PvXwiki talk:Ranked User Vetting/Archive 1

Voting on this policy
No voting. See PvXwiki:Voting on Vetting Policy.

Well, I see a big problem with this, with all the disagreements going on in the build section at guild wiki, there will be many cases where someone is rated down just cause they voted differently from someone else. I just see too much chance for those who disagree with a build to do a mass rate down of everyone who voted favored(or reversing it voting unfavored). Don't put a lot of hope into people being honest.--Sefre  Talk*Cont. 23:59, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

I would agree with Sefre. This system is too reliant on an unknown factor and can be influenced too easily. While I like the theory of giving credence to more experienced members, I do not think this is the way to do it (assuming I am reading this correctly), and I would not favor this as being the best option for the vetting system. If any major changes are made, feel free to tell me and I will be more than happy to look it over again. But, as I said, as things stand now, I would not vote to make this an official policy. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  00:29, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * After looking into it a lil more I guess I see how some people woudl be excluded from ability to rate users, but at the same time that would make it hard for the build section to get started because there would only be admins at the beginning to get people above the 2.5 req.
 * One other thing, how would it the rate system reflect on the main article page? Like how will the system show that # of 5 start users like this build and what not?--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 00:43, 25 April 2007 (CEST)


 * Still working on it right now. Give me a bit and ill see if I can make it any better, though it might just be a bad idea.

I like the idea in theory, but I have doubts as to how well it would hold up in a real situation. Furthermore, I have the feeling that this would vastly increase the number of NPA violations. I like a system designed to combat Lurkers and Anons who don't know what they are talking about, but I think that the lengths that this policy goes to in order to accomplish that goal limit its effectiveness. I think the easiest way to accomplish what you want would be to add a clause to a general vetting policy that expanded the powers of Admin Review so that users could ask for a vote to be reviewed. Alternatively, we could require that people give a concrete, sensible reason for their votes.

As I say though, I like the concept. Perhaps, if you could implement a ranking system that didn't rely so heavily on other users to determine ranking, I would support it. However, given what I know about the way Wikis work, and given the few, but major flaws, I stand by my previous comment in saying that Sefre's policy comes closer to what we are looking for, although that needs improvement as well. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  01:32, 25 April 2007 (CEST)


 * I agree with you on the statement of not beleiving in having the users vote, but I couldnt think of any other viable way. [[Image:Ni_sig.JPG|40px]] Ni 03:34, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Why not have the admins vote on the trustworthyness of a voter or user, and just add stars to something like a protected voter list page the more admins say yes to that person.... and no star as being unranked, and have the possibility of appealing to the admin to rank that person after placing at least 10 votes for example. So maybe like 1 star for someone who all the admins say no to and 5 stars for someone who all the admins like... and all admins get 5 stars automatically. Lania Elderfire 03:54, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * That both gives a lot of work to admins and gives them alot of power to choose favorites, Im not accusing any current admins but it may become a issue in the future. Once we get a larger user base that task would get difficult to preform as well.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 04:04, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

While I don't think any of the current Admins would abuse that power, it all seems so unnecessary. It is an involved process that has inherent issues given the way a person is rated. As I read this policy, it appears to me that the entire purpose is not necessarily to be a vetting system per se, but rather to add an additional clause to whatever vetting policy we choose that adds this element of "trustworthiness." The purpose of that is obviously to try and eliminate the ability of uninformed voters from casting bad votes. There are better ways to deal with this than to have Admins, or anyone else for that matter determine trustworthiness.

Perhaps, the change that should be made should be to the criteria for trustworthiness. As long as the system involves voting, I will continue to say no. However, are there any objective criteria by which we can judge a user's trustworthiness? If there are, than perhaps the policy has merit. Otherwise, I would have to say no. And, I don't think any change that deals with "how the voting works" is going to solve this policies problems. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  04:18, 25 April 2007 (CEST)


 * Maybe you can administer an exam? And lock out voters from participating in the build discussion and voting if the user fails. meh, that is a lot of work too lol... Lania Elderfire 04:26, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * The exam would have to be so comprehensive that it would be impossible to make. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:31, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah it would be a monster of an exam... much worse than the GRE ^_^ Lania Elderfire 04:36, 25 April 2007 (CEST)


 * Or the SAT... =P [[Image:Ni_sig.JPG|50x19px]]Ni 21:18, 26 April 2007 (CEST)
 * How 'bout the MCATS? [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  21:25, 26 April 2007 (CEST)

Anyway... no. There's no point. I could care less if a person approves or disapproves of another person. Frankly, it doesn't matter. Furthermore, I read and re-read this article looking for how this does anything for vetting builds, and couldn't find any mention of it. Since it has nothing to do with builds, what's the purpose? - Auron 22:08, 26 April 2007 (CEST)


 * How does it not? Read moar imo. [[Image:Ni_sig.JPG|50x19px]]Ni 22:21, 26 April 2007 (CEST)


 * I think Auron referring the the fact that there is no mention of how builds would be ranked based on the type of voters. Which is lacking, I assumed it would be a script that calculates a rating based on the rank of users who voted for it but I am not sure. --Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 23:40, 26 April 2007 (CEST)


 * "It takes 15 stars more one way or the other to pass or unfavour a build" [[Image:Ni_sig.JPG|50x19px]]Ni 03:11, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

Archive
Please archive this discussion, start with discussing on how to improve this policy. Around may 8-9 or 10 vote will start, discussion we be deleted and only vote's without never ending discussion will go here. So I suggest you use that time to make you candidate stronger. GCardinal 06:37, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

Hmm, when I saw the policy the first thing I saw was the F/U... fu? ^.^ At least change the initials. -- Nova   --  (contribs) 21:40, 3 May 2007 (CEST)