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)

Concerning YAV, you're looking at the wrong one. We have our own policy for that: PvX:YAV. Our version doesn't, at least not explicitly, forbid giving a group of users a higher voting weighting. In addition, if consensus is reached to make this policy official, any necessary changes will likely be made to any potentially conflicting policies. Also, citing someone to argue against themselves is a bit funny. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 05:25, 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)

Well, I think we might want to nail down the rules and then go back and see the plausibility. When this was brought up, I believe we were talking about designating BM's for particular sections. As opposed to a simple BM. That is, you could have a Ranger BM, whose votes on Ranger builds have significant weight. But, that user would not have significant weight when rating a Mesmer build. Of course, we can add various campaigns to the mix as well. Of course, this increases the level of complexity. I would assume greatly.

So, we either make the assumption that a build master is a master builder of all builds. Or, we regulate it to the statement I made in the above paragraph. Also, rankings of BM's was also introduced during this discussion. And both the statement I made and BM rankings are introducing a hierarchy of build masters.

If the hierarchy is such that the sysop has all of the attributes, plus more, of the BM, we are then saying that the Sysop is a BM and will have a weighted rating. Is this what we want to be the structure? I would probably be ok it (though I'll suggest something else later), but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks on the issue.

Also, I'd like to know if we can create a more complex hierarchy of the BMs (Ranger BM, Necro BM, ect.) where you could be any combination of the BMs. In this same vein, I suggest that BM be an attribute that can be obtained, as opposed to a particular role in the hierarchy I described above. That is, a Sysop can be a Ranger BM or not. This gives a little more meaning to the worthiness of the BMs. Because, quite frankly, a Sysop may not be a BM of a particular profession. Ascscorp 15:38, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

BM = master of builds, not professions, for similar reasons to why profession-specific guides are flawed. You're right about its complexity, and when I think of potential BM candidates, I can only think of one profession-or-role-specific BM: Luobailong, dealing with running builds. Every single other candidate I can think of knows more than one single profession/role. About your sysop note, I stated that it is my hope that we won't need to have build-knowledgeable admins; those that were promoted based on their in-game knowledge could become BMs. However, the capabilities would be extended to current admins, since we do have a few who are very knowledgeable players about the game, and were promoted before this policy ever existed. Ultimately, it is the admin's decision to remain an admin or become a BM. If you can think of any profession-specific candidates, please feel encourage to list them (I highly doubt they will be insulted), but for pragmatic purposes (which is central to this policy), BMs should be learned in more than one profession. Playing multiple profession makes you better at your preferred one anyways, as does being informed about the current metagame. - Krowman {{sysop}} 18:08, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Question: Current admin have to make the choice between BM and Admin? If so, will the admin loose the current ability to strike votes? I would hope not, cause even the most uneducated (in game) admin can tell a vote that contradicts itself. Єяøהħ 18:25, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

BMs also have the ability to strike votes as one of their two new tools. - Krowman {{sysop}} 18:27, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

I understand that, but will normal admin loose that ability when the BM's arrive, and if an admin goes for BM, will he/she be a BM only (meaning they lose adminship)? Єяøהħ 18:29, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Oh, sorry, misunderstood you. Admins may still remove votes. Current admins may stay as both, since they were promoted before this policy ever existed. Later on down the road, it may be decided that they be one or the other, but we won't find out which will work best until the policy has been active for a while, so that we may see how it goes over here at the site. - Krowman {{sysop}} 18:36, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

I think you cleared up some things, Krowman. And I do think that you are right about the master of builds 'type', that they (the BM) will need to be professed in a number of different areas to be a master of builds. Perhaps profession was to fine grain to break down the BM concentrations, but there separations in game play based on the meta game that can be abstracted out; such as running. We see it in the breakdown of builds here on the wiki. PvP and PvE. HA, TA, HB and GvG; Running, Farming and General. Maybe we can just have PvP and PvE. This would be a high level break down and I think at the least, if not a finer level, is needed. Considering PvE only skills and the general the meta game of both PvP and PvE. Ascscorp 19:09, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

The PvE/PvP distinction you make I think is a fair one, though I don't see why a user can't be both, so long as they can back up their claims of PvE/P 'build mastery.' :) - Krowman {{sysop}}

Agreed. They can be both, but I think there should be the process for each distinction. Ascscorp 21:43, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Regarding Voting on This Policy

When would voting on this policy take place? Additionally, how would users know that they could begin voting on it? Not only do I entirely disagree with this policy proposal, but I also see an inherent problem in voting for it. The policymaking process on the Wiki is typically only engaged in by users who spend a great deal of time on the Wiki. We'll call these full-time users. These users are the exact same people that this policy favors and seeks to grant weighted votes to. The part-time Wiki user that makes occasional changes or contributions here or there isn't going to vote on this policy. In fact, it's likely that they won't even be aware of this policy. So what we actually have here is full-time Wiki users voting in a policy that benefits them. It's similar to Congress voting to give themselves a raise. Now, I've seen many of you trying to make the argument that this policy wouldn't just benefit the full-time users; i.e, you argue that it would benefit the Wiki in it's entirety. But that goes against the entire concept of a Wiki, which is one of fair, open, and equally weighted input by any and all users. So how is any of this fair for everyone? The fact that full-time users are going to be the ones both voting on and benefiting from this policy should be a clear indication that it is heavily, heavily biased.--Ninjatek 19:41, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

There likely won't be a vote. If enough people like the policy, it will be given a trial run, as suggested above. As to benefits, this policy offers no rewards to full/part time users. BM status is determined by merit, not seniority or number of contributions. The 'perks' of being a BM are more responsibilities. They get additional jobs to do, not rewards. The only quasi-reward would be the title of BM; if you think that's unfair, get in-game and browse through the dozens of titles that varying levels of players are sporting. Life isn't fair, neither is a wiki (wikis aren't democracies either). If I don't like you, I can make sure that no one here ever hears from you again. Is that fair? Is that equality? Your points are based in idealism, while this is a pragmatic approach to fix a problem that idealism got us into in the first place. (It sounded great to give everyone a free and equal vote, but I guess the fact that bad players and builds outnumber the good ones eluded the grasp of these freedom-loving users). This policy improves the wiki, that's a benefit to all. It doesn't contradict a wiki, as I explained above (mainly, that wikis aren't fair or democracies). The "full-time users" will be ensuring a better site for everyone; since the people who would become BMs already know a lot about builds, they are getting little out of a builds-help site. The benefit is to new players who deserve better information than what we are giving them. BMs stand little to gain from having a strong builds resource (because they already know the builds), so I don't know how you can figure the policy is biased in their favor. - Krowman {{sysop}} 19:53, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

I don't like the idea of this policy. Having specific users with greater voting power goes against the point of having a vote. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:28, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Not exactly, it changes the weight of some votes, its gonna take more than BM's voting 4-4-4 on a build to get it into the good cat. The only thing I don't think we can ever fix, is users voting the same way as other users or perpously voting the opposite. Theres always 2-3 people who don't even fully understand the build and its purpose, and they vote the same way as everyone else. Єяøהħ 22:32, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Yes it does. A vote with everyone at equal weighting = a vote. Anything else is not a vote. The only thing that should be changed is to increase moderation on existing votes, rather than create a new category of users that have power over other users in build vetting. For this to be a wiki, all users should have the same power when voting. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:35, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

I would still have vote power. If bm = 1.5 of a vote, people can easily overcome that vote. Єяøהħ 22:36, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

If that's the case then why have it at all? It's pointless. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:37, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Again, the best solution is to step up moderation of votes (quality control over votes that don't provide a reason, going against "the flow" of votes without a reason. Votes placed purposely to screw up the system should be removed; something the administrators should be doing, not creating an entire new class of users. A simple solution is to have more administrators. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:39, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Dunno, most people sound for this idea, so maybe one of them can answer. I have never liked elitist people {mainly because most of them let it get to their head) and I kinda dislike the idea of promoting an elitist person to have more power, cause that won't ever go to their head... Єяøהħ 22:40, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

I guess it could depend on your definition of "elitist". For example, if someone votes every build that's not on observer move every other match as "trash", then they should not be given Admin-like powers on this wiki. But depending on a person's build standard, elitism may or may not be an issue. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:52, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

As an addition to my reasons above, I don't think that these "powers" would benefit the community much. Personally, I see users having the ability to delete Builds (ie, redirects, dupes) as a more useful tool than screwing up vote pages. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:45, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

I also dont like to see more users get more power - Because even now there are users who dont like particular admins. and when u give several users more power they each have their own opinion about stuff and it is just giving more useres reason to hate more several BM that has more power. i agree with naplam and Rapta here. too many "leaders" is never good. thelord23 23:33, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

(to Rapta) Tbh, increased vigilance in vote surveillance is more unfair than appointing BMs. Removing an increased number of votes, based on tightened restrictions is much more oppressive, enforces a much more conforming approach to builds, and not particularly helpful to players seeking build advice. Under your suggestion, we would merely be removing more and more votes than differed from popular opinion; under this proposal, we would be effectively pointing to good players and telling the inexperienced players to listen to their advice, while empowering those 'gurus' to better formulate a comprehensive and accurate build resource. Deleting redirects and duplicate builds wouldn't help improve the quality of the builds on-site what-so-ever. As I have pointed out many times here and elsewhere, wikis aren't fair, and they aren't democracies. Our voting system in place now is unfair. You can be an experienced, skilled, and highly-ranked player, and your vote is to be held equal to a player who is new to the game and the site. An extreme example of course, but it serves to illustrate the point. When it comes to this fairness/equality/democracy complaint (on any policy, on any wiki), it is necessary to accept that people aren't equal; therefore it makes no sense to treat them equally. Some sites look for programming skills in their appointed leaders, some look for patience/tolerance/general people skills; we here should be looking for build knowledge in our leaders, and give them a means through which they can put that knowledge to good use. Deletion powers etc don't do that at all. - Krowman {{sysop}} 08:03, 8 September 2007 (CEST)

I don't see how increased vote surveillance is unfair. The section on "going against popular opinion" was merely a suggestion, but is not necessary. For any wiki, and for any voting system to be successful, each and every user, during the vote, must be held as equal to another. That is the only way a vote would actually work. Shifting this "balance of power" to another user or specific group of users (no matter how slight the shift may be) changes the system completely. It does not matter if people are equal or not, but they should be treated as though they are equal. This is one of the fundamental rules in which a wiki, and in turn, this voting process, can be run. Suggestions in all points of view should be included in discussion. If a vote doesn't make sense or fails to describe the capabilities of a build, then it can be removed and a message placed on a user's talk page, telling them to re-vote or "tweak" their vote. The ability to delete and revote is one of the areas in our voting system that stands out to give users more chances to correct mistakes, and in turn, make better builds themselves. But in the current state of this wiki, there are very few faults in the voting process (most complaints being from admins who don't want to remove votes or users whining/QQ'ing about their build being voted unfavorably). Right now, most bad builds are filtered out into the trash category, a few slip into the "Acceptable" category (which is fine, as far as I see), and the good builds get voted favorably. As such, I just don't see this policy as being necessary or benefitial. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:16, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

Just a quick question; is it possible to make Admins who's only ability is vote removal? Giving too many users Sysop abilities might not be great, but a few more half-admins, just for vote patrol, might be good to have, and might make it simpler to keep 0-0-0 votes saying "Shadow Form can't stop Power Attack" out of the system. More eyes makes vote cleanup a simpler task, and frees up some of the other admins for more administrative duties. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 04:33, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

In answer to your question Jioruji, from what I understand, it would be possible to designate a group of people who would have the power to remove votes, but would not have other Admin abilities. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:48, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

Perhaps that's a viable option. Admins with very specific rights and abilities; users with the sole ability of vote removal and adjustment could be close to "build masters" as it is. Either way, you're going to need those users to have a good understanding of how builds work, be it so they can make the best possible votes, or spot votes based on flawed logic. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 05:49, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

No, that's exactly what the old BM proposal concerned, and that is why it failed. The talk page goes into this in greater detail. As well, how many of those "Shadow Form can't stop Power Attack" votes are out there? The problem with the wiki isn't the number of bad votes, it is the good ones that are so damaging. We have people over-rating builds, guilds co-ordinating to vet their own builds, and other mischief. Some of our 'Great' builds aren't great at all. Basically, the only-vote-removal user rights have been discussed and shut down before, and the entire discussion can be read at the link I provided above.

As to you Rapta, I don't see how anything good can come of treating unequal people equally. One point that I have tried to make repeatedly on this page is that GW players aren't equal whatsoever. Not even ANet pretends that they are (in reference to the title function). What is a good reason (or reasons) for treating two unequal people equally? Wheelchair-bound people have access to larger stalls in bathroom. Is that fair? No. Does that make it a bad thing? No. Look at foreign students for another example. Are they thrown into classes where they don't understand the language being spoken, and are expected to achieve equal performance under equal conditions? No. There are ESL classes that they can receive and benefit from. Is this option extended to everyone? No. Is it a bad thing? Again, no, it isn't. Equality for the sake of equality reaps nothing constructive for the site. It's a nice ideal, but that kind of idealism is what is dragging the site down (it's not all our fault, when we ported GWiki's builds here, we ported over the same problems). This is a practical, pragmatic solution to the problem before us. Deleting more votes or builds will do nothing to ensure the accuracy and quality of the builds PvX hosts. As to the idea that "a few" bad builds slip into the Acceptable category, I guess I just have higher standards; to me that is a problem, not something we can tolerate/ignore. - Krowman {{sysop}} 07:02, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

This site is where it is today due to unequal people being treated equally. In short, GW is not analogous to anything other than GW, since it is in all essence, a computer game. Additionally, some of the examples you brought up don't make as much sense. Are you suggesting that newer, less experienced users be given greater voting power?

I honestly don't see where so many of these significant problems are, that require dragging on a new policy that throws away the very basis of voting. Sure, there are a few users that are inexperienced, but treating them as inferior in voting solves very little. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "deleting more votes or builds will do nothing", as it will, infact, accomplish a lot.

The examples you brought up, in a way, prove my point. The unequal people in your scenarios, the ESL students, the disabled, are given additional help in order to become equal to others. The ESL students are tought English so they are able to speak on equal terms with others in society, and disabled peoples are given extra benefits to live an equally normal life as a regular person. Instead of looking down upon newbies and lowering their voting power (albiet, indirectly), they should at least be treated equally. Many users who are here today, for example, may not even be here if no one knew who they were or how much experience they had, or simply would have left the wiki, were it not for the equality system we've (as well as every other wiki) has in place. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 07:20, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

(ri) I find that this discussion, at least between you & me Rapta, is getting very drawn out, a little abstract, and less and less related to the subject at hand. In short, what you dislike about this proposal is that it undermines voting and treats users unequally, and your suggestions include more vigorous vote moderation, and giving more users, possibly the BMs, the ability to remove votes and delete builds? - Krowman {{sysop}} 01:38, 17 September 2007 (CEST)