PvXwiki talk:Build Masters

Considering the weightng of BM votes, whether to have 2 levels of BMs, one with 150% the other with 200% weighting, etc. - Krowman {{sysop}} 00:58, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Also, this (weighted votes in particular) work nicely with the criteria below that was hindering certain users from keeping the wiki's standards and build quality high, so parts of my posts below are pretty mute to this policy. - Krowman {{sysop}} 01:07, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Insert obligatory QQing about elitism. Looks good, although I am personally somewhat divided as to whether I support this. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 01:08, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Ok, first things first, despite the disclaimer, people will QQ about this policy... but, whether or not that will be an issue would have to be determined later, so I'll leave that alone for now. Second point, can someone be, simultaneously, an Administrator and a Build Master, or, are the positions mutually exclusive? Also, along a similar vein, if you were to create a Wiki Org chart, and include BMs, would Bureaucrats be "above" both BMs and Sysops with BMs and Sysops as two completely seperate "branches," or would, for example, would it be Bureaucrat -> Sysop -> BM? As to having multiple "levels" of BM, I would simply question what the process for determining primary vs. secondary BMs would be. Obviously, some users are more knowledgeable than others, but, assuming we aren't factoring in seniority, number of contributions, etc., it might be hard to compare two knowledgeable users. Obviously not a big obstacle, but I thought I'd point it out. So, those are my general comments/concerns with this policy. Overall however, I'm still unsure whether or not I support this (especially given the WikiDrama that is sure to result, although that's not the main reason). *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:17, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Oh, and have you (Krowman) talked to Cardinal about the feasibility of implementing this? I know that back when we were discussing the old BM policy, Cardinal said he could create a BM user group and allow them to remove votes (at least, I think that's what he said), but, do you have any clue how easily a "weighted vote" system could be implemented? *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:19, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I suppose the chart would run BCrat -> Sysop -> BM, simply because sysops have additional powers that BMs do not. Not to say that BMs are less valuable than sysops, it's just a functionality decision. Admins can effectively be BMs (vote removal, 2nd para of weighted voting section) though I had hoped that our admins that have been appointed because they were essentially Build Masters before the policy was ever drafted could move to the BM category and leave administrative duty to users better suited to deal with it. Again, it wouldn't be a demotion to BM, that's why I didn't specify a hierarchy between Bcrats/sysops/BMs. Ranking of BMs was an afterthought, something I figured other users might have wanted and should put up for discussion; I'd prefer just BMs, not different rankings of the users. Needlessly complicated, questionably useful, and could be insulting to some. Haven't caught GC or Hippo on MSN, can be hard to meet them there as we live on opposite sides of the world from each other. The difficulty would be in the weighted voting, not the vote removal. Not sure if we could simply amplify BM vote by a certain percentage automatically, or if we'd have to reserve a little 'category' for BM votes only that, as a category, would be weighted more heavily than the standard, currently one-size-fits-all category for ratings from all levels of users. - Krowman {{sysop}} 01:31, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Discussion from PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting

"A vote must constitute an objective judgement of the build's qualities. It must not be biased by sympathy or any other prejudice regarding the author. This applies in particular to votes given by authors themselves or their friends. Votes that deliberately overshoot in favoring or unfavoring a build in order to 'compensate' another vote are not acceptable either."

This needs to be revisited. The first point about author bias is fine, but the second statement needs to be reconsidered. Until we have more experienced than inexperienced users/players contributing to the wiki, the odds that a sub-par build will be vetted favorably are pretty good. In practice (and even the user that pointed this out to me agrees), this is allowing the standard of quality on the wiki to slide, much as it did on GWiki. While enforcing this statement seems fair, it actually limits the power that regular users have in determining the wiki's fate. High or low ratings are how regular users can influence build ratings, while sysops have the added capability of removing votes. Taking away the option to vote highly or lowly, regular users have no means to ensure higher quality builds are endorsed by this wiki. Only sysops are left to remove votes that misrepresent the builds themselves. Now, this isn't to say that any admin takes unfair advantage of their powers; in fact, most of the admin team performs admirably. The back-end is usually well-maintained, user requests are responded to immediately, and admins take more flack and spam than they deserve and deal with it maturely and responsibly. In a nutshell, we need to revise this because, in practice, it doesn't work. In reality, some players are better than others (this shouldn't be hard for anyone to accept, GW is a competitive game). Some are more knowledgeable, experienced, skilled etc. But everyone gets an equal vote, and to make matters more complicated, there are unquestionably more unconditioned players than veteran ones. There are plenty of smart non-sysops, and they can do nothing to ensure high quality builds on the wiki. Btw, the solution is not a selective reviewing of every questionable vote, the solution is to cowboy up and give the better players (don't argue about points-of-view and subjective ranking etc, just deal with the fact that some people are better at GW than others) a firmer hand to shape the wiki into something of bonafide quality. Excuse the long read. - Krowman {{sysop}} 03:17, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

I think this is what the Build Master's Thing was trying to address. I like the idea, but maybe something that would reward users after voting so many builds. If there was any way to count a users votes, minus the ones the get deleted, then after so many votes, 100?, then that person's vote would count for 1.2 or 1.5 of a regular vote. I know this would be really hard to implement, but I do agree something needs to be done. In case you're wondering, I would still be wayyyyyy under the limit. I know I do not play as much as other people, therefor not know as much, hence the small amount of votes from me. Anyway, yea. Bluemilkman 04:03, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

Vote-counting would probably end up with users voting just for the sake of voting; even if they voted more-or-less fairly, they're still going to end up voting on builds they can't use, don't know enough about, or so on. I don't disagree with Krowman's point of view; often, there are some players who's opinions I take into consideration more then others. Most of the admins are such people, normally; D.E. and Readem have played more builds then they really should have, so I trust them when they say something doesn't work because, I know they speak from experience.

For the most part, I think that the majority of people who's opinions I trust are already admins, and they do a good job already of removing votes that are based on false facts and bias. Giving some players more say then others is an option, but it all depends, I think; giving a player more say should be agreed on, in my opinion. Just because someone votes a lot, without getting their votes deleted often, doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about. Same goes for the reverse, there are plenty of players that do know a lot, but don't vote as often. An option might be users with a bit more say in certain categories; for example, Auron and Rapta are both especially experienced in GvG from what I understand, giving both of them a bit more sway in GvG builds would make perfect sense. Same would go for users who are particularly skilled with Ranger builds, or RA builds, or Farming setups. Such users could be "elected" much in the same way as admins are, via nominations and whatnot. Just my idea. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 04:54, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

(edit conflict)Know what, some form of ranked user vetting would work with BMs, but in their current manifestation, BMs are useless. They are just mini-admins in the proposal currently. I'd prefer a procedure similar to promoting admins. People can recognize who knows their stuff, and can nominate them to have a greater hand in shaping the wiki. BCrats would still get the ultimate say, so some really popular user with little in-game knowledge could still be prevented adminship, while someone who is despised for putting his knowledge to good use and shooting down numerous builds (and drawing the resulting newbie hate). Too bad that old policy wasn't written very insightfully. I'll dratf up a new one I think. Top of my head, I'm thinking three levels of vote weighting, similar to RfA process (criteria being quality, not quantity of edits/ builds submitted/favored) that is monitored by admins, vote removal capabilities, and held to similar responsibilities as admins in the Build namespace. - Krowman {{sysop}} 05:00, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

Fantastic discussion. I think that a weighted system will properly address the situation. Of course, as was mentioned or expressed above, discovering the correct weights may prove to be trying. But, over time I believe a good balance can be achieved. And you are right, particular people are held in higher regard when it comes to comments and discussion because of their experience by the community already. It only makes sense that the wiki reflect what the community is already doing on their own. But, by now effecting the rating more directly, we'll have more accurate ratings that have significant reading. The comments by the respected posters and contributors of the wiki should be reflected in the rating of the build. I think this would be a great step towards ensuring that. Ascscorp 05:25, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

PvXwiki:Build Master User Rights. Drafted here. - Krowman {{sysop}} 00:57, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I like this policy

in its current state, but i didnt see anything about how weighted the votes would be.--Coloneh 01:47, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

150% of standard, possibly 200%. It's in the 2nd sentence of the Weighted Votes section, if you'd like to see it in context. - Krowman {{sysop}} 01:49, 3 September 2007 (CEST)