PvXwiki talk:Vetting Restructure

Disagree with your proposed policy on "theorycraft", but I am 100% for more guides.--Kammorremae 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fuck the whole vetting process, meta or not but consensus. All other builds in user space. Move rating system to the user space, keep it for meta, but it doesn't actually mean anything. Score goes on page, don't moderate votes at all. The meta/not meta section becomes the section that matters. Possibly have an experimental section for pre-meta, but to be honest, we don't vet non-meta anyway so we don't need it. Only ONE build has ever entered the PvP metagame from PvX, Contagionway, anything else was meta before vetted. Misery Says Moo 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure contagionway came from PvX? I swear I saw it in HA before I saw it on PvX ;o --Crowels[슴Mc슴]Mootles 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DE invented Contagionway using Draw before Foul Feast was buffed, then buffed -> meta. Misery Says Moo 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm all or making guides more important, but the issue there lies with the fact half the guides aren't even finished. This makes it difficult for them to play a more important roll...(i'll leave my full thoughts tommorow when i have more time =p). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All that would require would be more user contributions. And guides for things like Omegaspike, Fortressway, and other builds could easily be conceived and would be much more useful than a build page with a few dozen variant skills and/or bars. ··· Danny Does Drugs 21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It was on pvxwiki before ff got buffed ;D--Relyk 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Input, etc.

Is there anything anyone would like to see covered, or have discussed? I realize I posted this only.. less than an hour ago(?), but I'd just like to veer this in a constructive direction, before a full-on debate gets sparked over Contagionway. ··· Danny Does Drugs 22:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you are proposing to keep the rating system at all. At the moment we don't actually rate builds, we go "this is meta, 5-5 it and fellate me" or "not meta, trash it", we just need consensus, like we are currently using for the meta tag. People are too retarded with ratings and it's just going to end up like it is now, in fact I see very few differences between what you are proposing and current policy, what you actually wrote out doesn't seem to meet your goals at all. Misery Says Moo 08:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My intent is too more or less get rid of ratings, but given that we no longer have Gcard around, or at least around very much, I'm not positive how we'd go about removing the ratings page and creating a "consensus" page, more or less. All we'd really need is the Innovation check box anymore. ··· Danny Does Drugs 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Theorycrafted builds and other non-meta builds will be WELL'd or otherwise deleted, as per this policy"

This line bugs me. it seems to insinuate that anything that's not meta is crap, and should be deleted. There will be plenty of non meta builds that work excellently. Build:Team_-_Great_Dwarf_Strength is a good example of the top of my head. I think generally that line should be omitted (and indeed is not needed in this policy, as it would probably relate more to WELL anyway). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

+1--Kammorremae 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Move it all to user space to be honest. Misery Says Moo 13:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a Potential category where builds with the right ideas but the wrong skills get placed and get worked on by a selected group of people? Just saying that good ideas get trashed because of bad skill ideas. I know that that's what the talk page is for, but I feel like typing and feeling important. 13:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

that doesn't solve the problem though, take the build I linked to (Build:Team_-_Great_Dwarf_Strength) that's easily one of the better builds we have, but it's by no means meta, which means it would go into "potential". The problem then is that build is as good as it's going be (admittedly the buffer could do with some work but it was a place holder and by no means necessary), as such it'd be stuck in "potential", when I'd say that it clearly deserves the score it's been given (it's certainly not 5-5, it has it's flaws, but compared to some of the crap that is in great i'd say it's an example of an excellent build). you may have noticed I changed the build I linked to, that's because I got the wrong one the first time round (similar names and all...) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Iffy, that would be the equivalent of the "Trial" stage at the moment. Phenaxkian, if no one ever runs it, what does it matter if it is in the main space or someone's user space? Misery Says Moo 13:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this what currently happens on PVX anyway/?? Anwyn 13:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not formal policy. - 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Misery definitely gets where I'm going with this. If people started running it for some reason or other, we could easily move it from user space to main space. This also brings up an interesting topic - would the Build name space be permitted in user spaces to allow user space builds to be searched? Or would we want to create a new name space? ··· Danny Does Drugs 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On that note, I will modify that line to read: "Theorycrafted builds will be removed from the main space. They will be permitted only in user spaces." ··· Danny Does Drugs 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We could create a new namespace or searches through the user space would also turn up any crap that is in the user space. I would not be opposed to a "creative" user space with no vetting policy to get filled up with junk. We would perhaps want to clear it of duplicates occasionally. That's the only real problem I see with this plan. Misery Says Moo 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Use Theory: and Build: namespaces imo. Builds go into Theory, the ones people use move out of it into Build:. Also removes the problem of getting other userspace junk. Duplicates can be handled like they are now; tagged for deletion with a link to the dupe. - 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Given the number of theorycrafters on PvX, I'm certain that there'd be plenty of interaction in that new name space, meaning they could, in a way, govern themselves and reach out through the AN as needed. I, personally, would prefer to see a new name space such as "Creative" or "Theory". _{Panic bbz, that's pretty crazy how we both came up with the same thing.} ··· Danny Does Drugs 14:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I would be happy with a new name space where we could submit crap I guess, but would it be better to have a "theory" name space and move meta builds to build or have a build name space and move meta builds to "meta:". Although can i point out if we split into 2 namespaces, the "crap/work in progress" section, should have something similar to our current grace expired, so we aren't just keeping builds from months ago (so say builds that are a month old or something can be deleted) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Phen, I actually love that idea, they get a month in the theory basket and if they aren't meta by then, userspace or turfed. Misery Says Moo 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with that, for sure. I'm proposing Theory: and Build:. Meta: could be used as a Guide pseudo-namespace, perhaps, though Guide: alone works just as well. ··· Danny Does Drugs 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy that idea too. If this gets implement, there should be something for well crafted theories. Eronth 00:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Catgories:

• Builds:
  • Theory: Great, Good
  • Build: Great,Good
• Meta

Something like that. 00:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of Theory:, but there will be contributors who have no clue what it means at all.--Relyk 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It'd be easy enough to make a "Move to Theory" template. We could provide an explanation on the template itself. There'll always be people who don't understand it, just as there are now, but there's little to nothing we can do about that. ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of separeating the build into meta and theorycraft. I forgot who said it earlier but I don't like the proposal of deleting the vetted theorycrafts if they don't become meta within a few weeks. If they work then we should keep them, even if they are a little different. Just because it isn't in meta doesn't mean it doesn't work. And I do not like the idea of deleting all theorycrafted builds, because many still work. Idk I'll let the admins firgure this out. -- 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Under this policy, at the moment, there would be a new namespace "Theory:" for theorycrafts. They wouldn't simply be deleted. ··· Danny Does Drugs 18:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Obviously still trash the terribad theorycrafts -- 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to Policy namespace

I feel it's time we got this moving. There's a good amount of talk and hopefully we can keep generating ideas and thoughts. ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it. It'll knock out the really bad builds that are in Other (they ARE bad). The only worry I have really is that build/idea input will go down because of the stricter policy. Then again, do we need more shitty acceptable builds? +1 Danny. 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we'd really be hurt by the loss of build influx. How many builds get abandoned, WELL'd, or never leave testing? And I know there's been a lot of conflict over removing the Other namespace, but with the direction the wiki has gone, there's no reason to keep it around anymore. ··· Danny Does Drugs 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

thoughts

I dislike innovation's description being "This criterion describes whether or not a build is meta-meta". The definition of innovation is that it's a new idea or an odd (not necessarily bad) take on an old idea. Innovation and meta don't have a link really. As such I'd suggest either changing your definition of Innovation, or change the name of the criterion to "Meta(ness)".

I dislike some of the wording as well:

• "The build has not shown any particularly good ideas, has no potential, may be a theorycraft, or is otherwise not a part of the meta. It will be deleted after a grace period of 2-3 weeks."
  • Implies that any none meta builds will be trashed.
• "Note that exceptionally bad builds might be subject to more speedy deletion according to the Build Deletion policy."
  • Suggests any build tagged with WELL or delete is crap (where as most of the wells/deletes I see are either Dupes or Author requests).

final point(s) (they're linked) There's mention of Theorycrafts being assigned to a "theory" name space. That's it. I don't see anywhere within the policy what is defined as a theorycraft, or when/why to move said theorycrafts to said name space. Someone decides to tag it on a whim with a template. An admin then has to decide if it's worth while moving it to the theory namespace, which seem contradictory to the whole "remove BM'S we're all shit at GW" point :/.

I think my incoherent wall of text is done, I can't think of anything else at the moment anyway =p I'm purposefully avoiding the whole "do we need an "other" section" debate for the time being ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A) If we were to change it to Metaness, we'd need to re-implement it as an actual rating rather than a checkbox. Describing it as meta-meta, imo, is a bit more important, as that points out whether or not people feel the build is effective at buildwars.

B) I forgot to fix everything about the theorycrafting thing. ups. Also, a lot of WELL'd builds are, well, crap. Or blatantly terrible dupes. But I was actually thinking of creating a Speedy Deletion tag for a situation where WELL doesn't quite fit.

C) If it's not meta, it's theorycraft, more or less. It isn't very difficult to come to a concensus on something like that. Generally, the only opposition would be the author and possibly that author's circlejerk.

I'll go make those changes you pointed out, though. ··· Danny Does Drugs 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Note that exceptionally bad builds might be subject to more speedy deletion according to the Build Deletion policy."

^ that comes directly from Real Vetting tbh. If you didn't notice, I c/p'd a lot of it, and changed it to fit. ··· Danny Does Drugs 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ups

I disappear for a while and everyone loses interest in this? Q_Q 128.255.218.50 15:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate the way you worded the policy. Panic and I have talked about rewriting it, but we are both very, very lazy. Misery Says Moo 15:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How would you like it worded, mizzles? You know I have MSN, too, right? 128.255.218.50 16:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MR. IP! Misery Says Moo 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I sent you a message, did it not go through? Misery Says Moo 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ups. I meant when I'm at home. I'm at work atm. Will be for the next 5.5 hours. Q_Q 128.255.218.50 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)