Talk: Build Masters

Initial Discussion

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)

thanks, reading comprehension and memory ftw.--Coloneh 03:18, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

atm, I don't really know what to say. ‽-(єяøהħ) ^{no u} 03:24, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I like this policy as well. Elitism doesn't bother me at all. I 'know many other people are way better at making builds than me and 70% of the other wiki contributers. It makes sense to me that smarter people should cause more influence.--Teh Uber Pwnzer 12:17, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Whoa, whoa WAIT right there.

This is going to be fucking mental if this policy is implemented. THIS will likely cause the downhill slide. Other than the fact that it is open to abuse, and people wiping negative votes from their own build that are valid, everything will end up in good/great, unless it sucks SERIOUSLY bad. Already from sysops and BCrats alone, I feel some of the votes are wrongly removed. And by making everyone special, no-one is special. I'm not a fan of elitism, right, in fact I'm AGAINST it. I hate elitism. My friends try it, and I'm always elitist over them, and it becomes a competition to see who owns each other more, and then friendships start to turn stale or fall to pieces. And by giving some people more weight over others, then it's just contradictory to the point of sysops/bcrats anyways. They are supposed to have an even standing on voting and discussions with the community, just because someone is very good at Guild Wars we don't need fucking build masters to see that. I already know Readem and Armond are fucking good at GW, and I know some other people who AREN'T sysops on this site that are very good, and we don't need build masters to prove THAT. Say I might be sucking up to the good guys all you like, but I'm making a stand on this one. This will be the DEATH of this wiki. It will WRECK any democracy on the wiki, it WON'T be a level field anymore, and it's just as bad as saying 'Right everything admins say goes because they are admins and therefore they are 10x superior to any user'. It isn't what PvXwiki is meant to be. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ (talk)·(contributions) 03:40, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

/sigh. Alright, aside from the elitism spiel we all knew would come from somewhere, I'll go through your points one-by-one.

• Downhill slide has started, if we ever really started at a peak to begin with.
• Adminship is open to abuse. We can delete votes we don't like, we can delete entire builds that look bad and refer the author to PvX:WELL. Does this rampant abuse of power occur now? No.
• Everything wouldn't end up in Good/Great, that's the point of fixing this. BMs get appointed because they are smart and know what is goo/great in-game, and can use their weighted votes to more ably ensure that those builds make it into the categories they belong in.
• See here. This user states that he votes down a lot of builds, yet he has written a number of good/great ones. (No user-bias or anything here, btw.) Lots of people write lots of bad builds, so rather than putting everything into good/great (ignoring the monstrous exaggeration of yours atm), people vote negatively more often than not. More bad builds get shot down because there are more of them.
• This wiki isn't about making friends. That's a great side benefit, but this wiki was created to document builds. This isn't a singles club or a 'Strictly Platonic' CList thread.
• It contradicts nothing. Sysops administrate the site and keep it running. We don't regulate builds or conversations.
• BMs aren't intended to show off how good someone is at GW. They are meant to allow them apply their knowledge in a way that benefits the site. They are not a reward for being good at GW or a good wiki-er.
• Those other guys you know don't yet participate on the site. Improving the site's reputation would draw more good players (like your buds) to it, and the site can then benefit from their contributions. Site gets better then, better players take it seriously, maybe contribute a little themselves, snowball effect.
• If this is sucking up, you must be new at it. :)
• The wiki will die as the knowledgeable contributors get sick of all the crap that slides through the cracks of the vetting procedure while they can do nothing to stop it. Good contributors leave, wiki quality gets worse, more good contributors leave and stop making edits, another snowball effect. You're left to make the best you can with the bottom of the barrel. Site's reputation and ability to attract new contributors will suffer as well.
• This isn't a democracy (yes, I am aware that GCardinal has a note on his userpage stating he would like this to be one, but wikis never are. Ultimately, the site is totally controlled by the administrators. Anything done to the wiki can be undone, if we don't like your opinion we can silence it, it's pretty totalitarian).
• Level fields are bad because bad players and builds outnumber the good ones.
• Like I said, PvX was meant to document builds. I'm not clear on what else you think it would become under this policy.

In short, this is a pragmatic approach to better the wiki. You can argue theoreticals until you lose your breath, but it doesn't mean a thing when I can see the proof of the wiki's decline first-hand. It does make sense that, since you are displeased with admin behaviour, you would be pleased with more of it coming from more users. In theory, I'll alow that something can go wrong. In practice, it rarely does and takes two clicks to revert it if it happens. Your language and tone suggests you've gotten pretty worked up about this policy; maybe you can reconsider after you read through my post. Basically, it comes down to a question of whose hands will hold the power to run this site effectively: the uneducated masses, or the knowledgeable 'elite.' You've got to ask yourself who would run the site most effectively. - Krowman {{sysop}} 04:34, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Whole point is I WOULDN'T be pleased from more of it coming from users. Sure, we all know sysops aren't retarded/mingebags. But who goes to say that someone on the wiki who just HAPPENS to be good at Guild Wars ISN'T one? And sure, the knowledgable people should be the ones who run the site, and you do. But IMO it should be left down to sysops and BCrats, because you all run the site, not us users. And sure, you could shoot down and silence everyones' views, but you don't, because you are not arseholes. Napalm Flame 04:49, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

On an extra note, it's not that I'm displeased with admin behaviour, your behaviour is mostly fine. Note the mostly. Sure, some of you do behave in a way that I feel is not suitable for an admin, but I have to live with that. And sure, some of your decisions I do not agree with, but I can live with that. What I COULDN'T just sit idly by and allow to happen is a decent wiki fall to pieces because of a select few arseholes (who just happen to be good at Guild Wars) decides to ruin the community. Sure, this is about build documentation, but with no community AKA a community of arseholes, where is the drive to document a build? Napalm Flame 04:53, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Quite simply, don't let assholes become build masters, just like we don't let them become sysops. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 04:56, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Where in the policy does it say BM's must be asses? I understand dislike of elitism (it bothers me too, it's the reason I hate PvX:WELL. That policy is abused by elitists and a few morons who think they know everything) but you have to realize some elitist people aren't total a-holes. Right now, I find the main problem is that people seem to refuse rating something in the middle. Almost all votes have 2-1-1 or below or 4-4-4 and above. ‽-(єяøהħ) ^{no u} 04:57, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I try to avoid the extremes by large. The thing about that is that sometimes this 'elitism' and this 'special status' gets to someone's head and it turns them into an arrogant arsehole. It's happened before, and I've been there to watch the shit hit the fan, and this was in real life. At least elitists in the core of the community (Armond, you, Krowman, Edru and me perhaps) aren't arseholes... Or at least I hope I'm not :( Napalm Flame 05:01, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Simply as an additional note here regarding possible abuse, under the current structure, Administrators cannot remove votes from their own builds, and I assume the same would be true of BMs. Of course, simply by voting on their own builds, a BM could theoretically influence voting; however, all of the viable candidates I can think of wouldn't submit a bad build and then try to push it through, so that's probably not a big issue. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:05, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Well that's good, but the thing that really worries me is the thing that says 'You can never have too many'... Yes we can, too many will kill the wiki probably. And I'd bet any money I'm not one of your candidates, the only build I've contributed to the wiki so far is my PvE general team build which works wonders mind you, but I wouldn't push my builds through. Heck, I even deleted one of mine because it was basically an improvement on Skakid's mind blast nuker without realising it. And by the way, just one other thing, I don't WANT some elitist badge or title. I just want to be the user that sits in the corner looking useful. Napalm Flame 05:09, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Well, if there's a lot of them, it's hardly an elite anymore. Giving more smart users more capabilities would be good here. I don't see how too many would be bad. Tbh, there probably wouldn't be that many BMs, not until we entice more good players to come and contribute here. It would be nice to have someone like Ensign chipping in every once in a while. - Krowman {{sysop}} 05:16, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

True, true, and I've just realised something. You have just gone and shot down EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of my arguments. You must have been preparing for those sorts of arguments. Napalm Flame 05:17, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Well, seems like i'm late to jump into this argument, and i don't want to read over everything and I probably won't even read the person that posts after me. But i'll just say two things. 1. it's undemocratic. 2. goes against GW:YAV which is noted to apply to pvxwiki as well - here: Build talk:N/P Remains of Sahlahja Fun by Krowman. -- Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

I was right then, and now. When I said that, we didn't have qualifications on the wiki (you could argue that we require certain things from admins, but w/e); this policy would incorporate some, giving certain users more responsibilities in exchange for more resources (again, similar to admins). Since you stated you didn't want to read through the above, I'll highlight this for you:

• This isn't a democracy (yes, I am aware that GCardinal has a note on his userpage stating he would like this to be one, but wikis never are. Ultimately, the site is totally controlled by the administrators. Anything done to the wiki can be undone, if we don't like your opinion we can silence it, it's pretty totalitarian).

Of course, you said you probably wouldn't even read this, but here it is for your benefit anyways. Not sure why you would jump into a discussion with no intentions to read what it has encompassed already or where it will be headed tbh. - Krowman {{sysop}} 05:19, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

A trial run

Could a trial run of a month be implemented for the policy if it were to be accepted to see whether or not it would work? The additional powers granted to BM's may or may not be abused and this trial would be similar. Merely a vote after the original policy becomes official a month or two afterwards would be sufficient. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 04:10, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Would make sense, since I think dumping this right in would be a MONUMENTAL fuck up. I'm still not in support of this policy in any way, shape or form, but that isn't a bad idea. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ (talk)·(contributions) 04:24, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Trial run would assuage many of the fears some users may have about the potential for abuse/ degradation of democracy/ whatever concerns there may be. - Krowman {{sysop}} 04:36, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Precisely. It doesn't work- scrapped. It does work- keep. It's that simple. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚〛 04:39, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Well what the fuck we doing standing around then? Let's get a vote started and see if we want this policy or not. The sooner the better after all. If this could determine the future of the wiki, and determine whether it goes uphill or downhill, then why stand idly by? Napalm Flame 05:02, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

In this case, reasoned discussion of its pros and cons would be more better than a simple vote. - Krowman {{sysop}} 05:11, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Then let's get summarising. What's our main pros and cons for the arguments so far? Napalm Flame 05:12, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Since the coding does not yet exist to implement this on any basis, nothing is going to happen immediately. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:13, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Ah, is there a way I could perhaps help with anything? Since I'm feeling useful right now... xP Napalm Flame 05:16, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Do you know anything of php, mediawiki, extensions, or even basic html? Otherwise, I doubt any of us will be able make any significant progress in that general direction. If Cheese were here, we might as well be "Deleting the Main Page". Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:20, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Basic HTML yes, I think I can handle that, I've done some coding, but as for php, mediawiki or extensions, I'm willing to learn, and I do learn fast. Napalm Flame 05:23, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Unlikely. This will probably involve a great deal of coding (likely an entire extension will need to be built in to allow Bureaucrats to designate people as BMs, much like we designate Admins) and I doubt anyone other than Hhhippo or Cardinal can do that (even if people had the expertise, only Hhhippo and Cardinal have server access). So despite the fact that I have a good deal of knowledge about a variety of coding languages, I doubt I could do anything. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:21, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I need someone to teach me, mind spending some time further enlightening someone seeking more knowledge? ^^ Napalm Flame 05:25, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Implementation

I got a chance to talk to Hhhippo, and he indicated that it would be relatively simple to implement this policy from a coding stand point. Just thought I'd throw that out there so we can get back to the question of whether we actually want to attempt a trial run. *Defiant Elements* +talk 09:02, 4 September 2007 (CEST)