PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting Update

See how just changing some numbers could make this wiki about 1000 times better? FrostytheAdmin 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good and Trash have overlap... Toraen talk 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here disagree/agree

Because I am really considering just implementing this kind of update, since atm everyone is talking and nothing is happening, and the kind of suggestion would wipe about 80% of the crap that pvx doesn't need. Discuss. FrostytheAdmin 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a vote:

Favor

1. Brandnew 22:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Misery Says Moo 23:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
3. -- lyssan 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. do I get to vote D: FrostytheAdmin 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Frostels haz a good idea. For once. 02:15, 10 June 2009
6. Frosty is to PvX what Obama is to America. His massive, black penis will lead us out of this intellectual recession the same way Obama's massive, black penis will lead us out of the economic recession. :> ··· Danny Does Drugs 17:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   Now where can I get a reverse Michael Jackson. FrostytheAdmin 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

7. Totally agreed. Smurf Ohai 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Bye bye terrible Other builds. uɐɟɐʞıd o^_^o¸«` 19:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfavor

1. Personally I'd rather see Danny's version go through, the only difference between this and the current policy is the boundaries, which I think you've made a bit extreme here, and having a separate name space for meta and all the other builds seems to make more sense than a category. also you might want to consider moving it to the pvx namespace and slapping a proposed policy tag on this . ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

In response to Phenax - the idea behind this is to keep theorycrafts in the userspace, which, in my opinion and the opinion of at least a couple other admins and users, is where they belong. We don't really need a Theory namespace - PvX doesn't have to be a sandbox, it just so happens that, at the moment, a lot of people like to think it is. The rating requirements may be high, but right now, if something doesn't get 5-5'd, 5-4'd, or 0-0'd, it generally gets 4-4'd. If we consider a GPA scale, 3 is average and 4 is above average - if a build can't perform at least above average, why bother using it? Sorry if I come off rash or belittling - I don't mean to. ··· Danny Does Drugs 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if we restrict theorycrafts just to userspaces, we are going to feel a real backlash from that. I think Danny's original idea was decent. It both promoted a shift toward meta build storage as a primary focus and would allow people to view some more creative ideas w/o having to hunt userspaces. Tbh, I have to agree with Phen. 18:36, 10 June 2009

But let me amend that by saying that I think we need a better way to determine what would end up in a theorycraft section. Just keeping any build that falls below meta yet is technically not trash wont work. We'll have to find another way to do that. 18:38, 10 June 2009

ups. forgot to sign. the only reason i included a Theory namespace in my proposal was that I was pressured into it. I'd personally like to see them all deleted. ··· Danny Does Drugs 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like it if "theory-craft" builds weren't nuked on sight, but I am a shitter.--Kammorremae 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in having them all deleted, some theorycrafts do turn out good, and just because it hasn't seen play by top 100's in GvG/HA doesn't mean we should deny it's right to attempt to get vetted, if it's bad, it won't get vetted (especially under this policy with the upped ratings). PvX has a great rep for only recongnizing builds once someone half good team runs it, which is kinda of depressing in a way. FrostytheAdmin 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How about banning people who have proven themselves to be a bad theorycrafter on a consistent basis? Oh, and something has to be done about generic templates being put together and then going into untested. I mean, just look at Untested TA/HA builds, THAT's depressing ~~ Smurf Ohai 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts behind this

Cut out the crap in the other section and some of the good section (no one want crap from there, pointless in having it). I read over the idea of a "Meta" section, imo having to move builds from section to section will be just turn out to be a pain in the ass, and with no build masters (aside from Unexist...) there will be noone able to enforce whether a build would be meta or not, probably leading to Admins to decide which, could end up not being so good. The meta tag would be much more effective if it had a link on the frontpage (possible replacing the "other" links), this would mean it would be openly accessable (and ofcourse that would make a meta section not worth it. FrostytheAdmin 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)