build Masters are in a position of authority and they are there for a reason, not just to clean up the wiki of bad builds, but because they are worthy of their position. Maybe this giving BM's more power idea is going down the wrong direction, and perhaps we should be trying to deal with the issue's I have raised, since they are the root of the problem. A welcome bot would actually do that job nicely (linking to policies, explaining BM's and such) even if they are really inpersonal.
So how about we get to the root of the problem instead of jumping the gun and just removing what I feel is a great feature PvX has. --Frosty 01:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

^ So the Admin team should start banning when the flamming begins imo.--X 01:23, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Which would show that admins have the power to back the BMs position for them? That seems like coddling.... Karate Jesus 02:43, 21 January 2010

I think you completely took what I said out of context, if somebody reads through the policies and sill continues to disagree with BM's (removing well tags, re-voting etc) they will be breaking policy so they will be in a position to be banned anyway, let alone for possible NPA violations. --Frosty 02:52, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

So basically, you want to educate new(er) users on how the wiki works/policies and the like? Sounds good to me. Spaggage talk 03:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

That's what should be happening, but there seems to be a failure of communication around here. --Frosty 03:13, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question. If it should be happening, who should be doing it? Spaggage talk 03:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Technically, all of us. However, I think the admins would have to take greater responsibility and blame for that. And btw, everyone, I'm not trying to push for the BM position to be removed. I just think that the issues Lau point out are valid and need to be addressed, in one way or another. I'm not sure how, but they need to be addressed (and I doubt RfBM'ing Frosty is the answer). Karate Jesus 04:25, 21 January 2010

If you read the entire rfbm reason then you would realize i didn't rfbm because of this, its just another reason to give him BM. i don't expect it to solve the problems lau brings up, and i just want to say that i think rfa'ing our bm's is the worst idea in the world (without offense, just imagine jake/laura/crow as admins). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 05:00, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

In summary, a bad idea. Two separate entities exist for a reason. Admins are admins for the simple fact that they've demonstrated the ability to effectively maintain/police PvX, while being somewhat fair about it. Build Masters have their positions because they've shown that they, apparently, are better at game (dead) than most on PvX. That being said, attempting to give admins the powers of a build-master and vice-versa, would achieve what?

• "Random pvxer: My vote is good"
• "Buildmastering admin: no it's not"
• "Random pvxer: well I'll keep voting till you get tired of it."
• "Buildmastering admin: b&"

That's just a quick summary of what may happen. Problem is, even if some build masters were admin-worthy, no one who currently has it (as per Gringo), should be allowed the tools. I've been called an unfair dick before, but I actually see no point in abusing my status as an admin. Could we be sure that Jake/Crow/Lau would adhere to the same type of adminship? Probably, probably not. One can never be sure. Over time, serious build masters (see Skakid and Tab) eventually get sick of the idiocy on PvX and begin flaming/trolling. Imagine a build master who has that happening to themselves. It goes the other direction as well. I'm still very active on Guild Wars, and I don't think I'm great at game. I'm a good enough player to understand why pre-kiting works, and how to avoid bulls. I know how to watch the field, and how to qstep a kite path to set myself up for better positioning versus a fleeing caster. I know a lot of things about Guild Wars. Have I done top 100 gvg? lol once or twice. Am I hero ranked? A deer, yes. Not very impressive, I know. Hence my point. Guild Wars is dying, not dead. Good people still play, however, people I think who can be a good admin won't necessarily be looked at as a great champ range flagger, etc. No offense to Frosty, or anyone else, but just no. -- Big McStrongfist 05:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

This summary still doesn't address my original problem. Fundamentally a status which is meant to act as a respected opinion rarely actually commands that respect and actions thus often create shitstorms which end in admin intervention and/or flaming/trolling. It is also therefore really quite obvious why people like Skakid and Tab ended up becoming trolls.

Also, some of you seem to be confused. The risk of an appointed buildmaster-admin abusing admin powers is only as great as any of the current admin - they still have to go through the whole RfA process, like any other admin would and I hope users would consider how they might use admin powers when voting. - AthrunFeya - 11:10, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, this is an issue with new(er) users not understanding the position of authority a build master has, it is true a buildmaster can't really back up that authority with for instance, warnings or bans, but they shouldn't need to (in an ideal world which we would like to work towards). Giving admin rights to BM's is a way of dealing with the problem, but all it would end up with is more new users being banned, instead what should be happening is, new users should be reading throuigh policies and understanding why the BM's are here. Like I said before, a Welcome Bot would do the job nicely (read X policy and Y policy sign indent etc etc), and would possibly make PvX friendlier. After going through the policies and still not understanding why a BM is removing their votes, well tagging their builds, then thats an issue for an admin to address, not a BM. --Frosty 11:34, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

welcome bots are possible, but they're very impersonal. Considering we get very few "new" users each day, I'd say that we could survive without one, and someone just leave a friendly comment on their page when they get on.

That said if consensus is that we need a welcome bot I can set one up. ~ PheNaxKian talk 12:56, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I don;t know how much that would actually help, it isn;t a problem which it constrained to new users alone. - AthrunFeya - 15:30, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Could we not have a trial of what it would be like with Admins with 200%, and if it turns out to suck, then just revert until we find a better solution? --Crow 16:01, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Admin quality doesn't mean player quality. Doing that basically makes bm's unnecessary. My opinion on this is neutral. --Chaos -- 17:48, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I meant getting rid of BMs, RfAing some more mature people who also know builds and giving them 200% weighting, not just giving all admins 200%. --Crow 17:49, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Crow's idea (cont.)

I cba dealing with the massive section on my itouch. Why do we care If a welcome bot is impersonal? Hell of a lot better than eventually being called an autistic nigger. Life Guardian 18:09, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

because people will just go "oh it's welcome bot, I can ignore what it says" generally. ~ PheNaxKian talk 18:26, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Wow I agree with Life for I have been saying that for a while. Look at that pigs DO fly.

Phen I dont' think so--X 18:28, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

pretty much every wiki I've seen with a "welcome" bot, the user has just ignored it, so 'fraid so. I'd also point out we hvae our own "welcome bot" doing the same thing as what's being suggested, that appears to hvae done little... ~ PheNaxKian talk 19:30, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I can't decide whether I should continue with it, the template gets very contrasting opinions. --Chaos -- 19:38, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

my point exactly, a template, which you also add your own personal comment to gets contrasting opinions. How well do you imagine a bot, which is purely template based going to be seen? ~ PheNaxKian talk 19:44, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Some people get insulted and others think it's amusing, I suspect most still just don't even notice it. --Chaos -- 20:13, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

(EC ×2)That's making the assumption that people who see BMs are voted into power for being good actually care. It's also making the assumption that they will even bother to read the policies even if posted on their talk page (since we're already assuming these types of people are fairly stupid, that is, the ones who will go on to flame the BM). --Crow 18:30, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm still convinced the position should be removed. Lol. I've read this whole page and none of it has made me think that it needs to stay around. If, in the future, there are admins who people want to have 200% voting abilities, then fine. But that user would still be an admin first and a BM second. Karate Jesus 20:25, 21 January 2010

I move

to relieve this policy from active duty. It's served a long, stupid tour of duty and it needs to be let go before it ends up killing civilians. The only things it's ever managed to do is piss people off and give us a reason to not RfA more build-oriented users. We need to pull this policy out of Irage A.S.A.P., and it is impossible for anything to come sooner than now. ··· Danny So Cute 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm still hoping to hear from Auron on this page (although, I already know how he feels about BMs). I still think this should be removed. It would be nice to see the other half of the AN used again as well as build talk pages. Karate Jesus 17:56, 22 January 2010

Anyone who doesn't know Auron dislikes the position is either unimportant or stupid. ··· Danny So Cute 18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To address Frosty's arguments, which I admittedly skimmed over previously, the entire problem could theoretically be resolved by not allowing new users to post builds until they'd thoroughly read the policies, but there is no feasible system for doing so and you'll always have dissidents.

Looking at new users as the problem is just plain ignorant. Experienced users are just as much of the problem - especially those imbued with authority. The issue that many new users have with the BM position is that most users fail to bother explaining things and that much opinion is naturally involved in the various build processes.

Expecting that users should read through pages linked to them is equally ignorant. If I were to read through every page of every link anyone ever suggested to me or posted on a page I was involved in, I'm quite confident I would die of old-age prior to completion.

Certainly, if BMs could be expected to exercise as much self-restraint and to explain their actions as thoroughly as we expect admins to, I could see the continued use of the position. However, many existing BMs clearly fail quite miserably at controlling their tempers. They get trolled more easily than a NeoCon forum and they act rather rashly at times. We've certainly had some outstanding examples of BMs, but they are few and very far between.

To conclude, the BM position in its current state has been a failed experiment since its implementation, as evidenced by the numerous conflicts drawn-out not only by users themselves, but the BMs as well. If the expectations of our BMs were held higher, I could see a return of the position - but if those expectations are met, there is little reason not to provide them with adminship instead.

··· Danny So Cute 20:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about reading through policies, and I do agree, but if anything the main idea I was getting at was explaining that Build Masters are just what they sound like, masters of builds with more knowledge then most people on the website, maybe if new users and agreed some experienced users understood this, we wouldn't be here now, but like you said it is a long shot.

However, to say the role of the Build Master is a failed experiment I feel is a little over the top, seeing as everybody here seems to be strongly concentrating on the negative things that have come up between BM's and users. Ofcourse negative things like shitstorms and arrogant 14 year olds are going to cause problems with BM's, but lets face it round here, it's the least you should expect, since it doesn't always happen with BM's...

What I think the problem with this whole "lets get rid of BM's" idea is there is nothing really to step in for it, there have been no good suggestions for a replacement. If you are suggesting we go back to only admins having weighted votes, in which case I see myself a the only admin that would have anywhere near the right amount of expertise when it comes to being a BM. If we are going to have old BM's being RfA'd, it means they have to be promoted on a basis of being an Admin, not a BM, which I don't honestly see any of the current BM's being successful in.

What about adjusting the the BM postion, given different powers perhaps, I don't know but these are the things you should be thinking about as well.

If an overwhelming amount of people want to get rid of BM's I am happy to go along but there needs to be a system implemented to deal with it, since without it we're a fish out of water (if you know what I mean). --Frosty 20:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Most of our admins that know nothing about builds generally avoid them. Historically, PvX had admins who knew quite a bit about builds, but who also met admin criteria. The BM position, from my understanding, was basiclly designed to work around that - to allow users to have authority without really giving them anything they could do harm with. Basically, BMs are the mall cops of PvX.

I expect that, if we remove the BM position, admins without much build knowledge will avoid participating in build-activities as they have previously done, and that more build-oriented but still responsible users will be moved into the admin position. I can't quite say who yet, but with yourself in an admin seat I would say we have little to worry about on the PvP side of things.

If you look back up and through the archive, you'll notice that the policy was basically pushed-through by the circle-jerk of the time, with Rapta dissenting. Even I'd initially supported the position, but it simply hasn't worked out. If anything, the position has pushed good users away from the wiki.

··· Danny So Cute 20:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(im gonna be honest i only read a bit of that, but I'll chip this in) i really want to avoid saying things like "oh lets hope our admins stay away from builds". if we do remove BM, i absolutely do NOT want our admins to get on high horses and start acting like bm's. people like kj, big, toraen, and phen will wreck builds, and then use the excuse 'oh im an admin'. im not saying this will necessarily happen, im saying the window would be open and that would inevitably lead to trouble because then it would be like "oh why the fuck is that admin removing my vote, hes only r3" and blah blah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 21:05, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

There's only been one vote-removal conflict with any of those admins, and it was between you and KJ, iirc. Assuming Lau won't go and remove GvG votes is the same thing. If we didn't trust KJ, Phen, Toraen, or Big, we wouldn't have RfA'd them. You must have forgotten that admins have every right to remove a vote they feel is incorrect or that violates PW:VETTING. ··· Danny So Cute 21:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

i have not forgotten that they have every right, my point is they suck so they shouldn't have that right. and if we remove BMs theyre just gonna start using that right for all the wrong reasons and fuck builds up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 21:10, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

do you seriously think we're so incompetent as to go "hey lets go do shit i know nothing about"? If we don't think ti's something we're capable of doing, we won't do it. end of. ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:14, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

maybe not you, but im saying if the window is open and they have the power, i can see conflict arising from it, some admin pushing a bad build through. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 21:15, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that we were Promoted to admin, with the community knowing full well we'd have access to the right to roll-back votes, and they (you) trust us not abuse it by pushing through our own builds, or removing votes for shits and giggles, or just because we can. Even if we do start removing votes for shits and giggles, we still have 3 BCrats you can contact and say "eh that Phen (or whoever) fellow is abusing his admin rights, have a look into it please". ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:19, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Um...not really. If we did that enough, our "powers" (otherwise known as "tools") would get taken from us. We're supposed to help the wiki, not push through random shit builds. Plus, I can't think of any admin who's done that in recent times (I know BMs that have, but that's their jobs). Karate Jesus 21:20, 22 January 2010

i completely understand what you both are saying, my point is i truly think that if BM is gone and theirs no people to remove dumb votes, its going to become habit for admins to do it, and that will (in my honest opinion) evolve into admins becoming BMs, which isn't what we need with an admin staff like this. i'm not saying it will 100% happen, but judging by who our admins are i can definitely see it happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 21:23, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

That's a completely ridiculous thing to say. Whether current admins were promoted for the purpose of looking after builds or not admins are already trusted with all (and more) of the powers that BMs have. they already remove those 'dumb votes' whenever they want and there are no subsequent problems. . - AthrunFeya - 21:25, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

^ we could already be doing it if we wanted to. Karate Jesus 21:26, 22 January 2010

Is this a good time to bring up Rawr, Zurrie, or Tab? They never abuse the role, right? I mean, they've certainly done half the amount of using-vote-removal-to-troll that any admin has ever done. ··· Danny So Cute 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ups. Zurrie's actually excluded from that last part. He was just a terrible BM all-in-all. ··· Danny So Cute 21:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one cannot believe Tab still has the position. If we want the BM position to command more respect and to actually mean something to new users we need to stop promoting people like him. Sure he knows the game, but his vote removal reasons can simply be terrible, he vandalises and is quite rude tbh. He has been banned multiple times for trolling etc. and to keep him as a BM just casts a negative light on the position. ----~Short~ 21:35, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he was decent once but since being a BM is generally such a shitfest, he became a troll. - AthrunFeya - 21:38, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

The BM role has always been a massive circle-jerk role. Only recently have things turned around ever-so-slightly. And by recently, I mean on Frosty's RfBM and only because Lau and I both Oppose'd rather than auto-supporting. ··· Danny So Cute 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it strange people can't quite imagine what it would be like without BM. There were no active BMs for 3 months before I became BM (and a little longer therefore for the PvP side of things). Someone therefore must have been doing the BM jobs and must have been doing a decent job of it for noone to have been appointed sooner. - AthrunFeya - 22:08, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

^ and there was a time when this site functioned without BMs at all... Karate Jesus 22:09, 22 January 2010

Weren't there build orientated admins then though? ;o --Crow 22:15, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

before BMs we generally admins had to be reasonably at the game (not necessarily "good", but be able to say "this sucks because X" "this is great but you should do Y with Z"). There were exceptions but generally admins then, compared to now, were better at the game. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:18, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Quick scan of the Admin noticeboard from that time shows that that wasnt the case. Things were fixed mainly by Big and Phen then it seems (which makes me question why we'd rfbm frosty, of all admins) - AthrunFeya - 22:19, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Phen and I were talking about 2007. --Crow 22:22, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Still, you can't discard the fact BM jobs were being done with pretty much the admin base we currently have. - AthrunFeya - 22:25, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

maybe for those 3 months, not before that though. back in the day our admins were good and they did the job, but thats not the case anymore. saying the site can function without BMs is a bit silly imo. were a build site, and without people appointed to say whats good and whats bad, it'd be chaos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 22:27, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Statement is pretty different if you consider that those important appointed people are me and Jake. I mean, really? - AthrunFeya - 22:30, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Also the majority of the active admins then are still active (exception of Misery). And we have new admins as well, not much has changed in terms of the admin team. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:31, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

zzz

I've said this before, but I'll lay down my plan so you all can comment on it.

I want to remove the BM position entirely. It, as many have attested, was a failed experiment. The position was created with people like Axiom, Ensign, Asp, and other famous and knowledgeable PvPers in mind - people who would be a dick if needed, but who also wouldn't mind explaining in detail what is wrong with the build. These people would also command respect simply because of who they are and the guilds they play for, not simply because of their "position" on PvX. However... reality's a bitch. We never got players of that caliber interested enough to contribute, and therefore the position just caused unneeded drama.

People are calling for "build-oriented" sysops to take over what is essentially the BM position, and here is where we're going to disagree - that will simply take the current problem, give it a different name, and allow it to continue. My goal is to have the Sysop position be a merely janitorial one. Sysops can delete pages, block users for policy violations, and remove obviously biased/sockpuppet votes - that will be it. User squabbles over the latest shadow form farmer, stupid people rating a good build poorly, all that stuff will be left to the userbase to deal with. The entire point of a rating system is to allow people to rate builds. I understand that there are some incurably stupid people who play Guild Wars. It will be your (the community's) job to teach them not to suck. If they refuse to learn, it will be your (the community's) job to troll them off the site - staying within policy, obviously.

Sysops will be the neutral third party. They can have build knowledge, and it can help them remove some of the more obviously wrong votes - but the whole act of whining about votes on the noticeboard is basically going to stop. That shit isn't an admin's job. They don't get paid enough to babysit you guys. You, therefore, get to babysit each other, and the admins will give timeout to the kids who can't play nice. Any questions? -Auron 03:44, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea. We might run into trouble with people continually renewing votes, but I think we can get around that. The last sentence of the second paragraph is probably the greatest ever written on PvX, and it should spice things up around here :D. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 04:11, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Karate Jesus 21:03, 23 January 2010

Oh, and and Gringo, we have a policy against "constantly renewing votes", so the sysops can simply ban anyone who does that. Karate Jesus 21:08, 23 January 2010

PvX:1RV would be the policy KJ is referring to =p. ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:10, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

"If they refuse to learn, it will be your (the community's) job to troll them off the site - staying within policy, obviously." I'm lovin' it! But this is what I sort of imagined, generally shift towards users actually doing something (discussing, explaining or as Auron puts it, Babysitting). I don't have a problem with it in all honesty. --Frosty 22:34, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so now we need a plan to phase it out. - AthrunFeya - 01:09, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete position when everybody is in bed :>. --Crow 01:34, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well I think we should post a news article (on the front page), just saying we're going to remove the build master position in...a week? (whatever time period we thinks reasonable to allow people to see it, but i'd say at least a week) unless someone has a good reason not to. We could also put up a site-notice Just to make sure people see it as well. After a week if nobody objects, just simply demote all current build masters, and archive this policy (or tag as failed? not sure on this bit. I'd prffer an "archived policy" tag personaly, so people know it was used)

Anyway, thoughts on doing that? ~ PheNaxKian talk 01:39, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

whats the difference between people knowing its going to be removed in a week and people knowing it was removed today? why wait, unless you want to wait for peoples input (but do we care? everyone important already threw their input in). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 01:43, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

because there we've done all this disscussion over a couple of days, not everyone will hvae been around in that time frame, or for a few days yet still. There's also the fact that if we just remove it, people will wonder what happened to it. By saying "we're removing it on X", it gives people a chance to log on and see it, as well as people to understand what's happening instead of it just happening. ~ PheNaxKian talk 01:46, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

site notice :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 01:47, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

which I mentioned. I just thought a news article could provide a bit more detail as to why it's happening, and what will happen afterwards (even if it's just C+P Auron's WoT). ~ PheNaxKian talk 01:49, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

i was just gonna say post a site notice and be like "hey, bm's really didnt work, they just started flame wars, so now we're remvoing it, and now we're just going to tell people why builds suck instead of just flaming them". ez pz lmon sqz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 01:50, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

"Site Notice: As many of our current users have noted, the site is experiencing lowered activity. We have decided (as a community) that the 'Build Master' position be removed. This will end a lot of flame-wars, as well as a lot of site-wide trolling." etc. -- Big McStrongfist 02:06, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Let's set an example for anet to follow. "We fucked up. Build Masters were a terrible idea and have helped kill our site. Because we admit to this, we are now removing the position in the hopes that our site will improve." Life Guardian 02:13, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Or we can just have a brief site notice that links to a news article. It's been done in the past. Karate Jesus 02:31, 24 January 2010

yea my main point was why do people need warning, we can just do it and have siute notice explaining. the only people who it [really] affects are people who already know about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 02:40, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason not to do it. Believe it or not, a lot of people lurk here, so it couldn't hurt for them to know. Karate Jesus 03:10, 24 January 2010

it really affects everyone who comes to this site. Not just the most active users, like us :/. I've also pointed out, not everybody visits this site everyday, or every other day for that matter. Giving warning also allows those users a chance to get on and see what's happening before it actually happens. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:05, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we should do that. What do we want to put in the announcement/warning? - AthrunFeya - 13:53, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

i was thinking basicly copy Auron's post and just edit it slightly. ~ PheNaxKian talk 14:08, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

WAIT....STOP....admins get paid?--X 13:45, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, of course....didn't you know? We get 25k a year (USD) to put up with you guys. Karate Jesus 14:05, 24 January 2010

sometimes I worry for about you X. ~ PheNaxKian talk 14:08, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Site notice looks fine KJ, just needs the link.----~Short~ 14:15, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

The news article is now linked. I basically just took what Auron said and converted it into a 3rd party article. If something needs to be clarified or expounded upon, let me know. Karate Jesus 14:38, 24 January 2010

Random thing but should PvP'ers just be written as PvPers? I know English doesn't really have a standard way of putting inflections on acronyms but the latter seems to make more sense. - AthrunFeya - 14:52, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

It's standard in English grammar to use an apostrophe to separate a word from any distinct prefixes or suffixes that normally wouldn't be applies to the word, especially abbreviations. At least....in American English that's standard. Karate Jesus 20:10, 24 January 2010

Hmm fine. It's not the case here at least (see example). Finnish has such a hawt way of dealing with stuff like this. - AthrunFeya - 20:30, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

this build master removing look like a very very good idea to me.

i think build master by it s definition is bad idea just let public choose who s build rock or suck it s not because you once with your friend made a record at any stupid area , that you know more than other at building . people who build good are oftenly not the same as people who use good the build Nawak111 03:32, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, do not edit the main page again. -- Big McStrongfist 08:10, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Please note:

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

why let something open if u dont want it to be modified ? Nawak111 03:32, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

You're retarded. Stop being retarded and re-think what you just said in the context it applies to. Once you've done that, shut up, play nice, or get trolled for being a nigger. ··· Danny So Cute 07:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

omg ... i knew it was a dumb ass web site but i discover it is also a SoB web site .... nice . my god i m happy to be retarded for you . Nawak111 11:21, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Nawak, the reason you shouldn't edit the main article is because it's a policy, it's like...a law in real life (as good a metaphor as i can think). The "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." is more for any builds people submit to the build namespace. 13:33, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

yup i can understand that , but the fact is that i start to really be fed up with the attitude on this web site so i realy start to dont care what is obvious ... specially when i read guys like danny.and why not locking the "law" post is another wonder.any way too many people here are thinking they hold the truth , flamme other without reading to the end what is said , and so fucking protective about theyr little community ... that s a total waste .... we should never have let one web site grow that big without a counter . thoose guys realy need some competition. now i realy know why i always had reticense to read any thing on this website... because it is so self centered and kinda empty of anything interesting . too mutch self complaisancy Nawak111 14:13, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

the key is to not care what they say/think about you =p. We don't lock the page because there will always be small mistakes that we generally miss (spelling and grammar), or someone will reword something so it makes better sense. Protecting pages is also a massive drain on resources so we avoid it where possible. Yes people here will always think they're right, all i can say is "welcome to the internet", pretty much everyone will think they're right. When there haven't been any skill changes in ~6 months, you'll be hard pressed to find a new build that hasn't already been submitted in one point in time, so there are generally very few "productive" edits going on. ~ PheNaxKian talk 14:27, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

....what? -- Big McStrongfist 14:28, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

O...k. --Frosty 14:29, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

YYYYYYEAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH --Angelus 14:34, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

re-phrase that using something that resembles proper grammar and try again. but if you're just raging, get over yourself. no one cares if you stop coming here. you don't pay for a subscription and our userbase is far larger than necessary as it is. ··· Danny So Cute 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

dont give a fuck about grammar honnestly specialy in english. and yes your user base is too large specialy when it we talk about you (danny) ... go get a brain , i will then maybee learn grammar....... yeah phenaxian i can understand that exept for the build (even 1 million person can miss a evident thing that s just in front of them) Nawak111 16:21, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really didn't get that last part (the part you're pointing out to me). ~ PheNaxKian talk 16:36, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone does, Phen. Invincible Rogue 16:42, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he called me dumb and admitted to being foreign. Beyond that, I'm pretty much at a loss. I'm also terribly upset by his personal attacks against me. There just isn't a need for such vicious, hurtful words around here. ··· Danny So Cute 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't think it was PA for he was calling you large.--X 17:59, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

thepointing out was about the fact that number does not mean wiser , and that it s not because many people aggree on some thing they are right .... and danny come on you call me a "nigger" and dare to be shocked that i became aggresive toward you ? comme on wake up plz. and i "admited" being a stranger ? oO .... Nawak111 23:35, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

He was being sarcastic. --Frosty 23:39, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. Let me give you a friendly request to shut the fuck up, because the last 10 or more posts have been completely off-topic. Nawak111, I don't know what your problem is, but once you've learned to type in complete sentences and add proper punctuation, feel free to fire me an email with any concerns you may have about PvX. -Auron 00:06, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

AURON DA TROLL NEGRO --Angelus 00:19, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

o no ho did dis skakid9090 01:23, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I hate this place, I love these chords. An empty fate just means an even score.--TahiriVeila 01:30, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wow

I missed all of the debates. Obviously I wasn't on here for quite awhile. Someone should have sent me an email about this. If Build Master is gone, then I'd like to switch over to whatever the current title is that would allow me to help maintain the website when I log on. Zuranthium 00:39, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't really much to debate. Just something along the line of "this role is shitty" and then people agreeing to various degrees. I think we call that title you're after active user, we have very few of those now. - AthrunFeya - 00:42, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there were some bad Build Masters. I should be given Build Master status and the position should be changed so that once a vote is removed, the user is not able to re-vote again on the build for a week. That will stop the incessant trolls from continually trying to be inane. Zuranthium 01:03, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

We actually discussed that option, but realized that it would only cause more issues. If, by removing someone's vote, they lost the ability to vote they would most likely rage and end up banned. By removing the BM position, we basically just cut out the middle-man and hopefully promote more discussion on builds and build votes. At this point, if you want to help the site, we have a ton of stuff that needs to be cleaned up that wouldn't require any tools other than what normal users have. Karate Jesus 05:54, 6 February 2010

Well, the current aim is that votes won't be removed unless they lack a proper reasoning (troll votes lack a reasoning). I don't think there's much need for admin work, but being a core member of the community is always good, and there's always something to clean on PvX. --Chaos -- 09:22, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

The last time before you edited before today was April 2009, I wouldn't think you'd be that concerned if I'm honest. ----~Short~ 11:08, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

lol. ··· Danny So Cute 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"If, by removing someone's vote, they lost the ability to vote they would most likely rage and end up banned." - How and why would someone rage? If that was the rule, there would be nothing they could do about. People wouldn't lose their ability to vote, only the ability to vote on that specific build for a period of 1 week. It should be tested with just 1 Build Master at first (guess who) so that results are consistent. Zuranthium 02:50, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

zur, you haven't made an edit in nearly a year, what makes you think youre qualified to be a build master? do you still play guild wars? all of this seems to be very moot, considering we already reached a consensus (that's not to discourage you, but with absolutely no reasoning on why your method is necessary, it appears your cries will go unheard). Gringo 02:57, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

the reason we didn't bother contacting you was because you hadn't edited in a while, so you weren't aware of the current state of the wiki, which was (in my opinion at least) a needed requirement to participate in this discussion. Auron didn't just "up and decided" he wanted them removed. Someone talked about what we want to do with BMs as they're not performing as we hoped. Me, and several admins have though the position pointless for a long time, as did Auron. After a bit of disscussion between us all, I asked Auron for his input on the whole thing, and he did so. He posted, and asked what people's thoughts and opinions were, and we all agreed. We gave people a week after we decided this to make any comments on the matter before we actually removed it (we even made a news article and a site notice so it wasn't just hidden away). I'd say that's a decent time frame for the matter, given most people will log in at least once in said time frame. ~ PheNaxKian talk 11:28, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

By "we", Phen means "the relatively retarded conglomerate that remains active on this site." However, that's not to say that you, Zurrie, were ever an exception to that group, but rather a simple clarification. ··· Danny So Cute 12:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Gringo - because I was the best BM the site had. It's true I hadn't been here in awhile, though. I stopped playing after I got Champ 6. The game was going downhill and I had other things to do in life. I also agree that the BM position wasn't very good, though. It needed a bit more ability to restrain people. Which is why I made the proposal I did. Zuranthium 20:13, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Zuranthium, I remember how excellently you championed shitty builds that you thought were amazing such as Virulence split necromancers and Glyph of Renewal assassins. Best build master ever. Misery Says Moo 20:33, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

You remember completely incorrectly, but then you never did contribute anything of value. The first build was a split Virulence Assassin, not Necromancer, that won top 100 GvG matches. The second build was an Assassin made solely for Random Arenas that was very good for that Arena (there used to be no aftercast on the skill in question, but it eventually got nerfed) and bad players simply didn't understand how to use the build. Zuranthium 07:55, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Misery Says Moo 09:51, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

cool, so basically, you (claim you) used to be good at guild wars, so we should give you the most controversial title with a lot of power? i dont follow your logic. if you want BM to be reinstated, i highly recommend you drop this "i deserve it because i was good a long time ago" nonsense. as for what i remember it, you were a horrible player who pushed through the builds you enjoyed running. Gringo 20:36, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know who you are? And every build I voted for was in fact good. Unfortunately a lot of users here fail to understand builds and vote without having any skill or experience with the builds in question. I remember when I created the Machine Gun (Pew Pew) Ranger and said it was going to be an excellent Ranger build for not only RA but also GvG. A ton of bad players said I was wrong and that the build wasn't very good. Guess what happened...it quickly become an incredibly popular build not only in RA but also in high level GvG. Zuranthium 08:01, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

^ though i'd like to point out that if BM's are gone and admin's aren't doing build master's jobs we need to modify the values that builds require to get into a certain category. As it stands right now 3 people can trashvote, three people can great vote and the build ends up in trash, that's real community consensus c? I'd say lower it to a 3.00 rating gets you into goo, 4.50 and up gets you into great--TahiriVeila 20:38, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

If 3 people have trashed rated should the build really be vetted? =/ - AthrunFeya - 20:42, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Same number of people think the build is great. We're supposed to be basing off of community consensus aren't we?--TahiriVeila 20:44, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

(EC)if you want to talk about RV changes, take it to the RV talk page, not here. As for the "if 3 trash and 2 great" thing, I'm fairly sure one side will be wrong, majorily. So an admin can look at it and say "these are clearly troll/wrong", or, you know, talk to the voters you think are wrong... ~ PheNaxKian talk 20:46, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Users on either side are probably missing vital points from the other - that's the kind of stuff you need to talk through. I think its better to keep the boundaries slightly to the higher side, first of all we get less shit vetted (peoples rating habits i doubt will change), second it is better for builds generally to go through a bit of a fight until they're vetted as discussion can often lead to improvement. - AthrunFeya - 20:51, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest zura, if we were gonna promote 1 build master we'd promote crow because he is actually rank 1 balance guild and got gold cape, where do you get that you're the best player on the site from? Rawrawr Dinosaur 08:57, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea who Crow is. I do know that people have won Gold Capes by FORFEIT while I wasn't playing the game, though. Hopefully the recent MAT victory, where balanced pressure won out over super defensive crap, will do something to help the state of the game, though. Zuranthium 18:30, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think AA does that shit. I should know, since I'm in it, but I don't really play much. Either way, read Auron's response below. Karate Jesus 18:32, 8 February 2010

Jon strong capeleech? Brandnew 18:37, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

^ Karate Jesus 18:58, 8 February 2010

Zuranthium was promoted because he was a good player. I pretty much strongarmed him into the position, even when most of PvX didn't know who he was. As far as BMs go, he was one of the more skilled ones. Either way, the position is old, outdated and has caused more trouble than it's worth. I don't see a need for its continued existence. The build debating is left up to the community, the banning idiots is left up to the sysops, and we have no drama-inducing "build masters" trying to 5-5-5 their newest RA build.
@Zura - the new position is the old position. It's sysop or administrator. You can start a RfA for yourself if you wish, but keep in mind the goals of the current sysop team are totally different than those of the Build Master team. Also, an RfA at this point will most likely fail, as you haven't contributed in forever and thus won't have much support. Good luck with whatever you wish to do, though. -Auron 09:27, February 8, 2010 (UTC)