User talk:Krowman/Archive 8

Advices
On this and. --Edru viransu //QQ about me /sysop 02:41, 13 November 2007 (CET)

Just wondering
What is the icon in your sig actually? o.O - Star Seeker  |  My talk  19:12, 13 November 2007 (CET)

try clicking it Darkstone Knight  (T ) 19:20, 13 November 2007 (CET)

you need another arcive, my wii is lagging like hell Darkstone Knight  (T ) 19:20, 13 November 2007 (CET)
 * el oh el. --71.229.204.25 19:37, 13 November 2007 (CET)

If You Get a Chance
Get on MSN please. Thanks. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  22:15, 13 November 2007 (CET)
 * Tomorrow would be a better bet. I guess I'll talk to you then? (: - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   07:11, 14 November 2007 (CET)
 * I'll be on from like 4-8pm EST. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  21:53, 14 November 2007 (CET)
 * Hey, was online for a while today, you were Away for the duration. If you catch me online, just start talking, or if you see me here, just post my talk page and I'll meet you online. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   06:46, 15 November 2007 (CET)
 * Away status != away. Away and Out To Lunch are his two favorite statuses. :P -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 07:46, 15 November 2007 (CET)

My Struck Out Comment on GvG Balanced
I know you struck my comment out based on me saying "Nothing new or interesting", but that was the comment for the Innovation rating(I should have been more specific). I believe "New and Interesting" fall under the innovation part of the rating, or are at least part of it. I tried the build with my guild 1Mind Gaming Society [Mind](Since it had a lot of skills that my mostly PvE guildmates actually had unlocked). It performed... average. I rated it as a 3 in effectiveness and universality based on that, and a 2 for innovation because there was nothing new or interesting(My other rating parts were not based on the "New or interesting" comment). I know you may not like the rating that was given, but I assure you that I was able to test it with my Guild, and that I rated it based on how it performed with my group, how I feel it performs, and what I take on it was. If you wanted the comment to be more in depth, I can just reword the comment to be more in line with this(I wasn't exactly thrilled about its performance, so I kept the comment short). However, I would like you to unstrike the rating based on your reason why you struck it out in the first place. Paragon City 17:15, 20 November 2007 (CET)
 * I moved the build into the Trial stage to be updated and reflective of the current (post-update) meta. As you probably know, we don't rate Trial builds, so until the build is updated and sent to testing, there shouldn't be any votes on it. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   06:58, 21 November 2007 (CET)

Ba Wimba Wop
Hey. I want to let you know I think the BM's policy's genius. Got my full support.  Shen (contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2007 (CET)

A few Questions
Being totally neutral, (if not a littel pissed at my wives account getting banned for no reason) i wish to ask a few questions:

1. Is explicit swearing allowed on Pvxwiki?

2. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, so why are opinions "censored" in such a way on the ratings page?

3. Is petty arguing/off topic discussion allowed on discussion pages?

4. The copyright of everyones pages is reserved in your copyright page (as so it states). Where does this copyright spread to? surely if it is one persons build, they have the copyright of that builds discussion. Quote: All other content on this site is copyright by the respective authors, and is available under the Creative Commons [1] license, unless otherwise noted. All other information, art and images, are Copyright to their original creators. Therefore, does that mean the build and related pages are my copyright? or if anyone changes my build i have the right to sue them? this copyright notice needs to be attended to....

5. I, and my wife, want to be contributing members to this site. But unfortunately we have not felt very welcome so far. Your comment, yes, was better received by myself (ok, i am a bit worked-up still tho.) Is it possible to give newer members some lee-way or at least some notice to any breaches?

Regards Kylegarra 23:58, 21 November 2007 (CET)

Hey, I realize the question is directed at Krowman, but I'll try to answer some of your questions. First, as to swearing, it depends on the context. We have no actual rule on swearing; however, if, in the instance in question, the swears are being directed at a person or are so over the top as to prove disruptive to the Wiki, then an Admin might intervene. Two, we have a strict series of rules governing when votes may be censored. Those are: votes by a dummy account (i.e. Sockpuppet), votes which are blatantly false in that they demonstrate a lack of understanding of in game mechanics, votes by users with 0 contributions (since we can't check their IP if they have no edits), votes while builds are in Trial, votes which are no longer valid as a result of an update or shift in meta, etc. The complete list of reasons may be found on the Real Vetting page. Keep in mind however that when we delete a vote, we do so in order to improve the quality and integrity of the site, and only a very limited number of people are granted the authority to do so. Whereas, a comment on a discussion doesn't have an actual impact on the quality of the wiki as a build site, and, we certainly can't allow any random author to remove comments he dislikes. Three, comments in discussions need not be pertinent to the build at hand. Four, see PvXwiki:Article Ownership, anything submitted to the Wiki becomes the property of the Wiki (also note that by submitting, you give implicit consent to abide by our rules). Five, in most cases, we do give lee-way; however,     you'll notice that according to PvXwiki:Disruption, accounts suspected of being dummy accounts (which is why your wife's account was banned, using the CheckUser function allowed me to see that you shared an IP with your wife, thus leading me to suspect sockpuppetry) may be banned without notice because they completely undermine the site's purpose. I apologize if there was a misunderstanding, but everything that has been done so far has been in keeping with policy. And, if you feel that people aren't giving you legitimate feedback on a build, well, it happens, and newer users About the copyin particular seem to take this more to heart. People are often blunt when it comes to builds, and it's something you learn to accept because in the end, they're just trying to maintain the site's quality. My suggestion would be to attempt to distance yourself somewhat (from an emotional standpoint) from your build, and take a look at the comments keeping in mind that the comments regarding the build are in no way personal attacks. Also, may I ask why your wife felt compelled to threaten me with a lawsuit (I've responded to her email by the way)? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  00:11, 22 November 2007 (CET)

My wife was quite annoyed being branded a "sockpuppet". Unknownst that is the actual name you call dummy accounts here, it is quite a harsh way of dealing with the situation. Maybe by posting in a persons user page to ask why or if their account is a dummy account would be a better approach to the whole thing. She will reply to your email in person no doubt (hopefully she may be calmer) About the copyright of the whole builds you should probably check copyrights NONE of the builds or content of this site belong to pvxwiki whatsoever. And yes, i understand about people being blunt with builds. But people being rude, swearing and down right argumentative is an issue that has to be looked at.

I have always read this site for a while, and thought it to be quite a good site. But now that i registered and TRIED to contribute, i have been faced with nothing but abuse and negativity. do i want to really continue with this site? Kylegarra 01:44, 22 November 2007 (CET)
 * You're confusing ownership and public domain. Yes, PvX does not own whatever you submit.  However, this being a wiki, whatever you submit becomes part of the public domain, and that means we can do basically whatever we want with it.  And this being a wiki, 'can do whatever we want with it' generally means improvement.  Also, PvX is not a democracy, and for good reason.  tbh, most GW players are pretty stupid, myself included.  If this site was a democracy, we would be an outright mockery instead of just a joke like we are now. --71.229.204.25 01:51, 22 November 2007 (CET)
 * Okay, you're both wrong about ownership of edits. Copyrights on edits are retained by their authors, but by contributing, you license your contributions under CC BY-NC-SA, meaning they can be adapted and redistributed by anyone, so long as the license is not changed. --Edru viransu //QQ about me /sysop 01:54, 22 November 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah, copyrights always confuse me. Listen to Edru. --71.229.204.25 01:56, 22 November 2007 (CET)
 * unless it states public domain, then it is not. Read up on law a bit first. the exact statement "All other content on this site is copyright by the respective authors" basically states whatever i write is my own. At the end of the day, the copyright of this site needs to be looked into. My wife can write more about this if needed... Kylegarra 02:02, 22 November 2007 (CET)
 * Please, have at it. I'm going to vacate myself on the grounds that I don't care. --71.229.204.25 02:11, 22 November 2007 (CET)

All of your content, remember, is stored in its original form. Let's take the for example. If someone wanted to see your original contribution, they would go to the the history tab to view it. However, once your place someone onto the wiki, you release it under CC 2.5 which means anyone can edit the material you have posted. Remember, however, that the original contribution is owned by you but each and every other contribution is owned by each subsequent author and so on and so forth. Finally, by submitting it under the CC NA-SA 2.5 copyright, you understand that the content would be edited and that you have no control which direction it takes. Again, remember the bold print: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. On the subject of the two of you have a hissyfit over us calling you sockpuppets, please keep in mind PvXwiki:Disruption. It helps to know the definition of a word before getting angry over it. If you folks had in fact been reading the wiki for a long time, you'd know the problems we have sockpuppets rating builds and so on and so forth. Merely crawling through Gcard's archives and the admin noticeboards reveals many instances of people complaining about sockpuppets. The most recent complaint about sockpuppet was just 30 something hours ago. —ǥrɩɳsɧ ƿoɲ  02:47, 22 November 2007 (CET)

Ok, well, i tried to remain neutral, to some aggressive posts, tried to say what i saw, i know if you post then things may be edited, this is a wiki. All i said, was look at the copyright page, it needs updating and is totally contradictorary. As it is, people here seem not to be that friendly. I've only heard a friendly word off 1 or 2 or you. That being so, i will not bother no more. i will simply lurk and not contribute. Too many politics and too many arseholes. Goodnight Kylegarra 03:17, 22 November 2007 (CET)

To cut to the chase:
 * 1) Swear if you want. If you offend someone, be courteous and apologize. That's that.
 * 2) Striking out a vote still allows it to be read, this isn't the same as wiping a user's non-harmful posts from any page. Discussion pages are for conversations, and erasing a user's input defeats the purpose of the page. Likewise, a ratings page is used to represent the build's quality, and not removing bad ratings defeats the purpose of that page.
 * 3) Yeah.
 * 4) That license you cite, and that we use, permits people to 're-mix' (to quote the human-readable summary (what does that make me for reading the full legal version?)) the work. Basically, anything posted is free to be edited by anyone, not just the original poster.
 * 5) I'll unblock your old lady.
 * 6) Bring me any questions you or your wife have, if either of you are to contribute in the future. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   07:19, 22 November 2007 (CET)
 * The Drama Llama is not impressed >:O[[Image:Drama Llama.jpg|50px]]--Shadowsin 14:40, 4 December 2007 (CET)

Hey! Can you please look on the vote of Davadudee? I don't understand what is he talking about - dazed is a problem for a paragon? Monk spread? Am I a noob or him? If he is, please remove his vote. If I am, please explain what he wrote! :) Thanks! And a question: why wasn't the build appeared in the tested farming builds category? It has been wetted 3 days ago. Has it so long delay time? Voidwalker 22:05, 27 November 2007 (CET)
 * It does not appear in the farming category because it is not categorized into it; it is only tagged for General PvE. Add "|farming}}" to the end of your 'Good-Build' template at the top of the page to place it in that category. As to the rating, see the build's ratings page. Don't get too excited though, because I gave the build a rating myself that is less generous than Davadudee's. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman    00:01, 28 November 2007 (CET)
 * Thanks for removing that vote. A question: did you tried the build? Isn't this all about? You see a build on the wiki, you try it, then you rate it. Or am I crazy because I do so? 9 votes so far on my build, 5 arrived the same day I moved the build to the tested category. I'm sure they didn't tried it. If they do, I won't be angry - the build would be crap. Is this all about here? Vote at first sight? Voidwalker 18:35, 28 November 2007 (CET)
 * Actually, 'voting at first sight' is acceptable here, for a number of reasons. One, it is too difficult to enforce a mandatory trial of any build. What would we use as proof? Screenshots, videos? It would be very time-consuming, and draining on the wiki servers to have to upload a screenshot that corresponds with every rating. Along those lines, what would you take a picture of? The numbers that pop up every time one heals or does damage? The loot gained from a farming run? Second reason is that many users can identify a good build just by looking at it. If someone posts a meta build, many users will recognize it and be fully capable of rating it without going through whatever process we would have established to enforce mandatory testing. If the votes are unreasonable, they can be brought to an admin's attention and removed. Lastly, it would be easy to fake a screenshot of anyone using a build, so enforcing a system that is easily circumvented is unwise from an administrative standpoint. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   20:46, 28 November 2007 (CET)
 * No comment. I didn't wrote anything about proving, I wrote that nobody is a master. Voidwalker 23:34, 29 November 2007 (CET)
 * Not in the posts above you didn't. What do you mean about 'master?' - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   03:01, 30 November 2007 (CET)
 * I think that nobody is so pro that he can identify a good build without trying it. Not even you (and not me, i admit). You cannot be sure that the build is good, but you give 5-5-5 on it... or the opposite. What i say is that if you do not know anything about the capabilities of the build, do not rate it. This would be more intelligent than the - e.g. -"bah, this looks bad, i think this s*cks, 0-0-0". But maybe an admin knows this. Voidwalker 00:17, 03 December 2007 (CET)
 * People that are good at game can. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 07:17, 3 December 2007 (CET)


 * Can't be bothered testing every build I vote on. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 09:01, 30 November 2007 (CET)
 * Nice! I thought that the pvxwiki is for players who want good builds. And learning from other's experiences. What experience is behind your vote, dude? Voidwalker 00:20, 03 December 2007 (CET)
 * I vote without trial. ups, guess I'm bad. 68.35.91.2 00:37, 3 December 2007 (CET)
 * Not sucking is behind my votes. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 17:07, 3 December 2007 (CET)
 * It doesnt require a whole lot of skill to rate a build without testing it. The funny thing about computers and machines is, everything does what it says it's going to do.  So you look at atts, skills, etc. and you can pretty much judge a build.  It's not like judging an athlete or student, where a weak or dumb looking person can suprise you.  Weak skills with weak synergy are, well, weak.Bob fregman 02:35, 4 December 2007 (CET)

QFT
Does not mean quite fucking true. - Rawrawr  19:57, 4 December 2007 (CET)
 * QFT. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   21:49, 4 December 2007 (CET)
 * Ok, from now on, whenever I see anyone using that, I'm going to assume they mean 'quantum field theory' :P --[[Image:Wizardboy777_Sig.jpg|19px]]Wizardboy777 (T/C/Sysop) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (CET)
 * Lol. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   03:14, 5 December 2007 (CET)
 * Nah, QFT means "quit fucking talking" imo. - Auron 03:20, 5 December 2007 (CET)

So yeah
Just wanted to let you know, most of the time, when I get really mad at someone, I just mess with them a bit, then let 'em go. I might have a bit more fun with this guy, just since he seems to get off on annoying me, but no worries. I won't do any harm. I'm a good guy, at heart. <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2">cedave <small color="#AA226D">(contributions_buildpage)  06:56, 7 December 2007 (CET)

i'm sorry i must be doing something wrong..
look, i really believe that the thumper is a terrible build - please tell me what i did wrong. Brian 07:42, 7 December 2007 (CET)

so, like - i'm not trying to piss anyone off here (really), but apparently i've gona about this the wrong way. can i try to rate builds again? i'll give the thumper maybe 1s and a 2 for innovation? ugh... let me go look at the "how to rate" section... Brian 07:47, 7 December 2007 (CET)

ok, i read the section. i'm honestly sorry. i got the wrong idea about what the numbers meant. -- i thought a 2 - 3 would be average. apparently average would be about 4 and you can't score a build that is frequently used less than a three. again, i sincerely apologize and will wait to rate builds until i get your response. Brian 07:49, 7 December 2007 (CET)
 * Tbh scoring an already great build with less than a 4 is pretty ill informed and unadvised, and thumpers rox thanks, just wait till one kills you. ;D--Shadowsin 08:24, 7 December 2007 (CET)
 * LOL - the never do........ lol... Brian 08:45, 7 December 2007 (CET)
 * i was gonna vote it with maybe 3 threes. or something honestly. can't really give it less than that according to the vetting guideline / rules ... whatever. Brian 08:46, 7 December 2007 (CET)


 * really! thumpers cause absolutely NO problems for any of the builds i use - haha. Brian 08:47, 7 December 2007 (CET)
 * Then your not a caster, thumpers cause serious problems with their high damage with constant IAS and IMS with a pet, with KD+Daze.--[[Image:ViYsig5.jpg|19px]]<font color="Darkblue">Victoryisyours (<font color="Darkblue">talk /<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (CET)
 * With the most recent, it wouldn't be too out of place to score them with 3's and 4's. They no longer have that constant IMS and IAS with as many KD's and such. —ǥrɩɳsɧ  ƿoɲ  14:09, 7 December 2007 (CET)
 * RaO bunny thumper still has constant IaS i dunno about the kd's though.--Shadowsin 14:25, 7 December 2007 (CET)
 * They nerfed EW. Now, you can't keep RaO up all the time. —ǥrɩɳsɧ  ƿoɲ  17:24, 7 December 2007 (CET)

I AM a caster- and thumpers have not caused me problems SINCE their creation. The only plus is that they are harder to kill (don't really know why) than a normal ranger it seems, and their pet stays alive. Brian 07:03, 8 December 2007 (CET)
 * Thumpers overwhelm, they may not outright kill you. It is very difficult to overcome the IAS KDs, DWs, Dazed, and pet attacks while they have IMS as well. No need to apologize to me, I haven't taken any offence to anything yet. Feel free to rate builds some more, but try to be more reasonable than rating such well-known and effective builds with flat zero ratings. Thanks in advance. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   08:17, 8 December 2007 (CET)

Ratings wipe request
Hi could you wipe most of the votes from Archive:A/E AoD Shock Sin please, except prehaps Zuranthium's. I re-did the thing. &mdash; Skuld 09:25, 7 December 2007 (CET)
 * Already done. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   08:18, 8 December 2007 (CET)

Just wanting to say...
Sorry bout a while ago with the RaO spear shit. I was being a retard to you at the time. <font color="Black">Dark <font color="Black">Morphon <font color="Black"> (contribs)  19:00, 11 December 2007 (CET)
 * No problem mate, I appreciate the apology. Cheers! - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   19:15, 11 December 2007 (CET)