FANDOM


Auto Nom for top 50 GvGers?Edit

How about having an automatic Build Master promotion system for any players who are in the top 50 guild or above (r49, r48, etc)? This would entice good players to join an improve the quality of the wiki. Perhaps, though, their vote could count for slightly less than an official build master but the point remains the same. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 14:41, 1 December 2007 (CET)

DE suggested top 100, but the idea is still the same. I like. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 15:52, 1 December 2007 (CET)
While i agree with the sentiment, i don't think promotion should be automatic. While i can't claim to have ever been in a top 50 build, i was in a handful of top 100's and i can state that being a good player and being a knowledgeable player are very different. For example, i can recall for sure that at least 2 people from each of those guilds teams was inept at personal build making and strategizing. Thus, they would make poor BM's for anything other than the builds and configurations that they personally run. While i haven't competed in any top 100's in a decent while, and i acknowledge the difference between top 100 and top 50, in my experience though the game may change quickly, people tend to change alot more slowly. The guild status of a user should definatly be held in high consideration, but shouldn't be an auto-promo, imo, though i wouldnt have any really serious objections to it.Bob fregman 07:18, 2 December 2007 (CET)
Yeah, I broke top 50 with a Quebecois guild. I'd still make a better sysop/bcrat kind of admin than a build master. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:31, 2 December 2007 (CET)
It could fail actually, if you just claim to be top50 then you're BM. Easy. I've also faced ppl who are just random noobs and claim that they were in vD and stuff, so doublecheck things first before a autonomination. I also agree with Bob Fregman, good players don't immediatly make them good at builds. - Unexist sigUnexist 17:37, 8 December 2007 (CET)
2/3rds of my last guild where in RusCorp and fail at build-creating. What I try to say with that: No to automated BM for anyone, if you have to have that kind of crap. Grobilikesmudkips 17:40, 8 December 2007 (CET)

Top GvG'ers should actually be active to be BM's. Of popular people, Ensign (who has a BM nomination for him) is an example. He barely contribs except on a few GvG builds. It doesn't matter who you are, but extreme knowledge of Guild Wars/GvG backed up by no knowledge of PvX is bad. They deserve to earn a nomination by being a good citizen on PvX, just like the rest of us. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 15:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Well... that's part of the point actually. One of the theories to improve the quality of the build section would be: get good players involved. As a corollary (at least theoretically), if we give good players the ability to actively improve the build section (by giving them BM status) they might be inclined to become more active. In Ensign's case... well... we've been trying to convince Ensign to become more active. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Imo, attracting players by giving them BM isn't the way to go. A wiki is about voluntarily building something together, no? –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 17:31, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah. I think you need to bust a hump here to earn a Buildmaster status, not just staying in front of a computer 20 hours a day playing Guild Wars. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 09:07, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Game skill is more important than interweb habits. Just imo. --71.229 09:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Lol@u for thinking good players spend 20 hours a day on guild wars. Ensign spends like six, when he doesn't have school, etc. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 13:24, 13 January 2008 (EST)
6 hours is a LOT. Image-Dark Morphon's SiggieDark Morphon(contribs) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Got any idea how much free time I have daily? Also, as I said, that was a max value. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 14:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)

[Shat] is rank 43 atm. <3 Enjoy Frenzyphailer! 22:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Proposed Policy: pics or it didn't happen.--|Hipowi sig Hipowi pew pew pew 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

NominationsEdit

Coupla things: if people are nominating themselves, doesnt that kinda take away the point of a nomination? and if that is true, couldnt the same be said of asking someone else to nominate you? wouldn't neutral simply be not voting at all? I would think neutrality is not something you vote for. But maybe all this is just me. MarinBloodbane 06:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I believe it's alright for people to nominate themselves, simply because if they're not a worthy candidate of BM/sysop, they would never be promoted by a bureaucrat. Neutral votes just allow other people to see the voter's opinion. And although I'm not completely sure, I think it's all down to the bureaucrats to decide; the votes are just a guideline. Mike Tycn(punch out) 07:12, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Ultimately, yes, it is up to the administrative team to decide whether or not someone joins BM's, Administrators, etc. Self-noms are fine for that reason. If the person has no right being a BM or whatnot, they'll never become a BM just like they would never become an admin or whatnot. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 07:24, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Removing my votes... Edit

...Because I stop contributing here. Image-Dark Morphon&#039;s SiggieDark Morphon(contribs) 06:45, 9 February 2008 (EST)

So... do people care enough to make this form worthwhile? Edit

The entire point of a Request for Build Master Status is to get community opinion of the merits of a user and community opinion on said user's ability to serve as a Build Master, so the Bureaucrats aren't acting solely on their knowledge when they decide to promote.
That said, anything less than discussion of the Candidates' actions/votes/attitude/whatever else is pertinent to his ability to be a Build Master only detracts from the whole process. "Wtf" spam, "he's cool" spam, "he hates me" spam, etc all just clutter up the entire process and make it quite hard to work with. If you value the continued existence of these Build Master Status request forms, use them wisely - don't treat them like trash. (That isn't to say Build Masters would go away, that just means they'd be promoted with little to no feedback from the community).
It's up to you guys. Post comments here if you want, but the main thing I'll be watching for is improved votes on RfBM pages. -Auron 06:11, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Build masters are promoted with little to no input from the community anyway. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 23:12, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Most of the coomunity doesn't have any idea what they want.--ShadowRelyk Sig 22:36, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Oh look, it's the end of 2008, and votes are still retarded. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:47, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Possible fixing of BM forms Edit

Do it like guildwiki does it: pros and cons of the contributor. Then, people can just vote after the pros and cons of a contributor have been sketched out. See: http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/GuildWiki:Requests_for_adminship/Warwick_%287%29 for an example. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

someone Edit

needs to rewrite the page in past tense, remove the current policy tags, and make it obvious this is no longer used. it's too important to delete outright, and it's too confusing if we just left the current wording and slapped a "old" tag at the top. -Auron 13:41, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

added the new "archived policy" tag, and changed the wording to past tense. Might need someone more proficient at English than me to have a glance over and make any corrections though. ~ PheNaxKian talk 16:22, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
Archived policy. I fucking love it. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 21:29, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.