PvXwiki talk:Ranked User Vetting/Archive 2

Oh, come on. This is just waiting for people like Jupsto to start throwing a tantrum and unfavoring everyone who unfavored one of his builds.Cheese Slaya 16:45, 5 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Agreed, this seems like trouble. I strongly disagree with this policy. Napalm Flame 17:16, 5 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I agree too. --[[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png]]frvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 17:16, 5 May 2007 (CEST)


 * This will end up with even more problems and violations of GW:NPA then the original system ever did. --[[Image:Rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   17:51, 5 May 2007 (CEST)

What part of you must be over 2.5 stars to vote didn't you get? No one will favor Jupsto, so what is the big deal? Ni 17:23, 6 May 2007 (CEST)

The deal is Jupsto will unfavor you.Cheese Slaya 17:59, 6 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I noticed we have PvXwiki:You are valuable as accepted policy here. This suggestion is in direct conflict with said policy. "Regardless of the amount of time spent here, the admin status of a user, or even whether a user is logged in or not, all users have the same clout on the PvX Wiki." --[[Image:Rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    23:17, 6 May 2007 (CEST)

A policy that in some way considers the knowledge of the voter concerning the situation in which the build is used is a very important thing to have, although this may be somewhat covered by the "Builds work well" policy. An experienced GvG warrior is more qualified to comment about a warrior build intended for GvG than someone who's never pvp'ed at all, for example. Perhaps this proposed policy is not the one that should be reconsidered. --Edru viransu 00:11, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * If you believe that, the first step would be to remove PW:YAV, because that says everybody is equally qualified and should be assumed as such. --[[Image:Rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   00:32, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Indeed, that is what I was suggesting might be best. Such a policy is best for a place like Guildwiki, but as far as an entirely build-oriented wiki, that policy is at best an archaic tradition that is derived from wikis like Wikipedia and GuildWiki, with significantly different goals and purposes than this wiki. --Edru viransu 00:56, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Hmmm... well, I would say that to be honest, YAV is probably immaterial to this discussion. It matters to the policy, sure, but, the debate as to whether this is viable policy should not hinge on whether or not YAV is in existence.  If, in the course of the scheduled vote, user decide that they want this policy (or another which violates YAV), then, we can get rid of YAV.  Essentially, I think that unless a new vetting policy expressly overrides YAV (essentially rendering YAV null and void), YAV is a fine policy to have.  As a result, it doesn't matter one way or the other to the discussion of this policy.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  03:27, 7 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I Don't see how we can keep YAV at it's current state and use it with a new vetting system. Everyone SHOULDN'T have the same clout. Someone brand new to guildwars SHOULDN'T have the same say as the leader of a rank 100 guild. [[Image:Ni_sig.JPG|50x19px]]Ni 01:58, 8 May 2007 (CEST)


 * It's easy to say that, not so easy to in practical terms. There are a lot of problems associated with such a system.  First, a pretty heavy percentage of the people using a BuildWiki are going to be people new to the game.  Second, "credentials" are hard to verify (since we can't expect to have an entire population base being regulated by Admins to determine their credentials.  Third, I don't think clout is the right way to put it.  Take for example Skuld's influence over vetting on GuildWiki.  Despite YAV, there were a lot of people who "fell into line" so to speak once Skuld vetted.  The impact of votes made by users with "clout" is undeniable with or without YAV.  As well, "credentials" really are hard to judge.  To be honest, you don't really need to play GW for that long to achieve Rank 3 or something.  And, the other side of that is that there is no guarantee that someone who isn't "experienced" isn't still capable of making an informed vote.


 * Regardless, I think you may have misinterpreted what I meant. I am against abolishing YAV per se.  I merely meant that whether we have YAV is something that will inevitably be decided regardless as a result of the vote on vetting policy.  So, there really isn't any reason to haver this debate.  For example, if PvXwiki:Percentage Favored Vetting were made official policy, there simply isn't any reason to get rid of YAV.  Whereas, if this policy were enacted, we would get rid of YAV (at least in its current form).


 * I would still say however, that even if we want a system that takes into account "experience", I still don't like this particular system. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:14, 8 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Yeah I am against this... too many people hate my guts. Wait, nvm. Only Solus ;)... he'd find a way though lol jk. Readem (talk *contribs ) 02:31, 8 May 2007 (CEST)


 * One other thing I forgot to add. I think that rather than preemptively attempting to quantify someone's "credentials" or "experience," a better method would be to increase requirements on what constitutes an "allowable" vote.  For example, rather than stopping someone from voting altogether, I could require that votes actually give an explanation, and, I could allow Admins to review votes and strike obviously uninformed votes.  That system I think is much better because it allows for the fact that credentials don't mean everything, it would probably be much more simple, and, it allows a case-by-case analysis as opposed to a straight out requirement.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:21, 8 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Agreed. Also, it would allow you to have a discussion, rather then just leaving who can vote up to  a badly informed computer program. --[[Image:Rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    12:46, 8 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Same, my only dislike of the Percentage based system, is the lack of reason. A person might vote blindly (Have done many a time ;) on a build, and its turns out, that person has no reason for unfavoring. It also reduces the issue of spite between users. Discussion can also dramatically improve a build. Taking it from unfavored to favored. Another major concern, is the striking of votes. It will be dramatically more complicated if we have a automated system. So in my opinion, this with a few major tweaks, is in the running with percentage favored :D. Readem (talk *contribs ) 00:01, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Non-admins shouldn't be able to rate at all. Making this system need a major overhaul. Readem (talk *contribs ) 01:06, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I have to disagree with you there Readem. If only Admins could rate, first, it would require an ENORMOUS amount of effort to rank every new user when you only have 5 admins.  And, second (kinda tied to that), it places too much of a responsibility on those 5.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  01:59, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Why dont just rank users according to participation?(i.e. Submitting good builds, creative ones, actively participating in build discussions, helping unfavoured builds improve, etc. etc. just my thoughts on this ^^ BaineTheBotter 12:49, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Because one of 3 people would have to rank them.
 * 1)Everybody. I don't trust the users to be unbiased in their rankings of each other, however.
 * 2)Admins only. Sadly they don't have the time to do it, they're busy enough as is.
 * 3)A Computer Program. Which cannot tell the difference between good and bad, contributions and spam.  Fixing the mistakes made by the porogram would take even longer than either of the other two choices.
 * So if you want everybody to be ranked, first come up with something that can properly rank us. --[[Image:Rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   12:54, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

(resetting indent) Also, because it's too subjective as to whether a user's contribution to a build is for better or worse. Tycn 13:11, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * The community in past guildwiki wasnt very trusting was it then? hmm... BaineTheBotter 15:42, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, when I say "non-admins" I mean that regular users cannot directly vote and change rank ect. A person may be able to suggest a new rating, but an admin must check that it is a valid reason. So I suggest (if this policy is tried), that we create a separate special page, that links to all recent changes relating to user rankings. To help admins out, we could also allow high ranked (or even if there is only one category of rank, which I suggest) users also check the validity of ranking votes. Just a thought though, for all current policies are majorly flawed in one way or another. Readem (talk *contribs ) 23:36, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * That would be neat if we could do it, but I have no idea how it would be done. For that matter, could we just add a switch or something to the current recent changes to filter out everything except user rankings? While we're at it, I wouldn't mind a filter for votes or to show only anon edits... -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 20:13, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

Hmm, not positive, but I think there is someway to filter it. When I get on a better comp, I'll do some research. Readem (talk *contribs ) 22:03, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

Quality control
Please make sure that this policy has all things required to pass quality control. Please read PvXwiki:Voting on Vetting Policy.

IMPORTANT!
Make sure that your policy meets all of above requirements or it will NOT become a candidate and people will NOT vote for it.
 * How new builds will be posted.
 * How new builds will get into actual vetting procedure. (short)
 * How discussion and voting/vetting will be done.
 * How re-voting will be done. (short)
 * How deletion of builds will be done. (short)
 * How builds will be organized. (optional)
 * How it will affect existing builds. (short)
 * If policy needs mediawiki extension, who will make it? (short)
 * Plan on how to make a script (if needed).

GCardinal 22:00, 10 May 2007 (CEST)