FANDOM


IMO even something in addition to this might be useful such as a code that applies a tag to the build calling for a review if any skill in the bar has been changed and to determine if the change led to a nerf, buff, or no significant effect on the build. This might expedite build changes and maintenance whenever a major skill balance occurs. Lania Elderfire 18:39, 23 April 2007 (CEST)


What a pain in the ass. Why don't we stick with the old system of archiving the old RAB and throwing a new one on? It's easy to find, easy to read, but doesn't conflict with the new one. I'd have to see an example to really understand what you mean, but as I understand it, this is needlessly complicated. -Auron 19:50, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

I kinda agree that something like this isn't really needed. But IMO an automatic code or bot that tags the build whenever a skill in build's bar have changed due to skill rebalances should be implemented or just replace this policy. --Lania Elderfire 19:57, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
A nerf-bat detecting script? That'd be an impressive piece of work. -Auron 20:20, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
Heh, yeah, i'm not a programmer so I dunno what that would entail ^_^ -- Lania Elderfire 20:38, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
And Lania, i am an amateur programer at mIRC(noob geek) and I pretty much say, it would be a PITA to have a program automatically take information from GuildWars.com and decide whether it was a nerf or not, and then, after all that, put a notifaction on all builds USING that skill. Ni 01:37, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I didn't mean that the program needs to decide if it is a nerf or not, but just have a bot or something put a notice on a build where a skill have changed and then the users can decide if a build was nerfed or not. Would be easier to look through all the builds that have changed, instead of browsing through all the builds and seeing if any of the skills there have changed or not. Lania Elderfire 20:10, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

That doesn't look bad at all, actually. We can use that instead of moving the RAB down. I still don't see the point of this being a policy. -Auron 20:41, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

It grew out of my hate of having a build changed without a call for a revote so the old votes stood even when the reasons given were completely outdated. Armond 22:41, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
I like the idea, not sure how well it will work in practice (since people may vote the same regardless), but from an objective standpoint, I don't foresee any major problems resulting from this policy except for people constantly graying RABs they didn't like or changing something very small and railing about how they need a re-vote. On the other hand, that isn't really different from the old system, and, if we define a few specifics we could hopefully lessen that prospect. We might also be able to add a clause in the vetting policy that strengthened this, like if we were to add something requiring constructive criticism (or at least some kind of reason), we could then add that previous votes could not be used as reasoning unless the voter could demonstrate the existence of the same problem. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:39, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I'm really late, I fail, sorry. :P The point is not to change people's votes, but rather to at least let them know that the build was changed so that they have a chance to change their vote if they want. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 17:54, 25 May 2007 (CEST)

Rate-a-build

Please test and vote on new builds. Testing is encouraged but not required.

Favored:

  1. (your vote here)

Unfavored:

  1. (your vote here)

Rate-a-build

Please test and vote on new builds. Testing is encouraged but not required.

Favored:

  1. (your vote here)

Unfavored:

  1. (your vote here)

Voting

IMO, the old wiki failed because people who were voting, weren't actually knowledgeable about GuildWars, the build, the role the build was supposed to play, ect. Maybe there should be a way to have just a certain group of people vote, I.E. anyone off the street can't just vote. Possibly a use for the user vetting system? IDK. =P. I just know that one of the major problems with the old wiki was because lurkers(not that there is anything wrong with them), newbies, and IPs were able to vote and their votes had the same weight as people who were more experienced. I.E. someone who has never done HA voting Favored on a ridiculous build is not what we want at the wiki. Im not saying that some people don't matter, my point is that people who are more experienced in an area should have more weight than people who aren't experienced at all. (soz, double post)Ni 01:33, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

I definitely get where you are coming from, and, it does make sense. But, I think it is simply too hard to actually quantify someone's expertise or "importance." On the other hand, more credence is generally given to a vote by someone whom the community knows well as opposed to a random anon IP.
Theoretically, I think the only substantive way to address your question would be to expand the powers of administrative review so that a comment that was obviously uninformed, for example outright false, could be "overturned" by an Admin. The only alternative I can think of would be to institute a policy similar to Not a fifty five's (on his off-site build site) whereby only people with a certain rank, faction, or whatever could vote on a build. However, to be honest, while I understand where you're coming from, I personally don't think that that is the message we want to be sending.
I think the other option, i.e. expanding the powers of administrative review, is a more viable option. I think that this is the kind of thing that needs to be addressed in the new vetting policy. For example, rather than restricting "who" votes, impose limitations on the votes themselves. Allow for Administrative review, make people actually write a substantive comment rather than just leaving a signature, weight the system by percentages rather than actual vote count, there are a lot of ways we can limit how a person can fairly vote without detracting from the egalitarian nature of the wiki. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:14, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
Thats actually a idea I really liked that popped up on guildwiki at some point. The votes were on a range of 1-5 stars and the number would be averaged(done by the latest voter, otherwise the vote is invalid) That was kind of like what DE said. The full comment on vote was another thing I liked. A vote that did not correspond with the build article(there were many unfavored votes accusing issues that would of been resolved if page fully read) would be considered invalid. I would strongly support any system similar to that. --Sefre 05:06, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
To be honest, all of these policies, WELL, NOTIFY, etc. Won't mean much unless the vetting system works well. I think there are a few key things we need in our vetting system that GuildWiki lacked. Things like requiring substantive votes, allowing Admins to strike votes if they are obviously bad, looking at percentages rather than sheer number of votes, are all ways we can actively improve the system. Now... who wants to actually write a vetting policy proposal? Sefre? Brian? DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:09, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I could help get one started, where exactly would it be posted tho? As a sub page of the current vetting policy page or on a new policy page? --Sefre 05:11, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
Well, since we have no current vetting policy (the one on the main page was just imported as a result of the mass import and is in no way an official policy, nor will it be the official policy if I have anything to say about it. Create a new policy that could be named anything for example: "PvXwiki: Build Proposal 1" or whatever and add it as a proposed policy on PW:POLICY. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:14, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
PvXwiki:Build Vetting Proposal 1 I changed the voting section according to above mentioned points. Feel free to mess with all you like, had to start somewhere.--Sefre 05:28, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
We never found anyone on GW who was willing to write a MediaWiki extension to support voting; but if someone can be found, that could help with some of the calculations (heck, the entire voting could be on a third tab - so entries in the "Build" namespace had three tabs "build", "discussion", and "vote", where the vote tab had a means to track comments and auto-tally the totals). But, like I said, we never found someone willing to even attempt creating an extension on GW - so not sure if there'll be any better luck here. It's a pity too; because I think such a thing could be enough to change my opinion of a wiki-based vetting process - it's not my dream build vetting solution, but it would certainly improve things to be bearable! --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:59, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
Hmmmm... where's Gcardinal when you need him. By the way Barek, I completely pirated your user page layout, although I did credit you for it. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:09, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I added your suggestion to the vetting proposal Barek, its a great idea, I don't know anyone who would be able to do it tho.--Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 06:14, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
Sefre >.<. That was MY proposal. Sorta. Ni 23:02, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

Sorry guys, had a busy weekend and am joining this conversation late. I like the direction Sefre's policy is going in, I will review it and discuss suggestions there. In regards to this policy, I think we should put it on hold until we determine the vetting system. I agree in principal, but I also don't want to have a revote for every minor change. Especially if the idea of our vetting system is based on averaging a large number of votes over a period of time, this would get reset everytime a skill is updated, regardless of whether the skill change had a large impact on the build. A more effective system might be to somehow notify past voters that the build may have changed, and ask them to verify or change their vote to effect the percentage rating appropriately. Users who don't respond could have their vote struck perhaps? This prevents all the constant vote restarts and allows us to build a larger sample pool of votes over time. -- BrianG 01:19, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Voting would be completely restarted with a new RAB. This just says that everyone who voted in the old RAB will be notified when a new one is made. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 19:37, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
Right, I realize thats what this policy is saying but I'm not sure if its a good idea. The great thing about percentage ratings, is that the accuracy of the rating should increase the more people vote on the build. Skill changes can happen every month, and some of them can be really minor. It will really mess up up our vetting system if a build loses its rating every time a minor skill update happens, and the votes need to be accumulated all over again. I think instead, we should keep the same RAB, and notify each voter when there is a change. Let the voter decide if his vote should still count or not depending on the seriousness of the change. If the voter does not respond, and its clear from his comments that his reasoning is no longer valid, you could request an admin to strike the vote due to the non-response. I like the greying out functionality, maybe we could use it instead to grey out specific votes until the voter responds to a skill change? The vote would still count toward the rating but would be grey to keep track of who hasn't responded to the skill update. -- BrianG 00:42, 26 April 2007 (CEST)
I suppose I didn't put it in the main document, but I meant a major change - no one's going to care if a build does one less damage per attack. Now to see if we can define a "major change". -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 17:54, 25 May 2007 (CEST)

Real Vetting

This should be changed... I would guess that in the extension, there will be a box on the vetting results page or w/e that says this build has changed... It would automatically post a notice on each users talk page that says blah blah blah build has changed. Please Revote. Is this correct? ~~User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 03:23, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.