Voting on this policy

No voting. See PvXwiki:Voting on Vetting Policy.

Sorry, but no.

I just want to say sorry for miss understanding a few lines about this policy. I have been working on the code for the site for several days and did't had much sleep and time is around 5:00 AM now. Anyway the thing is that when I read the policy I got the picture that we will have Favored and Unfavored category and Stub. Inside Stub there will be voting with all the percentage and if its 75% and 100% it goes to favored and if its above to unfavored and last ones to the trash. Now I understand that it was wrong picture. If I understand correctly now we will have 5 main categories that will all be based on single voting data provided by some users.

This is simply not going to work and Im sorry about that.

Main reason for why we having this site is to save builds that will be deleted on gw. I know that not all builds are good and we need to delete big part of it. We simply can't have so big change as introducing new categories 4 days before opening.

It will be impossible task to perform all the calculations by had as only admins will have right to move build from one category to another. And updating around 1000 builds with every day calculation is not going to happen.

First of all we will never get time to manual edit 3000 builds that we having at the moment. Second of all even if we do so, 5 admins and 35 users can't decide what is going to happen with 3000 builds. It is simply impossible and wrong.

This site and all our effort will be nothing without users. And I don't want any user to enter our site 1. may and see tottaly different structure that was made by 5 admins, all builds mixed up and ending up being very confused they will Quit. They will see what a mess keeping all builds brings and they will go back to GW to develop a better policy there together.

I see the point of the policy but you guys must understand that we must get people to work with us. We 5 alone will not do any good at all. There is around 40% of all builds that needs manual editing, almost non was fixed even problem was know from day 1. I don't think some miracle will happen and we will process, edit, sort, vote and so on 3000 builds in next 4 days.

Leave it as a proposal and let new users decide. If they agreed then it's okey, but dont scare evryone with new policy and dont invite them with voting on 3000 builds.

Favored, Un-Favored, Stub must stay as categories. New policy (what ever it is) will only apply in un-favored and stub. All favored builds will remain as Favored/Tested and will not be changed or moved.

I'm really sorry for this and I know how stupid it make me look and again I'm sorry. But it is against main reason for why i created this site in the first place. gcardinal 05:15, 27 April 2007 (CEST)

You expect the guild wiki build community to come here and use the same old system, right after all that fuss over in guild wiki about new ones....? And why would we need to process all existing builds before it opens? We couldn't do that until they are here anyways. I don't get it, the whole reason the build wipe is happening over there is because the old system was flawed. And you said yourself a new way of voting must me found, but you want to postpone it now? I thought the whole point of getting this together was to get a established system before may first. --Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 05:36, 27 April 2007 (CEST)
Yes I totally agreed with you. But I am against deciding on something that we will enforce on new users and will get them to work as new builds must be re-voted to meet the new voting policy. I am for the changes what ever people will decide. But I am against:
1. A few people deciding how thousands will "play".
2. Saying welcome to new users by getting them to work right away. Who will start working on such a dirty job right away?
3. This site was created was a answer for deletion of builds and to support people who wasnt happy about it. And yes new policy will be found and it will be enforced, maybe even this policy, but such a major step and such a dramatic change in site structure can't be takes by admin only. gcardinal 05:41, 27 April 2007 (CEST)
Safre you have - "Guild wiki failed its build community, lets see if we can do better here.". I know we can, but 5 admin's is not a community. gcardinal 05:44, 27 April 2007 (CEST)
Just wanted you guy to know that Im really sorry about this situation... I know how stupid it look and how it make me look. And I know it can look like I changed my mind in a last second, but I realy missunderstod first time I checked it. Im sorry if I wasnt clear about policy and its development, the only reason for that is becouse I was bussy developing other parts of the site. I'm not against this policy I just don't want any big change to happen before we will get out of beta testing and get open for public. When site is open for public a standart voting will be done and what ever is decide I will do my best to implement any technical solution to get it work and I will accept any new policy as long as its not deleting all builds. Again I am really sorry for this situation. gcardinal 13:34, 27 April 2007 (CEST)
Yeh... but we need a policy before beta-testing ends, and we can't possibly wait until an entire community has a chance to vette a system. We have to instate some kind of real policy, and if this is going to try and use the old system, it is most likely going to fail... *Sigh* DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:21, 27 April 2007 (CEST)
I disagree, we don't "need" a new policy before beta-testing ends. It's probably better off if we don't have a new policy. Let the mass majority of users migrate over into a familiar and comfortable setting and vetting procedure. Then after we "hook" the majority of the users and the new policy and all the code necessary to make it run smoothly is implemented, make a final decision and swap over. From my perspective of the build wipe over at GW, it was the admin's and people running it that got sick of constantly babying the builds section. The majority of users seemed OK because it was easy to throw a new build out there and get some comments on it. Yes, it can be done much better and we will come up with something much better and get it in place, but let's not doom this site because we don't have it in place before beta ends. -Jaofos 16:06, 27 April 2007 (CEST)
I'm glad to hear that someone sees thing the same way as I do, Im very worry about that decision. I think we need to adapt old policy, mark it as "old" and just use it as a description on how things was and why things as they is, but dont use it in terms on how thing will be. gcardinal 18:30, 27 April 2007 (CEST)
First of all, I don't think it is neccessary to re-process all the old builds under the new vetting system immediately. This can happen gradually, with the old categories maintained, and new build submissions processed according to the new system.
While I thought an advantage of designing a policy now is that we have a chance to do it properly before too many people get involved, I can understand the desire to allow more users to have feedback on a new vetting system before implementing it. However my biggest concern is that I do not want more builds being submitted under the old system. If you want, invite more users to give feedback on policy, but if we allow more builds to be submitted under the old system, its just going to make a bigger mess, and bring back all the problems that happened there. Put a freeze on new build submissions until a proper vetting policy is implemented, I don't want more builds put through the pointless vetting system currently in place. -- BrianG 01:09, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
I think I agree with a lot of what Brian said. I would also like to add that if we allow people to get used to having the old system, the transition may in fact be harder once we have a large user base. Furthermore, we also run the risk of not being able to establish a policy as a result of policy being bogged down by endless discussion. That is one of the primary reasons I thought we would be advantaged by having a system in place. We can always change the system based on comments of the wider community, but, we also want to ensure that there is a system in place to build on. I understand what you guys are saying, but I am worried that we are holding a double-edged sword so to speak by not acting. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:20, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
I don't think there is such a thing as a "problem free" vetting system, but I still think this one is better than anything we have at the moment. I guess the problem is that the votes can't be automatically calculated right now, but how do we know that this site will even be "that" popular, and if it is, can the server handle it? I agree with Defiant Elements and BrianG that we can't wait until more people come in... We have to have some kind of system already built in before people come and make changes to the system as necessary. Or else what we will have is the same exact problems just as DE and Brian said, and I feel that W/O a different policy than the original build vetting system we'll have a disaster on our hands. Also we don't have to keep all the existing builds, especially when about 90% of them are junk IMO. Lania Elderfire 17:57, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
If it will be any significant slowdown in server performance I will buy dedicated servers and will expand them as time goes. I'm also investing some money into advertising so I do hope this site will be popular gcardinal 18:57, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
While I understand your reasoning, I would like to go on record saying that I don't think this is the right idea for the reasons mentioned by Brian, Lania, and myself. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:21, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
gcardinal, will you at least agree not to allow new builds to continue to be added until we decide on a new vetting system? Then the main work should perhaps shift to deciding what builds we are going to delete (such as unfavored etc), and then seeing what we have left and how we need to reorganize it. The whole point of doing this is to do it properly. We want to prove to people that a good build system on a wiki can work. If we continue the mistakes of the guildwiki build section we're making more work for ourselves later. -- BrianG 03:55, 29 April 2007 (CEST)
I agree with brian, if a better system is not implemented quickly this will follow the same path as guildwiki. New builds will just pile up more work and show the same problems over again. If you to wait for more input thats fine but at least halt the current process until a new one can be implemented.--Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 07:08, 29 April 2007 (CEST)

My vote

Gotta say, I like this policy far more than the other two. --Frvwfr2 03:58, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

That's what the consensus seems to be. Personally, I think we need to make this real policy and implement it, but there appears to be an impasse that has formed between Gcardinal's way of thinking and mine/Brian's/Sefre's/your way of thinking. Unfortunately, I am having doubts as to how easy it will be to break this schism. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:05, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
How is this NOT consensus? He agrees too right? I count, lets see, zero people against this... Just implement it cardinal! Oh, and I think 20%/5 categories is best. --Frvwfr2 04:15, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
No, the debate is this. Cardinal believes that we need the input of more people before we make the decision. I among others believe that the policy needs to be in place before all the other users show up. We thought we had consensus, but Cardinal changed his mind. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:31, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
...We should put something up on builds that says vote or something... --Frvwfr2 04:34, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
How long does he plan on leaving this before implementing tho? Cause everyday that a solid system is not in place is a day more people may be disappointed and leave. I understand his concerns about lack of input form multiple people but a final plan has to be in place before people leave because of the old system not being improved upon. And don't be surprised if people wont leave just cause they can't post new builds and get them vetted.--Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 04:38, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
You're preaching to the choir Sefre. Cardinal is the one to whom you need to be talking. My other concern, to add to those that have already been listed is that if we wait, we may never be able to implement a plan that everyone agrees with. The more people, theoretically the better the final product. But more people means more factions, which means different ideas, which means we run the risk of not creating a policy at all. It also means that we would have to implement the new proposal after people had begun to get entrenched. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:41, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

as a non-admin, I say do it. just one of many out in the masses. Something does need to be in place before a lot of people come over. I think that this one is our best bet. I would gladly help do the "dirty work", as I am sure a lot of people wouldn't mind if they really wanted a good build reference site. Actually, I'm already trying to do my part by fixing the links to GW on the pages that I see need them. Bluemilkman 05:04, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

I'll put my support behind this policy as well. It may or may not work, but until we've tried it, we won't know. It seems the most viable of the available options. --Rollerzerris <!--Zerris--> 05:09, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
Alright, so that is around 10 people in favor, or essentially however many people have said anything about this policy other than Cardinal, (including at least 2 Admins, Brian and myself, not sure where Armond or Auron stands) versus Gcardinal and maybe one or two other people. I don't know, Cardinal said that he would listen to public opinion if opposition to his ideas was strong enough, and, it looks like the gathering support may be enough to convince him. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:16, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
I favor. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{Bacon}} 19:59, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Because I believe that the people who have expressed concerns about not implementing a policy before the site becomes public expressed valid concerns (concerns which have not been properly addressed), I left a message on Cardinal's talk page asking him to think long and hard about his decision not to implement a policy (specifically this one). DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:25, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

I think it is already causing some level of stagnation. This wiki isn't ready yet, and the build wipe has already occurred. People looking for an alternative still can't use this as one. I think the damage is already being done by inaction, and is getting worse every hour. IMO this gives users the idea that this wiki isn't serious or committed to getting things done on time. Also "waiting for something better" is always the wrong thing to do in almost any situation especially in real life... you can't just wait for the job you want to fall on your lap, you can't wait for the right proposal or grant to be e-mailed to you. If action isn't taken then we all lose. Lania Elderfire 06:44, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

We have 70 reged users on our wiki. It just not right that 70 will decide on what many thousands will use. GCardinal 07:03, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
My suggestion is to put voting on new vetting system for a hold for next week and work on making better proposal and have at least 5 to choose from. No policy will be accepted until we will have at least some users so we can really ask majority and not the elite minority. GCardinal 07:07, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
IMO this is the wrong way of doing this... Lania Elderfire 07:16, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
Do you think its right that 0.5% of users will decide what is Right and what will become policy for the rest of 99,5% of users? GCardinal 07:26, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
If I follow you the way of thinking here, maybe I just going to decide my self what is best for the rest of 99,9% ? Guess this is not going to be very popular at all. Why would it be popular when around 10 people who voted for this build now will decide for the rest of us? and you guys call it MAJORITY ?.. GCardinal 07:34, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
It is a valiant idea to include all the users who will ever view a certain build into the vote, but it's unrealistic. It might be nice to have a real majority in a vote for a build, but the likelihood of it happening is slim. Out of all the people who visit gw wiki, how many actual take the time to look at the talk page? Then how many of those are willing to actual spend the time to vote? The ratio between people who are going to test a build and present a support vote compared to the number of people who are simply going to pull a build of the wiki and run is far too great. Maybe having only 10 people vote on a build is too few, but unless a miracle occurs and a great influx of users willing to spend time vetting builds happens, too many builds will be stuck in the testing phase simply because not enough people care enough to vote. This is probably pessimistic, but even with gw wiki's large user base, builds already remain in "being tested" far too long. It is pointless to have a database of builds when by the time they become vetted, they are already nerfed. --Dummey 09:38, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Majority as in 100% of the opinions that we know. I see full support behind this policy. --Frvwfr2 12:16, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

We will have majority vote on policy. Wiki that will be in control of minority of 10-20 people will not happen here. For real vote to happen at least a few things must be done
  • Other condidates must be prepared and ready.
  • People must have they say on ALL policy posted and no clicking on the first one on the list.
  • Currently there is only 2 candidates and one of them are not completely finished.
  • Without thinking of that one main author stands behind both candidates
  • Other people (including my self) must have time to prepare they candidates.
You guys can say what ever you what about how important it is and how we must rush before users starts using this site and so on.
But its not going to happen.
  • We will have more then 3 candidates from different authors
  • We will have real vote when 1 person have only 1 vote on each build
  • we will have specific time frame when vote will take place
  • We will make some lottery for people who vote and will give prizes in the end
  • And no matter what: no policy will be accepted by 10-20 votes.

No votes on this current policy will count. It will be real vote, with real candidates so we will get real winner and real policy. GCardinal 12:34, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

...This is the completely wrong way to go about this. 5 Proposals? Do you want anything to get done, EVER? Oh well, I'll just write one based on the GuildWiki one to count as one of the 5. Just write one, because quantity over quality FTW! If you really make use have 5 proposals, this wiki will fail. Nothing will ever get done, because people will not be able to agree sufficiently on anything to get "Consensus." On GuildWiki, I had NO idea about any of the policy's... This means that many users will not know about this. I will make a template and post it on any active users talk page, pointing to the index of policy's. It will be called Template:VoteOnPolicy or something. --Frvwfr2 13:29, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

One again, people will not agreed, they will VOTE. Each user will have 1 vote to place it on any policy he likes. Policy with most votes will win and we will use it. Policy however must pass quality control done by sysop before entering this "competition". There will be no policy acceptance by 10 users and we will get people to vote. End of story. GCardinal 13:39, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Ok, well I made a template to show awareness about builds policy. here it is.

It is suggested that you look over PvXWiki Policies, as a major issue is being discussed or voted on.

It is located here --Frvwfr2 13:54, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Cardinal: Making five policies isn't the smartest way of going about this. As Frvwfr2 said, quantity should not replace quality, and making five proposals (and having over 20 people vote on each one, as apparently their votes don't count until they vote on all five) will take far too long. Already it's May 2, and people will be migrating over here as soon as they see Tanaric's link. We must decide on a policy, and we must decide quickly. As it is no one can submit builds, and the builds we have right now may have wrong favored/unfavored tags, we need something so people can actually use this site. (What good is a builds wiki that you can't submit any new pages or votes to?) -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{Bacon}} 19:59, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
Armond, it's not going to take long time. There will be let's say 3 candidates today its 2, 1 unfinished and both from 1 author. C'mon man, do you realy think its fair way to go ? And voting wont take long, I will do my best to ensure that people vote and that it will go fast. People will have 1 vote to put on 1 of 3-5 policy's, they dont have to vote on each of them. GCardinal 05:42, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

After implementation

I officially move to make all builds on the wiki untested after this is approved, if not sooner. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{Bacon}} 19:59, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

I agree with Armond about all to untested. --Ranger-icon-smallfrvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 21:23, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
agree--Coloneh 02:48, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
Heh, just came here to post that idea myself. I'd love to eliminate some of the crap that got vetted at GuildWiki. Krowman 03:24, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
I was under the impression that was going to happen anyway...? If it wasn't I believe it would be a good idea if not time consuming, mass builds would not be deleted but they would need someone to resubmit and fix all links and format before submitting. It would be a slow start but if this policy itself is implemented there would be a need to do a massive overhaul of templates in the favored builds anyways.--Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 04:32, 3 May 2007 (CEST)


My campaign to persuade Cardinal continues with my longest single post of all time. Well, if he doesn't change his mind, I can always fill up his user page with more arguments that large :). DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:36, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

yeah, I hope he gives in... btw, i wanted to post *clap clap clap* there but decided not to--Ranger-icon-smallfrvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 04:39, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
Sorry DE but its not going to happen :) GCardinal 06:35, 3 May 2007 (CEST)


Please archive this discussion, start with discussing on how to improve this policy. Around may 8-9 or 10 vote will start, discussion we be deleted and only vote's without never ending discussion will go here. So I suggest you use that time to make you candidate stronger. GCardinal 06:37, 3 May 2007 (CEST)


If you want to take this policy and run with it, I'd highly suggest a bot or automatic function to tally up the votes, and rate the build independent of the users. Some users will be too lazy to update the percentage themselves, others simply won't know how to do the math. There's no insulting connotation here; I recognize that a lot of younger people play GW, and may not yet have learned to do this at school. Heck, even I would have some trouble contrasting the two vote categories, as it would be more complex than simply finding the percentage of 3/5 or 8/15. Without this feature, the scoring system will be inaccurate, without even taking human error into account. - Kowal Krowman (talkcontribs) 07:16, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

I agree. The proposal even suggests it already at PvXwiki:Percentage_Favored_Vetting#Script, but no script exists yet and I don't see any comments above from anyone who knows how to code it and is willing to do it.
If I knew how to script, I would love to help out. Eronth 21:16, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
I might be able to write the script. My question would be how we want to implement it. Do we want there to be like a "button" that people could push that would update them, do we want a bot doing it, do we want it to update whenever some adds a vote to the RAB section? DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:12, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
This is how I see it ideally: A third tab is added called "Vote". It displays the the basic RaB list but with a blank to add your vote under favored or unfavored. Admins have the authority to edit any vote while regular users can only change the vote they submitted. A code is added in the template that corresponds with the percent from the vote tap and updates automatically. The template updates the category based on the range that the percent enters. I'm not sure if it all could be done but that is how I pictured it. --Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 00:28, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
This is how I would like to see it implemented: Each time a build's talk page is edited, a script is run automatically, which puts the percentage of favoring votes on the build page. The same script can also change category tags (however, I don't care much about categories, I favor a search engine). Coding the script itself is trivial, implementing it such that it's triggered atomagically is possible. If nobody else looks into this, I will do it as soon as I've got time for it (after may 14th).
The existence of such a mechanism should not be a prerequisite for favoring the policy. Assume that it can be done. And assume also that people will be more motivated to write some code for an accepted policy than for one with an undecided fate. --Hhhippo 02:10, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Further Changes

First of all, this policy should probably be elaborated on. For example, it doesn't specify what makes a nomination biased or not. What is meant by that? That you can't nominate your own builds, or those of your friends? It's pretty difficult to prove a friendship, so that statement as-is will be entirley subjective. As well, I don't foresee many users being particularly motivated to get another user's build nominated and vetted, especially two unbiased users.
Secondly, the percentage scale is very much unnecessary with a requirement of only 5 votes. Having only five votes also restricts the percentage scaling of this policy. Until more people vote on it, a build with 5 votes can only be 0, 20, 40, 60 80, or 100% effective.
I'm also curious about the Build Moderator system. The way it is written, the BMs seem to simply be people appointed to scan the builds for disputes and relay them to Admins. This position either requires more power(i.e. just make them admins), or should be scrapped altogether. I like the idea of giving certain users more say in the builds section than others (once they've earned it); nonetheless,it shouldn't be an admin who decides which builds are good and which are bad. The BM concept right now is flawed. When a problem occurs with the vetting or drastic editing or w/e of a build, the user who feels he/she has been wronged will likely report the problem to someone to resolve. Basically, a BM would have increased responsibilities, but with no extra tools or powers, which a moderator would need if two users simply refuse to get along.
P.S. Sorry about the long post. - Kowal Krowman (talkcontribs) 05:42, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.