FANDOM



from noticeboard

To sum up what is listed, Cheese Eater had a Build:Rt/W_Spiritual_Melee_Master|build which was deleted by Rapta. I was viewing right before deletion and did not see any well tags on it. If it was removed by author, I would have expected to see a warning on his userpage, but there was none. As a result, this seems to be a violation of the Adendum to have it immediately removed without any chances to remedy the problems. Misery gave possible reasons for the deletion (IAS, IMS, and shield requirements) which all, save the shield since it is a hammer build, could have been remedied by the author as seen here. Would an admin please tell me where I'm erring in believing there was a violation, or if there was a violation, please put Cheese Eater's build back up? Thanks. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 13:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

It had been done and trashed. I think that was Rapta's view. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   13:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
There weren't any votes yet. Is that what you were getting at? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 14:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
No, similar builds had been trashed before. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   14:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
That still does not address the adendum. The author is supposed to have the option (or anyone else like myself) to be able to move the page to his/her own section. This build may have fell into the same pitfalls the other did (no IMS), but could've been remedied as said before. Before I start ranting, do you believe the removal violated the adendum, and if not, why? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 14:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
[[1]] /FrosTalk\ 14:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I read that. However, this only addresses whether the build should ever have been deleted not the immediate build. But to address your point, it says that while a sin my output more damage than a warrior, that does not make the warrior inferior. In this case, it doesn't have as much survivability as a warrior (but neither does a sin) but does CONSIDERABLY more damage than a warrior using the same skills. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 14:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Your comparing an Assassin to a Warrior...(That's pretty epic), I have strong belief in Rapta's judgement. /FrosTalk\ 14:42, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
No, but your comment was an epic misunderstanding. If you read what you posted, the second paragraph talks about comparing two different classes. If you can expand your understanding a little bit, that is similar to what is going on here. And I honestly don't care about your faith in Rapta, but I do care if there was a violation of policy. If there wasn't, then I have no beef, if there was, it would be nice if someone would remedy. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 14:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
We are pretty loose on policy tbh. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   14:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
That's the answer? You guys are pretty good about adhering to banning policies, but when it comes to an admin obviously overstepping his or her bounds, "we're pretty loose about policies..."? What is the point of having them if they're not adhered to? Why not just delete them all and let the admins do whatever they want? lol Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 15:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
What are you talking about banning policies? ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   15:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Trolling, avoidance, etc.. The adendum is in place, it seems, to protect the author from loosing data he/she wishes to keep in his or her on page while at the same time, limiting the biasness of one individual. True, the build would probably have been canned, but that does not explain away the action of one person seemingly violating policy. It's not even my build lol I just hate seeing someone run over by another who believes they can. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 15:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
If they ask, we can do it... But we aren't going to wait on every single pos build there is... ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Ok...so is the adendum to be followed or not? If not, why doesn't it get deleted? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 15:42, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Where is that? Could you post a link to that? I'll update it. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   15:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
PvX:WELL --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It's in my first post here - it is the blue Adendum word. It links directly to the section I've been referring to. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 15:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I think Rapta's got a little bit of an itchy trigger finger, but most of the times his deletions are with cause. That's why I, and many others, supported his adminship. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 17:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

ELEVEN LINES IN:
A vote will take place, or an admin will review the build in question as well as its talk page to see if it does indeed violate this policy. If it does, the build may be deleted immediately and without discussion.
HOW THE FUCK DID THIS SILLY SHIT LAST THIS LONG? --71.229 18:14, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

That needs to be updated. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:26, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Calm down, folks. Let's get this wrapped up with the basic points listed:

  1. Why was the build deleted?
    It was deleted for violating PW:WELL.
  2. How does it violate PW:WELL?
    It's been submitted, metaphorically (although it may be literally now) hundreds of times, and unfavored and deleted. In addition, see above on why Spirit's Strength is bad.
  3. Doesn't this violate the "don't delete immediately" addendum?
    The page was given 2 days grace before it was deleted by myself during a cleanup of the WELL category. There's no violation of "don't delete immediately" as far as I see. Plus, the user was active during that two-day interval.
  4. What if the user wants his/her build back?
    If that's the case, that user can post a message here (not you, User:Choytw) with a request to restore the build under his/her own usernamespace.

In any case, even if a build is deleted immediately given these cirumstances, do not expect to gain masses of sympathy from other various contributors. As I stated above, policy doesn't suddenly make a build worth keeping, nor does it make a build, suddenly, better.

Above in a nutshell: Don't write a bad build and use an excuse of "But X policy!" for keeping it.

I hope this clears things up. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:16, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

really the bit about the user wanting his build back dosen't make much sense whenever anything submitted to the wiki, becomes the wiki's. So if the person that happened to submit it can get it back why can't User:Choytw request it?--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 23:31, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
He/she can. However, User:Choytw appears to be speaking (above) on behalf of User:Cheese Eater, and that User:Cheese Eater wants the build. So, if User:Cheese Eater wants the build on his/her namespace, I can restore it there. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
actually choytw looked like he wanted it so that he could test it more than anything, "The author is supposed to have the option (or anyone else like myself) to be able to move the page to his/her own section." in any event the build is everyone's property and choytw seems to want to mess with it himself now, even if he was going to go through the faily common formality of letting the author original contributor make the changes himslf.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 00:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not hard to come up with a generic SS build, you know... ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 01:45, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
not the point much?--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 02:14, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes it is. You just said you or someone else might wanna "mess around with the build" just make a userspace called "generic ss build"make a bar with SS, a weapon spell a few attack skills and vloilá, your very own SS build. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 02:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually Chowty has been told on several occasions on several different talk pages that if he would like the build restored to his namespace it can be done, yet he has never asked for it, so all in all, I would suggest that he doesn't actually want it restored to his namespace. Either that or he is being VERY slow about asking. - Misery Is Hawt19px 03:53, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
what I meant by not the point was that he shouldn't HAVE to make a generic SS build, should've been served up on a silver platter in a matter of speaking. Also, he asked in the first post of this section, just slap it on his userspace :P.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 08:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Why shouldn't he have to make his own terrible build? We aren't going to serve up echo mending builds on a silver platter either, because they are bad. I believe he was requesting the build be restored to the build space, not to his own user space. That's not going to happen. - Misery Is Hawt19px 08:58, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
If policy was followed and it got killed due to WELL admins really SHOULD. He didn't really specify though did he? So if it appeared on his page he wouldn't have anything to argue about.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 09:28, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
WELL doesn't cover only similar builds, i.e. we don't have to keep a Spirit's Strength build to show the best possible one, which is still crap, so we can WELL other builds. If you want the bar that it was inferior to, just go look at Build:W/E Shock Axe. If he wanted it, he'll clarify his comment and all will be fine and dandy. - Misery Is Hawt19px 09:49, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Going by WELL its not inferior in all ways to a shock axe because it is common for Spirits Strength Rits to bring sight beyond sight, they can attack through blind, a shock axe might do alot (nearly everything) of things better, but its not completely inferior, so if anything the build should have been protected by WELL. Also the fact that its a dupe shouldn't really matter since there isn't a build to give any votes to. Really since the majority dislikes Spirit Strength builds they should just ignore them or give them bad ratings. Only one of them can be up at a time w/o being a dupe anyway and sooner or later ppl will get a clue.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
And Spirit's Strength is vulnerable to enchantment removal, your point about blind? The thing is, that's all well and nice in theory, except people repost a Spirit's Strength build every few months. It just comes back, you can't kill it, so it's deleted under WELL along with (most) dagger rangers, melee casters and caster warriors. There is no reason to let it go through vetting. Anyway, Rapta has been spammed on his talk page enough, can't people just let it rest? - Misery Is Hawt19px 11:14, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, but thats more thany you have to do to blind a shock war. The issue really hasn't been resolved, if there is a page to copy/paste this then that it is fine. I thought about it, why not let a spirit strength build go through anyway? it is obviously wanted by a fair group if it gets posted so much. There was even a guide for it at one point, why did that get deleted?--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 11:18, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Because Spirit's Strength is bad. There are reasons why it never sees high level play, ever. Do we need a "Why Spirit's Strength is bad" guide? I does kind of work in RA, if you take a shield, but it's just not good and there isn't any reason to farm glad points in RA with builds that only work there. This site generally speaking promotes skilled play and improvement over farming titles with gimmicks, the fact that sway is recorded aside because it is so meta and used to be relatively effective at what it did. - Misery Is Hawt19px 11:22, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, we had a guide about that. It got deleted because it was bad. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 11:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
In a way thats kind of what I meant, though obviously Spirits Strength isn't really "meta" persay, I see them in RA sometimes, also, someone knows about them because they get posted here so much. Also, there are tags for a reason, why not have something thats only RA if thats all that it gets tagged for. This is reaching back a ways but someone posted a PvE team build that included Spirits Strength ritualists and it was almost immediately deleted, by Rapta if I remember right. Somewhere up above someone said something about it being ok as long as an imbagon got brought, I don't remember if one was included but it would have been easy. I'm just saying people know about it, some people use it, and a fair group of people want it stored on a wiki focused on toring builds used in the game. Who gets to decide which guides are bad? They don't exactly get vetted and they are just for community reference, or was it just the formatting that was bad? I don't mind writing up another one, I'll take that deleted build for reference, just slap it on my talk page plz.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 11:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
The hundreds of people posting on the talk page "Delete this. We all know that Spirit's Strength is bad" decide when the guide is bad. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:05, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

(EC)(resetting indent) was reading through here and saw Misery's post about my being told several times that I can have the build restored to my page but I'm being slow...I already have the build and have said several times that my only interest was that policies seemingly weren't followed. I was hoping that the policy (Adendum) would either be deleted if it wasn't going to be followed, or that someone would restore the build - not for my sake but for the authors so that, "...Second, by doing this, we help improve the author's knowledge by giving him/her a chance to understand the flaws in his build rather than merely deleting it." Also, the adendum has been changed to a guideline...which is also a bad word for what I'm thinking the admins want. Guideline: any guide or indication of a future course of action: guidelines on the government's future policy. It seems to me they're intending it to be a suggestion to admins and not a policy/guideline. I'm not trying to nitpick, but simply trying to help word policies so that the users here don't get a false sense of what to expect. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 11:51, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

@UnderGunned: I have a variant on my sandbox Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 11:53, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure that "Spirit's Strength is bad" has been outlined by several (hundred) posts. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 11:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
but its not wholly inferior to a shock axe, therefore it has a place. Bottom line, is it getting deleted the second i write it? thx Choytw btw--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 11:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
It is, and I will repeat, it is "wholly inferior" to a warrior primary. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ec) I'm pretty sure that "Spirit's Strength is bad" has been outlined by several (hundred) posts. And I wouldn't waste time trying to liken PvX to any form of government. It's obvious that you are trying to nitpick at this "don't delete immediately" line, even though, as I said, it wasn't deleted immediately. That point has been moot from the beginning. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 11:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

(ec) ::If you're responding to me, that's beside the point (in regards to how this all started). However, If there's a monk on the team, I usually do very very well. Rarely do I not kill two people in RA/AB before I myself am hurting - granted I go as hammer so am doing about 100 damage every hit and over 100 about half the time. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:02, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

That tends to happen when there's a monk on your team. People get the sense that they are better when there's someone keeping them alive. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

(ec):::Rapta: not nitpicking, I'm pretty sure I know what is supposed to be conveyed and it's not being done correctly (the government deal was an example from dictionary.com to show the meaning...which was obvious). It was deleted immediately. There were only four posts on the talk page, no vets, and no well tag. I was there about five minutes before it was deleted so I have a pretty good idea. so no, hasn't been moot. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:05, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Are you kididng me Rapta? Are you supposed to be able to keep yourself alive against all damage or does a good team have a monk to negate spiking?? I have a slightly higher survivability than an ele but can output the same or slightly better damage. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
What are you talking about? There were many posts about why it was bad. And now you're comparing it to an Ele? And it's been moot - 2 days is plenty of time for a build to be deleted. You editing it doesn't mean anything. And stop thinking that having a monk means a generic Spirit's Strength build is suddenly better. Warriors have something called Strength that doesn't sacrifice their elite to get +damage from something like Bull's Strike. Use it. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
And stop using BS points like "I used this in RA" and "a monk kept me alive to kill stuff", "and thus it's a good build worth keeping". A Warrior running Starburst accomplishes the same. That doesn't make it good. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Points change in the discussion and its not <bold> wholly </bold> inferior to a shock axe, simply because it can handle blind, a common melee counter, better than the shock axe does. When used in the Bonus Damage team you deleted, plus an imbagon, an SS build could pwn.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 12:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ec) If you want to counter blind, run Clarities and a Blind Shield, or take Sight beyond Sight and go W/Rt (which has been done in the past). And do you have any idea what sorts of builds you're trying to compare a Shock Axe to, and failing? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:13, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Melee isnt all about the domage -.- The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ecx2) When I went there, there were only four or so posts. There was no well tag, there were no votes. I have a warrior, and with her strength maxed and using the same skills, she does less damage by a good bit. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:12, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
You're probably looking at something else. And if you're having problems running a Warrior, then you're not doing it right. There's not much more to it than that. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:14, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ec) No Rapta, you're confusing two arguments. We have an argument about you deleting a build too early and a seperate argument about the build itself. I am not arguing that the build should have been kept - I think it can work in the right environment which is not good for RA since it rarely happens. I am saying that according to the adendum, and not he guideline, you deleted too early. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Spirits strengths builds can deal deep wound, if that is what you meant. If you meant the damage taking part your taking an imbagon who cares. Yeah there are 2x argue, there are conflicting views on when build was deleted though.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 12:16, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
What are you talking about? I'm arguing about the point you just mentioned about bullshit regarding Spirit's Strength being better than a Warrior. It isn't. The build was deleted. End of story. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ecx2) Lol, no I wasn't looking at another build. I left the build in question to go to his userpage (go check it out and then came back to find it deleted. There were only a few posts, no ratings, and no well tag. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
What the fuck? Now the deletion has to be a matter of your convenience? This is getting tiring. There's bound to be people looking at a page when it gets deleted. You automatically take offense to that, especially when it's an obviously bad build. Back to the point: run a Warrior properly. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:22, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I made the mistake of thinking it was going to be up for a minute or so...so only got to see the number of posts. a few more than I remember (possibly 10?) with a couple being suggestions to help it out (if I remember right, that was the small build listed). Still no well tag, and no ratings, with only a few more posts than I remembered. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:23, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, I don't think anyone claimed that it was better than a warrior, maybe that it dealt better numbers and was better against blind. (idk I always hit for more with a spirits strength unless I'm screwing around and bringing a 16strength 15 axe mastery, but does that still work with armor penetration nerf really? war definitely more survivability anyhow). You never answered my question though, if another guide was made would an admin just delete it? also, its obviously just an opinion that the build is bad, maybe you can't run it lolz. your also referring to the argument about policy, not the build--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 12:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Still not an argument, buddy. You've been disproved of in every single point thus far. 19 revisions were made on the talk page. That means up to 19 posts, almost half of it saying a) Warriors are better and b) Spirit's Strength is weak. Stop nagging on that one point you have. It's acknowledged as a crappy skill and a crappy bar. It got deleted for being. Hiding behind policy is a bullshit excuse. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ec) You're totally missing the point. I'm saying that I was there right before the deletion and there were no votes and no well tag - i.e. the adendum was not followed. That has been my point and my only point throughout this tiring argument - I use one of the few hammer builds listed here. SS outputs more damage at the cost of some survivability. Honestly, the best place I've found for the SS build is in AB - possibly because of shitty players, but it works none-the-less. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:27, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Like I said, I didn't get a count and they weren't all negative. And I'm not hiding behind policy, you broke it by deleting without a well tag correct? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:29, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Since you appear to have an inability to read, it was given 2 days grace (being posted, suggested it was bad, and deleted). I just restored the talk page. There were 19 Revisions. The build was bad. You're hiding behind policy. You haven't made a single point that isn't completely moot. You're wasting your time right now. We know the build is bad. It was deleted. Deal with it. It's stupid to try and deviate from the main point being posed (the build was bad) and argue using some other means that's not even relevant (the build's still bad. policy doesn't make a build good). — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
But you've given me the same reason its bad, and i've given you the same reason its not. I'm just saying that there are multiple people that want it stored somewhere b/c it is used, the policy would allow for it, and there wouldn't be any more spirit strength builds. Seems like a happy ending to me actually :/. Oh nvm your talking about the builds talk page.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 12:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Sure, one can make any random statement and call it a "reason", but there's a line separating just a "reason" (it can do damage) and a reason that's actually practical (others can do more damage, spike more, pressure better).
For the last time, I'm not arguing the build was good or should have been kept! Only that policy was not followed (well tag, time for author to respond - i.e. change build - then deletion). Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ec)No one cares about anything outside of whether the build was good or bad. This is a builds wiki. You're either a) in the wrong place or b) hiding behind policy. Or it could be both. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:39, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
If we followed all the policies to-the-point, we would end up like GWW. Chill out. This is getting ridiculous... --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 12:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
will you answer my question? Then I'll address your comment - don't want to get off-track Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:40, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
People don't like answering questions that are irrelevant and meaningless, and ones that result in relentness usage of fallacies, bad argumentation, non-sequitors, and the like. The main discussion as to keeping the build has been closed and resolved. Even your argument about a WELL tag is moot, since the policy reads However, upon review, if a build is shown to be inferior to another build, it may be tagged for immediate deletion due to violation of this policy., along with the line 71.229 pointed out above. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
No it hasn't, I asked you a question regarding policy that you're apparently refusing to answer. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:45, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ec) I answered it directly and completely. You couldn't grasp the entirety of it. There's only so much that people can say to convince someone. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
We're a "spirit of the policy" wiki. Just throwing that out there. — Skakid 12:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

PvXwiki:Trashed Build Concepts I say it's time we get that made official ;o — Skakid 12:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

People would have trouble defining what a "build concept" is. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Why don't you save the trouble and simply delete the policies which you don't wish to follow? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
We did that already. We follow all our policies at the good ol' Buildwiki. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Can I please point out that ignore all rules policy? If its for the best for the wiki, which it was, then he broke no rules deleting it. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:53, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Screw it, I tried to finish the argumentn by asking a simply question, is it against policy to delete a build which has no tag on it - couldn't get it answered so, screw it. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 12:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I answered that too, above. The answer is no. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:58, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Must've missed it since you were re-editting old comments. I think, according to the deletion page, you're wrong, but frankly, you're going to do whatever the hell you want, so I frankly don't give a crap. It makes the wiki worse, but who the hell cares? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 13:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
It makes the wiki alot better. Policy whores destroy wikis. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 13:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ec) I based my answer off the deletion page. So again... surprise, your argument is moot. -.- — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:05, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ec) How so? You follow the rules everytime so there is a sense of stability and people can't cry foul. You tag, it's talked, it's deleted - the author knows why. How does that destroy the wiki? Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 13:07, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Rapta, the adendum was broken unless you can explain how it wasn't immediately deleted? And I don't think that it's talking about from creation point - but rather from the time a tag is placed. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 13:07, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Because if something that would be better for the wiki involves breaking the rules, we let that happen. Policy whores don't, everything goes so much slower, people rage more, etc. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 13:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
It wasn't immediately deleted (I already said that), it was deleted in 2 days. The deletion page says that it may be tagged, not that it will be tagged. For something that's been deleted hundreds of times, you won't expect a tag and a week-long wait. You should try and study up on build concepts before trying to be a policy nazi. Neither one is working out right now. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(ecx2)People rage when rules aren't followed. If they are, you simply point them to the page. Things do not move slower, in these cases, the deletions still happen but after a period of time to allow any changes to correct the build's deficiencies. Heading outside to eat and listen to my new Stiletto 2  ;-) catch you in a bit. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 13:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, why are you raging then? You aren't satisfied with me telling you that the rules were followed. You rage. Rawr says that policy whoring is bad. You still rage. There's only two sides to this. You reject both. That's why no one could possibly follow your train of thought this entire time, because you can't find your place between the given two sides of this argument and try to synthesize a generic position on this issue that no one appears to understand. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:13, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
For one, I'm not raging. I saw something that appeared to be against policy, and wherever I started this, and I phrased it as a question on the admin noticeboard. Second, I've been pretty clear this whole time, there were no tags placed on the build and no votes when it was deleted (although the votes aren't necessarily necessary). If this is not a requirement (which I apparently missed this the first time in one of your post revisions or an ec), it would have been nipped in the bud early by saying so. Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 14:21, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
You did seem to be raging a lot. And no one probably said that because you, policy whoring on an issue that no one cares about, were at least expected to demonstrate knowledge of that policy before complaining about it. And no one really knew what you wanted. The only important issue worth debating about is the feasibility of keeping a build, and we concluded on that within 10 seconds of this issue being raised. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:38, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Check the very first post in this section (the one I left on the admin noticeboard). I was very clear - I told what happened, what I thought, according to the adendum, should have happened, and asked that I be told if I was wrong. Can't get much clearer than that. Since no one said otherwise, and I kept getting 'policy whore' - it makes one think that they are quibbling over a policy that applies Choytw sig 1Choytw Talk Debates 14:51, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
You were told you were wrong from a long time ago. You only just seem to be getting that right now. And yet you still try to incite another debate. Doesn't get more unclear and confusing than that. You're wrong. Stop arguing about sematics - there was no breach of policy, and the deletion was justified. You have no argument. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Archive

Yay! A new topic that isn't crap! Archive this and get rid of over 32kb of irrelevant arguing (yes, that debate was about 32kb). --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 12:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

+1 ¬ Klumpeet 16:45{GMT}19-06-MMVIII
39 kb actually. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Dual archived to make yourself feel more manly, or what? The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 13:18, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Something like the archive you had isn't something I have on my mind. =P — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:20, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Build:Discordspam

Pretty sad you remove comments that are in favour of the build while not even backing up your own score, it's ridiculous to say its just sabway. please try it before you judge it, your opinion isn't worth more than anyone elses even if have proven to waste more time on wiki.Watch me work it 13:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Sabway is proven, I'm pretty sure. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
It's pretty much three Necros all running rather hybrid-y roles, ie Sabway. Well, Sabway without the good stuff. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 13:27, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Discord does more damage then SF does on average, tbh (in HM). It's armor ignoring, which is huge in HM. — Skakid 14:41, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Discord is hawt. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 14:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.