PvXwiki talk:Build Master Status Requests

First Draft
This policy was largely patterned on the RfA and ADMIN policies and is meant to cover both the responsibilities of Build Masters as well as requesting Build Master status. Unfortunately, this is only a first draft, and because I leave tomorrow for Spain, it is unclear how long it will take to actually make this policy official. Additionally, the coding that allows for Build Master status is not at this time complete, and it is unclear when this policy can be implemented from a practical standpoint. However, since this is a first draft, I would like some discussion, so, thoughts? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  21:36, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

A few small things: Build masters my cross out votes, but NOT delete builds. Thats a syop power and will give a check and balance sytem to the whole ordeal. Also, Build masters are the primary source of build migration (stubs to trial, trial to tested, tested to favored), and the need to revert those. The main area they work in is moving from trial to tested as it should require either an admin or a build master to check and review to ensure the build has reached acceptable formatting and acceptable plausability before actually being voted on. Other than those two missing job descriptions it looks pretty good. Shireen sysop  21:43, 1 July 2007 (CEST)
 * I'm assuming we can't be both build masters and Sysops. Correct? ‽-(єяøηħ)  no u 22:00, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Not sure about that. I don't have the pre-requisit overall experience to be considered a build master. I could, though, still hae authority to move builds according to formatting standards and whats on the discussion page. Shireen sysop  22:02, 1 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Another thing, are BM's proffession specific or what? ‽-(єяøηħ)  no u 22:03, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Of course they can be. Admin's already have Build Master abilities, so for all intents and purposes, they ARE Build Masters. Besides, Admins need to be able to overrule Build Masters, so they need Build Master authority. As to being profession specific, they aren't technically, but, they are strongly urged to stick to the areas where they state in the request that they are experienced. If there were a new chain of command, it would go: User, Build Master, Sysop, B-Crat, Gcardinal (site owner) As to your comments Shireen, please clean that stuff up and add to policy. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  22:06, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

No worries, I'll take care of it after I get home from work. Shireen sysop  22:07, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Beh, Ill knock it out now. Thats the main points I wanted to throw in. Feel free to fix as needed. Shireen sysop  22:19, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

This seems right on. - Skakid9090 05:10, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

BM's are going to be allowed to do Article Roleback right? Or am I wrong? Shireen sysop  05:16, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * You mean like the Administrative power of rolling back all edits by a user? No.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:18, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

cool, so the delete and rollback authority ONLY is in regards to votes. Cool, That works too. Shireen sysop  05:21, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * In terms of votes, delete and rollback are the same thing. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:22, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

I like it. I'll sign up first ;). It's fundamentally correct, but the admins are going to have to keep an extra eye out in addition to the three they are already using to patrol the site. Ranger builds, here I come......lol. Bluemilkman 06:28, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah, we realize it's easy to abuse, that's why I spent a lot of time on that No-Confidence section. And, feel free to sign up once/if this becomes official.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  06:36, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Why do we even need BMs to begin with? Admins do all their jobs and more, and we already have more admins than we know what to do with. We don't need any more admins. We already have build-knowledgeable admins, so why create a special group of users that are basically admins with more limited powers? I really don't see the point yet. - Krowman    08:23, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

I would just think that it is a help to the current admins. They wouldn't have to worry about moving builds, and making sure votes are correct. Yes, they would have to watch the BMs, but if the community is voting on them, and the admins say who they are going to be, then that shouldn't be much of a problem, if at all. Mostly, it's to help the admins with their workload, while not making more admins per say. Then they can focus on more administrative tasks, such as coding, discussing all those boring admin things ;), and being the "janitor" of the site. Bluemilkman 18:00, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

wait wait wait, according to hhippos RfA you dont need experience in builds to be an admin.... then you said admins have build-master status... that's idiotic. i dont want inexperienced players being build masters. - Skakid9090 23:30, 2 July 2007 (CEST)


 * I would have to agree, Build Master should be seprate from sysop. If they aren't, some people may expect sysops to be skilled in all points of the game, then follow the sysopian vote.  ‽-(єяøηħ)  no u 03:38, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
 * True. Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 04:20, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
 * The sysops so far generally do have build skills. Hhhippo is being very modest when he says that he doesn't have any; and as you will have noticed, he does very little work when dealing with builds. Hhhippo is a hard worker, a nice person, and possesses a defined set of skills that have benefited the wiki. The others can all contribute to build development just fine, as has been demonstrated. Even "OSB Shireen" has his (her?) moments. ;-) Experience with builds isn't necessary for sysop promotion, but it may as well be. When you get right down to it, this is a builds website. Those who administrate it ought to be familiar with the content, and for the most part, they are. IMO, Readem, Auron and DE are among the most active and knowledgeable contributors to the builds space. GCardinal mostly works in the back end here, and even he has submitted at least one build that was favored on GWiki. We pay close attention to users who we think will make good sysops, and maturity is often the most considered criteria. We appoint admins with the expectation that they will be mature enough to not stary too far from their area of expertise, and it works just fine. We don't need any more help with the administrative duties admins currently have, and we definitely don't need another group of users to handle that part of our work for us. Sysops generally are Build Masters; Hhhipoos should be considered the exception rather than the rule. If y'all really really want more "Build Masters," I would be in favor of simply appointing 1, or possibly 2, more sysops rather than creating this whole other user group. With certain admins becoming inactive and other circumstances that will limit the admin resource pool, I think that that would be the most viable 'solution.' - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   06:08, 3 July 2007 (CEST)


 * Look at people like User:Luobailong. He (maybe she, I'll refer to the user as he from now on until I get informed otherwise) is an expert in the field of running. Users like him pop out a build and I don't even have to look it over- I know it works. What, half the builds in our running section originate directly from him?  —ǥȓɩηɔɧ 〚₮/ḉ〛 11:53, 8 August 2007 (CEST)


 * EDIT: Also, I meant to add that Luobailong doesn't have enough edits overall to become a sysop but certainly has the experiance of PvE Running.  —ǥȓɩηɔɧ 〚₮/ḉ〛 11:54, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
 * But why should a knowledge of running builds grant a user the ability to strike for votes? For argument's sake, let's say the ability to strike votes on running builds only. A BM could strike a vote he/she finds inappropriate, so may an Admin. There are a number of users here who can put up good builds, but I don't see how giving them this power would benefit the wiki in any way. Like I mentioned above, I would rather have a larger admin pool, than two quasi-admin groups with one regulating the other with less capabilities. This is a build-oriented site, so appointing someone based on their build knowledge is hardly blasphemous. :-) - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   19:21, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
 * I have been in favor of promoting Edru and Skakid forever. I am not a b-crat tho, so w/e. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 19:24, 8 August 2007 (CEST)


 * /pickme? [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 19:40, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
 * No luv for Frvwfr? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   19:42, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
 * And frv, but his name is to difficult for a lazy personage to spell :P. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 19:45, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

eh, this really isn't needed imo. admins do a fine job removing votes, this just seems like a waste of time coding while we could be doing other things. &mdash; <font color="#336666">Skakid9090 05:27, 17 August 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah, it's come to the point where I don't even really support this. While I think there are a few good potential candidates (people who specialize in one type of build/profession or who are very knowledgeable but aren't necessarily right for Adminship), I would agree that this isn't really necessary.  There's been recent activity on the talk page and it's not a bad idea per se (which is why it hasn't been archived), but, I don't think it's something we need to pursue, at least not for the moment.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:31, 17 August 2007 (CEST)
 * Tbh we don't need to be super picky about ratings for builds, if a build in pve is using a minor rune instead of a major rune e.g. breakpoint, and hp is not vital to the build but the voter mentions it, and then the build is changed, we don't have to strike the vote. Imo there are only a few reasons to strike votes here: first being generally 5-5-5 puppets/lolcumovaherefreindsnvoteleet, second being 0-0-0 vandals, e.g. a 0-0-0 on sp sin, third being someone who just has no idea of how a build works (e.g. a YAA ganker, a voter goes "wtf this sucks you know enemies are always clobbered up at the flagstand") but beyond that I don't see why we should be picky about votes and subsequently, I don't think we will need build masters, though I am sort of the one to suggest it in my policy at the beginning of PvXwiki :p -- Nova  [[Image:Jirouji-Nova.jpg]] --  (contribs) 01:38, 20 August 2007 (CEST)