PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting/Meta proposal/Archive 1

ok then, here are my proposed changes:

First though: none meta builds still get vetted just making this point clear =p

ok here you go:

• all builds are the same in the build-stub and trial-build sections
• Meta builds no longer go through vetting, instead they are simply tagged with {{Meta-build|type1|type2|..}} (so no "untested" step for meta builds)

• This new tag will work in the same way the current good/great do, but will have a link on it which links to a section of the build called "Commonality" (we can change the name if we want)

• All meta builds must include a section called "Comonality"

• This is just a a little section which informs the user how common it's run/what's run instead of it (with links) and why (poor healing/bad dmg etc.)

• There will be a group of people who will be in charge of the section (community appointed (similar to an RfA)), and get final say on if something's meta or needs to go through vetting.

• these will not be BM's. They won't have any special rights, they just get final say in this matter.

• A list will be made of said users.
• If a build tagged "meta" suddenly stops being meta (meta shift etc.), then it will be tagged {{Archived-bild|category=Meta|type1=...|type2=...|reason1=...|reason2=...}}

The main page will be changed so there's no longer a column on the builds table for "trial" builds, and there will be a new column that links to an areas "meta" category.

go nuts. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:05, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

i like it--Bluetapeboy 22:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

i'm not sure the whole thing works so well for pve. - AthrunFeya - 22:25, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

why not? ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain more later when I'm awake enough to be able to type more than 3 words without becoming teh tpyo quene. - AthrunFeya - 01:40, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

so Basically, if a Build is Meta, it will not go through the Voting Process at all. it will skip al that, and be put straight into a new Area, Meta Builds, and will only have a Meta Tag, not a great/good/trashed tag? also, can these be well'D? so Basically, if its Meta, its kinda like an automatic rating of 5.0? explain more of these things, people have Questions to be answered--Bluetapeboy 02:06, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

That's the basic idea yeh (they'll still be in the build namespace, but instead of putting it into untesting ---> good/great, you just put it into "meta" with the meta template (similar to the good/great ones).

As for the WELL tag...I imagine so yeh, but I can't see there any being any real incidents of WELLs within these builds (slight variations leading to dupe submissions, that's about it).

"auto rating of 5.0" well...yes and no. Yes because we're saying this build is awesome and all that, but no because it isn't actually getting voted on, or obtaining a specific rating.

If you have questions, ask away =p. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Basically Lemming and I intended this to be for just the GvG section (but I guess phen wants to apply it to everything). The underlying principle is that a GvG meta only supports 3-4 teambuilds at most, yet PvX has dozens of builds in the good/great section (many of which are outdated or really awful yet got pushed through real vetting anyway). The idea was to separate GvG into two categories. Instead of good/great there would be meta/theorycraft. Theorycrafted builds would go through the same vetting process and wind up with either the good/great tag. Really nothing would change from the current process. Meta builds would have a special meta tag (basically the same as good/great but with a diff color, i like purple or red). The builds in this category would be strictly those builds that are played competitively in the current meta. As builds fall out of the meta they'd be removed and moved to an archived tag so that the builds in the meta category would actually reflect the current meta. Meta builds would NOT go through the vetting process since obs mode proves them to superior builds, we don't need PvX members who are generally pretty bad at the game to confirm it. This Meta category would be managed by 4-5 members of the competitive GvG community (myself, lemming, crow, and saint come to mind) who would be responsible for making sure that the builds in the meta category reflect the current gvg meta and would be responsible for moving builds into and out of the archives as necessary. I'm not sure that this concept should be applied to the other categories though., HA's strictly 8v8 kill setup allows for a wide variety of builds to be effective, the meta in tombs generally isn't restricted to only 3-4 builds. RA, CM, and AB can't really have a meta defined by only a few effective builds b/c teams are essentially random. Same sort of applies to PvE since each particular area necessitates different skillsets--TahiriVeila 02:31, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly have I didn't give a huge thought to how it would effect all areas, but I assumed for the sake of ease it would be best to have all areas treated the same. I see what you say about things working well in diferent areas, but we will still have the good/great category.

To take an example from the PvE section, we have "imbagon" as meta. That would be given a meta tag as replacement of it's current "great" one. We also have 2 other PvE Paragons in the "Great" section, now these work fantastical well also, but they very rarely see use (because people would rather run an imbagon).

So While stuff will still work great that isn't meta in these areas, there will be those builds that are just run over pretty much everything. RA/CM/AB don't have any meta build anyway that i know of, so they wouldn't get any tags =p. I'm unsure about PVE teams though, i'll have a think about that. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth reading all this shit? Brandnew 07:24, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Everything except for Jake's post is self-explanatory. Read the first half of it or sth. The page also just says that we'd create a "Meta" category which bypasses testing. --Chaos? -- 11:14, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

just read my first post at the top of the page (the bullet points), that's what will be changed if implemented. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

implementing

So how long before we can put this proposal into action?--TahiriVeila 00:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say give it at least another week in case someone thinks of something that needs adding or has any objections worth noting. ~ PheNaxKian talk 00:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

scope

I'm not really comfortable with this going into PvE builds. It should be limited to GvG/HA, where obs can give a definitive answer as to the meta-worthiness of each build. I think Athrun was going to say something along this line but never got around to it. -Auron 06:48, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

^ this. Misery 07:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

"i'm not sure the whole thing works so well for pve."

She already did. And yeah, I also fully agree with this, but I'm a little afraid of these meta caretakers (lol MC's!) beginning to abuse their status to push through shitty builds. Drama gogo. --Chaos? -- 09:04, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

i was going to essay about there not being an obs so you could claim anything to be meta, so Auron summed it up pretty nicely. For PvE, different sections of the community claim different things meta (we, for example, would meta-tag discordway while the guru community would not - this doesn't necessarily make them wrong since there's no real way of defining the PvE meta). It seems a step back into the BM-esque era that a few handpicked individuals would be able to override any meta decisions, at least at the moment there some effort towards consensus.

Also why exactly do we need a separate meta category? is the current meta tag not sufficient? this already differentiates between builds which are Great and builds which are meta-Great and meta builds rarely have a problem getting vetted. More proactive updating and obvious linking on the main page to those sections would be a lot more simple. - AthrunFeya - 09:26, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look in a little bit and re-word it so that it only applies to GvG/HA then.

As for the proposal itself, that's because there are a few users that are concerned meta builds don't stand out enough (even with the proposed links on the main page (See the editcopy if you don't know what I'm on about)).

The problem wasn't differentiating between meta-great and great builds, it was differentiating between meta builds themselves. In our current system we just have "this build is 5.0 and meta", with no indication of how much it's run (thus why this suggests an extra section on those pages to give such information).

"more proactive updating" means people going back and editing their vote, and given the uesrbase I don't see that happening any-time soon =/. ~ PheNaxKian talk 12:15, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying exactly - you want to differentiate between meta which is common and uncommon? surely something that isn't run as often isn't meta hence shouldn't be in the meta category in the first place (i.e., more proactive updating of meta categories). Why should votes need changing to slap a meta tag on (other than our, easily changeable policy of no "Good" builds in meta)?

Anyway, I am not against the idea of emphasising meta builds but I think we should just try and enhance the meta category system we currently have (maybe make the tag more descriptive and make one for each type of play). This would allow us change the headings on the tables in the mainspace to read more like "Meta, Great, Good, Testing, Trial", making it somewhat obvious what is meta. This method would retain at least some consensus. I see the current proposal as an excuse to bring elitism back - something which has been sorely missed by a few members after the removal of BMs. Meta has been wrongly perceived in the proposal as something which is factual (we know from past arguments with Saint and Jake this isn't the case). - AthrunFeya - 12:36, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

forgot to add that retaining consensus makes it more pve-compatible too. - AthrunFeya - 12:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well this policy is to make meta builds clearly stand out (so you can without a doubt go "hey this build's meta!". The common/uncommon part is an issue User:Lemming had. If you see the actual real vetting talk page, he gave an example there (with 2 flaggers iirc) which should clarify what I mean by that.

The problem is the current system for meta builds is about as refined as we can make it, the only thing we can do is like you say, actually be more proactive with it. However given that we haven't been that proactive with it in the however long it's been in place, I can't see people being willing to put the extra effort in (hell I still have projects going from way back when, that people were saying they'd help with).

This is the thing, this new system would do just that. The new meta template would be like the trial/untested/good/great templates, it would be able to show what the areas the build is for on it (thus auto categorising the build).

This system isn't an attempt to bring back elitism, like i've said, I'm happy to change the system to GvG/HA only (where there's a clear meta), I'd even say we'd remove the "caretakers" if you want. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:19, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

@Lau: There exists a metagame. Builds are present within this metagame. Some builds show up every second match, they are usually the great meta builds, some builds show up like one in every 15 matches, these are usually sub par, but run in specific circumstances, or just bad people insist on running them. They are still part of the meta game, just less common. Misery 13:37, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what is the problem with having people who aren't terrible having more of a say over people who are? Without the BM position being around I've seen quite a lot of retarded votes and builds being pushed through because a lot of stupid people agree with each other (no I'm not going to go find examples for you). And Lau, meta/not meta is a lot more factual than great/good/bad, and citing arguments between Saint & Jake doesn't go to prove how it isn't factual, since most of the time they were just trying to annoy each other by taking two extremes of an argument to be cunts. Around that time, neither of them really knew completely what was meta anyway, but I'm not going to start flaming here. Also, fuck consensus, people are bad. --Crow 14:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Woah, I apparently missed some things....

But "meta caretakers" sound a lot like BMs, and we've already sunken that ship once. How about we just ask people to go to obs and prove that it's meta? If there's an argument about it, then we could always pull the old-fashioned "pics or stfu". Karate Jesus 15:27, 3 May 2010

they literally just go "this is/isn't meta", no special user group or special rights. That said, I'm not that attached to them though so if people don't want them I'm happy with removing it. ~ PheNaxKian talk 15:34, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, that just sounds like another way to cause shitstorms. I think it would be a lot easier to just post a build as meta, and if it's questioned, provide screenshots or other proof. It shouldn't be that hard, if it's meta. Karate Jesus 15:44, 3 May 2010

That'd probably work tbh. Who besides me, saint, occasionally frosty, (and i guess now maybe lemming if he cares enough?) actually post gvg builds anyway? If there's a dispute msn an admin and pull screens from various obs matches.--TahiriVeila 15:47, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I'll have a small edit session later to change a few things then. ~ PheNaxKian talk 15:50, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Jake, that's what I'm thinking. And then it promotes others to actually challenge meta builds and if proof is provided, then there's no bandwaggoning/shitstorming to be had. Karate Jesus 15:57, 3 May 2010

can't say i like that idea much, because it will eventually turn into "well how many screenshots deem it to be meta?". i think people are overthinking this honestly, even if something wasn't meta and had a meta tag on it, it wouldn't be the end of the world. if 1 of us 3 deems it to be meta, we can tag it, and if both the other 2 disagree we can untag it, simple as that imo. Gringo 16:29, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

^that's basically what (and why) I suggested MC's. ~ PheNaxKian talk 16:45, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, one of the biggest problems with BMs wasn't that they did a terrible job; it was the perception of the position. They held the power to declare whether or not a build was good, and people just don't like that. We are a build wiki after all, and community consensus should be the goal rather than a group of 3. If a build is meta, then it shouldn't be too hard to prove it. Screenshots are one way, but I wasn't suggesting that they should be the only. It wouldn't be hard to ask someone to go obs and see for themselves whether or not it's meta. Karate Jesus 17:04, 3 May 2010

I know this is a wiki, but why is everybody so obsessed with consensus? If you need that many people to decide whether or not a build is meta, it probably isn't going to be meta. If the 3/whatever people who are MCs say a build is meta, it's meta (1 of them would be enough anyway, unless you pick some dumbfuck trying to prove a point all the time). Why make it excessively difficult? --Crow 18:57, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

why would it take more then 3 people to decide if something is meta? we dont need idiots parading around announcing what is and isn't meta, its bad enough we let those people vote on builds. Gringo 19:05, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

also, who cares if people dislike our position. we're here so people can come and get builds, if they are mad that they dont get to decide if something is meta, then they can go have a tantrum in a corner. Gringo 19:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think you'd be one? We've had enough shittery from you for a lifetime, and on top of that, I'm almost 100% sure you'd find a way to antagonize people with it. No thanks. Karate Jesus 20:12, 3 May 2010

I didn't assume shit, i'm just offering my help. if you're dumb enough to turn it down because you think that i'll make people mad by meta tagging a build (lol?!) then you're just a dumbass. Gringo 20:43, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Only another example of why you shouldn't hold this position. Karate Jesus 20:47, 3 May 2010

because i tell stupid admins they are stupid, i shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice my time and help the wiki by tagging meta builds. top notch logic retardo. Gringo 20:53, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

1) Chill out. 2) Read Chaos's section below. We don't need drama-whores to fill this position, regardless of how good they are at the game. Karate Jesus 20:55, 3 May 2010

do you not understand what the mc's would do? its meta tagging a build, its not rocket science. the only way people could get mad is if you un-meta'd one of their precious little builds, in which case you just ask them to provide obs screens of ppl running it. how hard is that really kj? jesus youre thick (best. pun. ever.) Gringo 20:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to chill. And I fully understand the point of the position, I just have no doubts that it would be exploited just as the BM position was. Karate Jesus 21:01, 3 May 2010

I am opposed to this

Every PvX user deserves the right to vote on every build stored here. Every user deserves an equal say on whether a build is tagged as meta.

• Certain meta builds are better than others. The policy above, in its current form, does not allow users to express their opinions about meta build's quality using the "Rate" feature.
• This policy hands final say on the meta tag to a small group. It fails to allow for the fact that there are people who exist who are more qualified than the "meta caretakers" to say what is meta and what isn't. The current policy lacks a path for such a person to enter the "meta caretakers" group, and this discourages the participation of those more qualified people. It also lacks a policy for removing people from the group if they become unqualified in the future (for example through inactivity in game).
• This policy wastes peoples' time. Preventing users from voting on a build with a certain tag is a time consuming project (whether it is accomplished by users (for example, vote removal) or by software (removal of the "Rate" tab)). Creating a "commonality" section for meta builds is another waste of time. That information could be included in the notes section.

In summation, we should continue to allow voting on builds with the meta tag. If we want to know what individual users think is meta, then we could add a "meta" check-box to the "Rate this build" section, similar to the "innovation" check-box.--War_Pig5 20:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Why does every user deserve the right to vote, especially if the large majority of PvX consistently proves that they don't understand the game? --Crow 20:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, then create a policy that takes away the voting rights of users who are bad. What's the point of just taking away their right to express their idea of what is meta?--War_Pig5 21:39, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

The policy actually makes sense. Most PvX users don't have a firm grip on the high-end PvP meta and often the meta is full of builds that would normally be trashed. This policy is needed. Karate Jesus 20:43, 3 May 2010

I agree that most users are bad, but I do not see how this policy assures us that those 4 people know the meta better than some other 4 people. --War_Pig5 21:39, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

does it matter if someone can't express whether or not they think a build is good? if good people are running it, why would we need the opinions of bad players on how good it is? how can someone be better qualified to judge meta then the people who play every day? and not telling idiots to go vote on a build saves time, unless im misunderstanding what time is. Gringo 20:46, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Lets assume that everything you just wrote is correct. I just don't see how this policy that assures us that these 4 users play every day, and I do not see how it assures us that they know the meta better than some other group of people.--War_Pig5 21:39, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also

Do you really need to be a very good player to know what's meta? You just need to obs enough/play enough GvG/HA. --Chaos? -- 20:53, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

People who are bad tend to sometimes mistake a few builds to be meta, especially if there is 1 guild that runs a build quite often but nobody else runs it. There are a couple of other circumstances too where people who don't understand what's happening in higher level play come up with a false positive, or a false negative. --Crow 21:01, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

People who consistently play at a high level would be more aware of what specifically is going on. This most specifically applies to fringe meta builds - it takes a lot of familiarity with the metagame to be aware of how often and why an infrequently seen build is being run. --Lemming 21:05, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, but it still wouldn't be hard to prove a build was meta. 99% of the time, no one would even question the tag, whether we had the position or not. It's that 1% of the time that I worry about, and my main concern would be exactly what happened with BMs. Karate Jesus 21:04, 3 May 2010

People overreacted with the BM thing, I still think keeping them would have been a better idea (not that it matters much in a game where the meta changes every 2 months, or less), and that the few problems we had because of having them were less annoying than the problems we have without them. --Crow 21:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Depends on your perspective. We've had so much less drama, it's been freeing (short of that PvE Physical build). Sure, there have been shitter votes that haven't been removed, but from what I can tell it hasn't affected the category of any specific build.

However, I can tell that I may be the only one against this position, so I'll withdraw from the argument for the time being. I will reserve the right to say "I told you so" if it goes South, though. Karate Jesus 21:10, 3 May 2010

The game/wiki/updates has/have slowed down as of late, especially around the time of the BM removal. Also, I still think the 99% of people who drama'd with the BM's were dumb cunts anyway. --Crow 21:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

2 cents

Just thought I would put in my word. I think the idea is good, and if applied correctly will make sure that Meta builds are properly recognized. The only type of drama there could be is if someone who clearly lacks experience in HA/GvG thinks a build is meta and provides a couple of screens of bad teams running a build, but hopefully the people who are appointed will have a clear enough head (and ofcourse be good enough) to be able to disclaim such things. If we are going to go ahead with something like this however, we need a way to appoint said "MC's" (lol MC's). I was thinking a simple page with nominated names and support/oppose, and after that the admin team and ofcourse Auron discuss/decide who should have the duties. Ofcourse this is assuming we go ahead with it. Anyway, discuss away, this is the first meta build tagging idea that actually sounds good. --Frosty 21:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Frostels also noticed the MC thing :>. Fsg --Crow 21:40, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

If we do elections, bcrats (or just Auron) should make the final call. However, do we even need elections? We could make it like a "Helper" list, and allow people to sign up to help. Although, we'd have to have a way to dispute some of the people who add themselves......

Maybe we just do elections... Karate Jesus 21:46, 3 May 2010

I would agree with Bcrats making the final call, but there are no powers to be handed out and such, so it's not really a big deal. I'm not bothered either way. --Frosty 21:50, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be one. As it would allow me to be called "MC Crow" :> --Crow 21:52, May 3, 2010 (UTC)