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)
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)
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)
- 200%. -- Armond Warblade
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
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)
- So can you offer a brief corrolary/essay? Just so we can start anew.
- None were refuted outside of "BM's might wiki better". — Rapta
- 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)
- You know I'm obliged to ask why.
- Because I don't like weighted voting. But since this is going to be implemented, I prefer 150%. — Rapta
- Why not and crap.
- No and no. — Rapta
- So does that mean you support this policy/accept your nomination?
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)
- 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
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)
- ...If people have a problem with people better than them voting, that's their problem, imo. Also, the archive got lost somewhere. -- Armond Warblade
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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
- There are actually more pve builds (358) than pvp builds (348). Plus, not like we pay them, nothing wrong with overkill. xD --
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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~WaffleZ
LOL(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)
- dont you mean tab still retardedly removes votes when he bothers to log in? Athrun
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
- Um....I'm not sure. I don't think so, but it's something I could look into. Karate
- 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)
- Is it possible to block a user from rating only? I doubt it, but just wondering. ----~Short~ 22:02, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
- 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
- "The problem with all of this is that most new users tend not to listen to reason"
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ^ 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)
- 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
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)