PvXwiki talk:Vetting Restructure

Disagree with your proposed policy on "theorycraft", but I am 100% for more guides.--Kammorremae 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuck the whole vetting process, meta or not but consensus. All other builds in user space. Move rating system to the user space, keep it for meta, but it doesn't actually mean anything. Score goes on page, don't moderate votes at all. The meta/not meta section becomes the section that matters. Possibly have an experimental section for pre-meta, but to be honest, we don't vet non-meta anyway so we don't need it. Only ONE build has ever entered the PvP metagame from PvX, Contagionway, anything else was meta before vetted. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] Misery Says Moo   21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure contagionway came from PvX? I swear I saw it in HA before I saw it on PvX ;o -- Crowels [슴Mc슴] Mootles  21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DE invented Contagionway using Draw before Foul Feast was buffed, then buffed -> meta. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] Misery Says Moo   22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm all or making guides more important, but the issue there lies with the fact half the guides aren't even finished. This makes it difficult for them to play a more important roll...(i'll leave my full thoughts tommorow when i have more time =p).  ~ PheNaxKian Sysop   21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All that would require would be more user contributions. And guides for things like Omegaspike, Fortressway, and other builds could easily be conceived and would be much more useful than a build page with a few dozen variant skills and/or bars. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was on pvxwiki before ff got buffed ;D--Relyk 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Input, etc.
Is there anything anyone would like to see covered, or have discussed? I realize I posted this only.. less than an hour ago(?), but I'd just like to veer this in a constructive direction, before a full-on debate gets sparked over Contagionway. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  22:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you are proposing to keep the rating system at all. At the moment we don't actually rate builds, we go "this is meta, 5-5 it and fellate me" or "not meta, trash it", we just need consensus, like we are currently using for the meta tag. People are too retarded with ratings and it's just going to end up like it is now, in fact I see very few differences between what you are proposing and current policy, what you actually wrote out doesn't seem to meet your goals at all. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] Misery Says Moo   08:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My intent is too more or less get rid of ratings, but given that we no longer have Gcard around, or at least around very much, I'm not positive how we'd go about removing the ratings page and creating a "consensus" page, more or less. All we'd really need is the Innovation check box anymore. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why superiority is included with effectiveness. Let's say you have 5 monk healing builds and 5 prot healing builds.  There may be several that get the job done just fine, but maybe one of them is easier to use.  According to the way superiority is currently setup, the easiest to use would get the five with the others receiving lesser grades although they get the job done.  It seems it would cut down on confusion when rating (like there was/is with the current vetting method) if these were broken out into seperate categories.  Or if that doesn't go over, change the name effectiveness to superiority.  € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Theorycrafted builds and other non-meta builds will be WELL'd or otherwise deleted, as per this policy"
This line bugs me. it seems to insinuate that anything that's not meta is crap, and should be deleted. There will be plenty of non meta builds that work excellently. Archive:Team - Great Dwarf Strength is a good example of the top of my head. I think generally that line should be omitted (and indeed is not needed in this policy, as it would probably relate more to WELL anyway).  ~ PheNaxKian Sysop   12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * +1--Kammorremae 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move it all to user space to be honest. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] Misery Says Moo   13:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should there be a Potential category where builds with the right ideas but the wrong skills get placed and get worked on by a selected group of people? Just saying that good ideas get trashed because of bad skill ideas. I know that that's what the talk page is for, but I feel like typing and feeling important. [[Image:Goodnight_la_sig_2.png‎]] 13:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that doesn't solve the problem though, take the build I linked to (Archive:Team - Great Dwarf Strength) that's easily one of the better builds we have, but it's by no means meta, which means it would go into "potential". The problem then is that build is as good as it's going be (admittedly the buffer could do with some work but it was a place holder and by no means necessary), as such it'd be stuck in "potential", when I'd say that it clearly deserves the score it's been given (it's certainly not 5-5, it has it's flaws, but compared to some of the crap that is in great i'd say it's an example of an excellent build). you may have noticed I changed the build I linked to, that's because I got the wrong one the first time round (similar names and all...) <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Iffy, that would be the equivalent of the "Trial" stage at the moment. Phenaxkian, if no one ever runs it, what does it matter if it is in the main space or someone's user space? [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   13:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this what currently happens on PVX anyway/?? Anwyn 13:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not formal policy. - [[Image:Panic_sig7.gif‎]] 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Misery definitely gets where I'm going with this. If people started running it for some reason or other, we could easily move it from user space to main space. This also brings up an interesting topic - would the Build name space be permitted in user spaces to allow user space builds to be searched? Or would we want to create a new name space? ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On that note, I will modify that line to read: "Theorycrafted builds will be removed from the main space. They will be permitted only in user spaces." ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We could create a new namespace or searches through the user space would also turn up any crap that is in the user space. I would not be opposed to a "creative" user space with no vetting policy to get filled up with junk. We would perhaps want to clear it of duplicates occasionally. That's the only real problem I see with this plan. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Use Theory: and Build: namespaces imo. Builds go into Theory, the ones people use move out of it into Build:. Also removes the problem of getting other userspace junk. Duplicates can be handled like they are now; tagged for deletion with a link to the dupe. - [[Image:Panic_sig7.gif‎]] 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the number of theorycrafters on PvX, I'm certain that there'd be plenty of interaction in that new name space, meaning they could, in a way, govern themselves and reach out through the AN as needed. I, personally, would prefer to see a new name space such as "Creative" or "Theory". Panic bbz, that's pretty crazy how we both came up with the same thing. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  14:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with a new name space where we could submit crap I guess, but would it be better to have a "theory" name space and move meta builds to build or have a build name space and move meta builds to "meta:". Although can i point out if we split into 2 namespaces, the "crap/work in progress" section, should have something similar to our current grace expired, so we aren't just keeping builds from months ago (so say builds that are a month old or something can be deleted) <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Phen, I actually love that idea, they get a month in the theory basket and if they aren't meta by then, userspace or turfed. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with that, for sure. I'm proposing Theory: and Build:. Meta: could be used as a Guide pseudo-namespace, perhaps, though Guide: alone works just as well. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I enjoy that idea too. If this gets implement, there should be something for well crafted theories. Eronth 00:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Catgories:

Something like that. 00:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Builds:
 * Theory: Great, Good
 * Build: Great,Good
 * Meta
 * I like the idea of Theory:, but there will be contributors who have no clue what it means at all.--Relyk 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be easy enough to make a "Move to Theory" template. We could provide an explanation on the template itself. There'll always be people who don't understand it, just as there are now, but there's little to nothing we can do about that. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of separeating the build into meta and theorycraft. I forgot who said it earlier but I don't like the proposal of deleting the vetted theorycrafts if they don't become meta within a few weeks. If they work then we should keep them, even if they are a little different. Just because it isn't in meta doesn't mean it doesn't work. And I do not like the idea of deleting all theorycrafted builds, because many still work. Idk I'll let the admins firgure this out. -- 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Under this policy, at the moment, there would be a new namespace "Theory:" for theorycrafts. They wouldn't simply be deleted. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  18:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Obviously still trash the terribad theorycrafts --[[Image:AngelusEverton.png]] 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, imo there's nothing wrong with theorycraft builds as per say... theory =/= bad. In fact in life most things start out as a theory (and in GW most builds do to, it's just that they go through that phase before being put on PvX, normally). The only problem is so many theorycraft builds are bad, it's hard to see the good (or potentially good) ones. But that doesn't mean all should just be trashed. PvX is meant to be about builds in general, not just to track the meta. 81.110.25.23 10:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to Policy namespace
I feel it's time we got this moving. There's a good amount of talk and hopefully we can keep generating ideas and thoughts. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  16:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. It'll knock out the really bad builds that are in Other (they ARE bad). The only worry I have really is that build/idea input will go down because of the stricter policy. Then again, do we need more shitty acceptable builds? +1 Danny. [[Image:Goodnight_la_sig_2.png‎]] 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt we'd really be hurt by the loss of build influx. How many builds get abandoned, WELL'd, or never leave testing? And I know there's been a lot of conflict over removing the Other namespace, but with the direction the wiki has gone, there's no reason to keep it around anymore. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

thoughts
I dislike innovation's description being "This criterion describes whether or not a build is meta-meta". The definition of innovation is that it's a new idea or an odd (not necessarily bad) take on an old idea. Innovation and meta don't have a link really. As such I'd suggest either changing your definition of Innovation, or change the name of the criterion to "Meta(ness)".

I dislike some of the wording as well:
 * "The build has not shown any particularly good ideas, has no potential, may be a theorycraft, or is otherwise not a part of the meta. It will be deleted after a grace period of 2-3 weeks."
 * Implies that any none meta builds will be trashed.
 * "Note that exceptionally bad builds might be subject to more speedy deletion according to the Build Deletion policy."
 * Suggests any build tagged with WELL or delete is crap (where as most of the wells/deletes I see are either Dupes or Author requests).

final point(s) (they're linked) There's mention of Theorycrafts being assigned to a "theory" name space. That's it. I don't see anywhere within the policy what is defined as a theorycraft, or when/why to move said theorycrafts to said name space. Someone decides to tag it on a whim with a template. An admin then has to decide if it's worth while moving it to the theory namespace, which seem contradictory to the whole "remove BM'S we're all shit at GW" point :/.

I think my incoherent wall of text is done, I can't think of anything else at the moment anyway =p I'm purposefully avoiding the whole "do we need an "other" section" debate for the time being <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   21:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A) If we were to change it to Metaness, we'd need to re-implement it as an actual rating rather than a checkbox. Describing it as meta-meta, imo, is a bit more important, as that points out whether or not people feel the build is effective at buildwars.
 * B) I forgot to fix everything about the theorycrafting thing. ups. Also, a lot of WELL'd builds are, well, crap. Or blatantly terrible dupes. But I was actually thinking of creating a Speedy Deletion tag for a situation where WELL doesn't quite fit.
 * C) If it's not meta, it's theorycraft, more or less. It isn't very difficult to come to a concensus on something like that. Generally, the only opposition would be the author and possibly that author's circlejerk.
 * I'll go make those changes you pointed out, though. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Note that exceptionally bad builds might be subject to more speedy deletion according to the Build Deletion policy."
 * ^ that comes directly from Real Vetting tbh. If you didn't notice, I c/p'd a lot of it, and changed it to fit. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go make those changes you pointed out, though. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Note that exceptionally bad builds might be subject to more speedy deletion according to the Build Deletion policy."
 * ^ that comes directly from Real Vetting tbh. If you didn't notice, I c/p'd a lot of it, and changed it to fit. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ups
I disappear for a while and everyone loses interest in this? Q_Q 128.255.218.50 15:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate the way you worded the policy. Panic and I have talked about rewriting it, but we are both very, very lazy. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   15:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you like it worded, mizzles? You know I have MSN, too, right? 128.255.218.50 16:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MR. IP! [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I sent you a message, did it not go through? [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ups. I meant when I'm at home. I'm at work atm. Will be for the next 5.5 hours. Q_Q 128.255.218.50 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * MIZZLES. tell me wot you don't like. <3 ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  07:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, the current wording doesn't seem to actually meet the goals outlined in the talk page and waffley and overcomplicated. I think this would also be a chance to merge in some of the other policies related to build retention to simplify the whole process as it has become somewhat of a monster. For example, if we are retaining builds based on metaness, do we even need a voting system? Votes have been pretty retarded in the past. Consensus should be enough, it has worked fine for the meta tag. I do have one concern with my suggestion and that is what to do with builds just outside the meta like YAA runner and other rit runners. I guess they would be archived meta for now as they are ex-meta and if nerfs bring them back just change the tag. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   09:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I might put some effort into a policy change proposal this weekend. <font face="Courier New">C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?[[Image:Panic_Sig_Cursor.gif]] 09:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of not-quite-meta builds, however, which are just as or nearly as viable as the meta ones, they just aren't as popular for whatever reason. Archiving them implies that they are no longer viable, not that they are no longer meta. Although, on the other hand, I guess your alternative is to have an "ex-meta" tag you stick on them, which is probably overkill. Next you'll end up with a "state of this build" section on all the main build pages detailing how often it is used and why et.c. which is definately too much... 81.110.25.23 11:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of this whole process is to completely redefine the build space based on metaness, not effectiveness so the archive tag would actually only imply that they are no longer meta and the reason could state whether they fell out of favour due to other builds being seen as more effective or due to being nerfed out of effectiveness. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   11:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't been in GvG for a long time because of how retarded it's become, so I don't know if YAA is run at all, but in the case of something I do know - Pancakeway, while not popular, is still seen in variant forms quite often. While it would probably require updating, would that be considered meta, or non-meta, or ex-meta? Obviously, there are a number of builds that don't see common play (read: 1 or 2 out of 10 teams) but which are still played and still effective. Also, I'm not against getting rid of Ratings, but that would require server-side assistance, and I'm not sure how much time the Wikia staff wants to spend on our projects. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
PvXwiki:Vetting Restructure/Rewrite I think this addresses a lot of the things Misery brought up, though I'm not sure how plausible it is. imo, it sounds even more life a giant waffle, so feel free to make any changes you'd like, so long as you don't suffer from Downs Syndrome. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, I liked "Build Masters will be eliminated. None of us are actually good at Guild Wars, so why bother trying to pretend like we are?". Also, I definately agree about guides having more place et.c. For example, most of the builds on here have little to no instructions on usage, even some of the most run ones. You might argue it's obvious, but one of the main reasons people look on this wiki is for help, and having something explain how to play be even more valueable that what to play. However, "Discontent whorus and other people who display a lack of knowledge will largely be ignored" makes a certain sense but implies that those people who don't live on the wiki (check my sig*) aren't good (possibly removing the "other" would address this), and also starts to sound a bit elitist (and even if you argue it's not meant that way, it will likely be seen that way and end up encouraging elitism). One other thing, "Arguing with several users about why a build is or isn't meta can result in a ban as well" is imo a bit extreme, as people should be allowed their views and "freedom of speech" to a certain extent - I think, based off the following bit, this is aimed more at people who won't listen to reason, use bad logic et.c. but it could be worded better so it doesn't sound like "argue and you get banned!". Well they're my thoughts anyway, not that it really matters that much to me.
 * *or lack of. 81.110.25.23 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * a) most whorus have no idea about what they're doing, because most gw players don't in general. b) read the determination section. that explains the rest of it. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * a) true, but most is not all. b) yeah it does explain it but that line itself should probably be re-worded. 86.24.115.34 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bump
Let's get some more feedback on this. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the idea, but there's no reason to eliminate BMs. We could just redefine their job to include the upkeep of guides and following of current pve/pvp metas. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">20:29, 28 May 2009
 * Oh, and I know you already said this in the article, but it needs to be more clearly defined. "Obs-whore" isn't exactly accurate. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">20:32, 28 May 2009
 * Meh. The idea is people who know what's meta. Clearly, BMs don't work because everyone here is terrible, per the definition of being a pvx user, so none of us can is qualified to be a BM. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BM, and then in small tags, compared to everyone else on this site. And he's not saying to keep BMs, he's saying to better define Obs Whores and call them something that fits better.  Life [[Image:WikiLOD7.gif]] 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously the terminology could be refined, but that's effectively what the position is for - those people who play PvP constantly and watch matches rather than TV. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say BMs get trashed instead of renaming them. Renaming them to "obs-whore" (aside from the choice of name) is fine, but i wouldn't like giving these people the weighted voting, or the ability to roll-back votes, because we'd be essentially saying they're better at GW than the rest of us (on this site at least), which if your saying the just "obs-whore" they don't have such skill. This would mean they'd just have a title and no real power, which seems pointless. We can just have community consensus saying "this person uses Observer mode a lot, and thus knows what the meta currently is, so we trust them to move things into meta". <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about a group that has permission to move builds from Theory into Meta? Not sure how it would work though.  Life [[Image:WikiLOD7.gif]] 23:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what i was saying, we could just say "we trust this person knows the meta and is allowed to move things to meta". There doesn't need to be a usergroup or anything else, as long as we know who should and shouldn't be it'll be OK (we could make a little list, and have something similar to RFA's if people are that bothered). <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue wouldn't be moving theory into meta (that's happened maybe.. once?) so much as having the final say-so about what is meta in general. Being an obs-whore doesn't mean they're any better, it means they pay attention to what's going on in the PvP and PvE circles. This might require PvP- and PvE-only officers of sorts, seeing as people who specialize in one area generally aren't well-versed in the other. The biggest problem with not having an official usergroup is all of the people who Q_Q enough that they end up with people who are equally terrible supporting them. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  14:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ups. I skipped over your last comment a bit, Phenax - That would probably work, but be prepared for a fuckton of "OMG ELITISM" for the first few weeks. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We suck people's dicks without them being BMs already, I don't think we need an official usergroup. If Smurf tells you something is bad in HB, it's probably bad, if he tells you it's good, it's probably good. People know this already. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   14:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * i actually like the idea of it not being an actual usergroup and just someone saying "yes this is meta". Like misery said, if Smurf says something in HB is good/crap we'd take his word for it, and there's no specific need for activity if all your doing is saying "yes this is meta/no this isn't meta". If the point ever arose that none of these people were on, i think simple community consensus would also work as a backup. I also like some of the suggestions Panic made in his "policy 2009" thing. I like the idea that builds in "build:" still undergo real vetting, while builds in "meta:" are exempt from it (considering everyone would pretty much 5-5 it). That obviously means less policing from admins. <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In this policy, Build: would just become Theory:, basically, for a better clarification. Also, Mizzles, while all of us do understand this, the whorus won't, so there'll be a whole bunch of QQing over, once again, "elitist, exclusionist pvxers" because we insta-trash their terrible theorycrafts or lock pages in Theory: because some terrible user keeps moving them to Meta:. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  16:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And then I ban them for not following consensus. That's the great thing about consensus. Consensus != majority vote. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * <3 ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

oye
Some of the stuff's been fixed up. Still need some more input. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  17:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * you say that guides will play a more important role. How do you suggest we go about this, and what kind of Guides are you intending? <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this happen, personally, but I'm not sure it would. I mean, did we really need 3 different Fortressway spike builds? (read: Omegaspike and its variants) Really, we probably needed at least 2 of them, but anyone with an IQ over 90 could've figured out that replacing a with b and c with d would've gotten the same job done. Basically, write up guides for how to form a Balanced team, an Omegaspike team, etc. Or how to make a functional warrior bar. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  19:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the guides section and imo it's a bit lacking, you really want guides for the most common current builds (generally speaking, not one for every since variant) but also for general tactics. For example, I'd like to see stuff like a warrior guide for quarterknocking, tips on using Bull's or whatever, that "dance" thingummy (you know, moving between hits, I forget the various names) et.c. and tips on interrupting and so on. Basically how to use the skills on the bars (like an expanded "Usage" section - most people don't bother with this anyway or when they do it's like "use Strip Enchantment to remove key enchantments"). 86.24.115.34 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifics of game mechanics like qstepping should be on GWW, at least that's where I've been writing them. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I guess (since these should be guides on how to use builds, not play the game generally), though I'm not sure where you'd draw the line. Like, stepping is not at all build-related really, but quarterknocking kinda is (since it's only used in builds with KDs like hammer builds) and what about tips on using Bull's? OK maybe that should go on Bull's Strike's wiki page but then maybe it should go on a guide for warriors who use Bull's (since it's mostly ony run on wars anyway). And then what about when/how to use Shock so as to get the most from it without killing yourself with exhaustion? Should that go on a Shock Axe guide since it's used primarily in Shock Axe and in a different way to how it might otherwise be used? All I'm saying is there are lots of useful tips and things which would go great in a guide. Now you mention it, it does make more sense to leave it up to gww to handle a lot of stuff like that, but imo there are probably still some things which would find a place here (especially since it makes sense to have guides like this in the same place as the relevent builds). 82.20.26.198 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh look
a policy that wants more inputtttt. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  15:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * you've not mentioned where we put newly submitted builds. You say they go through stub trial and testing as they currently do, but do we submit them to the Build namespace and then meta builds reside in a new Meta namespace and theory crafts stay in build or what? <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Meta goes straight to meta. Shit goes to theory. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   16:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * did we ever decied if "theory" builds would have a lifespan? (I.E. Builds that have been in theory for 2 months get deleted) <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   16:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like people to use their user space for more of that stuff, but no one else is as awesome as me. I think we were edging towards only keeping great builds in theory or something. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   16:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly because there'd be no reason to keep "Good"- or "Other"- rated theorycrafts. Right now, Theory builds would be as permanent as any other build. Really, it wouldn't make sense to delete them, since the moment one is deleted, at least 3 dupes of it would pop up thanks to the over-excited theorycrafting delegation. Any arguments against keeping only "Great" theories? Also, for the moment, I'd imagine we'd just use the Build namespace for testinig/trial/stub. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Easiest laziest implementation is build = theory. We don't really need voting in meta so we could even be super lazy and not even make the proper namespace! But we should... [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be for that - just assume a build is a theory craft to begin with. ofc, certain cases are outstanding (i.e. Frosty posting into meta because gg obs). ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this going to completely replace the whole voting system then, since right now there's a bit of a problem with stuff like MATHway, which got trashed but is still run. As it's kind of meta, it ought to be on a wiki which documents that meta, but as a trash-rated build what is it stored as? Obviously eliminating vetting completely would get around this, but if you're not planning on doing that you might want to consider some change that would solve the problem (ok it's only minor I know but still). 82.20.26.198 17:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between meta and "if you lose to this, you're a bunch of autists". If you get past UW with a Mathway, you might as well run a non-terrible build since you've clearly got halfway decent players. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

oi shitters
Look, PvX used to be a place for meta builds to be. Now it is a place where pride builds are (bars that aren't run by anyone, but are vetted for the sake of having more "Great" builds). The site should be JUST meta builds, with everything else put into namespace. Thats not difficult. Just a yes or no vote on the vote tab as to whether or not it is meta. 75%+ means it becomes meta. Otherwise delete it or put it in user space. After 3+ months or a large skill change builds can undergo voting again as to whether or not it is still meta. The numbers im throwing out (3 months, 75%) are just off the top of my head, they should be perfected. The meta vote is a very quick way to screen out the bad builds that people come here to post. ''' TL;dr: If it isn't meta, get it off the build namespace. ''' 67.159.45.96 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be damned. If it isn't an anon trying to be tough and cool and calling us shitters. I know you're a bit butthurt over fact that the site you cba to login or register at didn't turn out the way you'd like, but read through the policy before hitting "Discussion" - you clearly didn't read anything. Your suggestions aren't terrible, but you present them like an autist who was fondled a bit too much as a child. Also, there's no need to actually even vote on a build - just come to a concensus. We know who's terrible and who's not, and therefore who to listen to and who to ignore. As it is, this policy is trying to utilize the current rating system, seeing as I'm not certain how keen the Wikia staff is about re-vampinig the Ratings system. The reason theorycrafts are being permitted, and a Theory namespace developed, is so that the theorycrafting shitters have somewhere to stroke their e-peens. tl;dr stop tl;dr'ing discussion, then coming along and thinking you're chock-full of bright and original ideas, and everything you've thought of hasn't been thought of before. Also, don't be a faggot next time and I won't have to wall o' text you. ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * lol? you have a half finished policy with ideas that make no sense. who gives a shit about asses who come here to stroke their e-peens. the site is for people to get on, get the build they need, and get off. its not an ego fest, so putting random shit ideas into the site is aboslutely pointless. when did i ever say my ideas were bright and original? the point is, what i posted above is a GOOD idea, whether or not it is original is besides the point. you write half a wall of text full of pointless insults, and then when you finally start talking you make no sense. if you go throught he trouble of making a policy, write it correctly and make it good. dont make it shitterish for the sake of letting ppl ego-fuck each other. it seems that your so focused on getting this exact policy passed that you aren't willing to consider that it isn't the best thing for the site. put your ego aside and use your fucking head. 67.159.45.96 18:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now where did I put my dramallama for times like these..... Oh, and anon, feel free to write up a policy with your idea. Or you could stfu. Either way is fine. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">18:25, 8 June 2009
 * see KJ, that is where your stupidity is staggering. i give a good idea, but instead of assesing it and discussing it, you just go on about drama and tell me to stfu. the fact that im on an anon has nothing to do with it. either DISCUSS it like the page is named, or don't post. you acting cool using memes adds nothing to the conversation. you think picking on anons is cool and all, but honeslty you sound like an idiot throwing your worthless two cents into this conversation. 67.159.45.96 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling, please. The policy page makes plenty of sense to anyone that has spent more than 1 day on this website (which you clearly have).  If you disagree with something on that's on the page, then clearly state how you disagree and propose an improvement.  From your original comment, it sounded like you agreed with the proposed policy in spirit, anyways.  It's just the question of how to deal with theorycrafting that everyone got pissy about, which is tbh a minor detail. --Mafaraxas 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i stated clearly what i thought, and instead of addressing the issue people like cedave and KJ just come and attack the fact that im using an anon to post it. its not a matter of trolling, its retaliation for shit like 'your an autist who was fondled as a baby'. KJ brought nothing but more drama to the conversation so i told him to go fuck himself. even THIS conversation has gone from constructive to insults and people telling others to not insult eachother. 67.159.45.96 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Less drama, more action. Type up your policy suggestion and quit bitching. The End. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">18:44, 8 June 2009
 * KJ, there was no drama until you came here acting like an ass. its a discussion page, where people give ideas. i dont have to go write a policy because im using the page for what it was made for, talking about changes to this project page. honestly, learn what you are talking about and stop posting insults just because im anonning. 67.159.45.96 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Less drama, more action. Type up your policy suggestion and quit bitching. The End. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">18:44, 8 June 2009 " Has nothing to do with you anoning. Just type up your suggestion so we can discuss it. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">18:54, 8 June 2009
 * did you even read the first paragraph or did u just see that i was an anon and decide to post like an idiot? 67.159.45.96 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it, but it needs more detail to be a suggestion. I would recommend typing up a more detailed suggestion so we can discuss it. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">19:08, 8 June 2009
 * oh so i should be more specific, like saying 75%+ votes makes meta, or every 3 months revote. how much more specific does it get? anyone that reads it understands the underlying points, i dont need to copy and paste the current vetting process like cedave did on this project. 67.159.45.96 19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where would new builds go? How would the voting process be restructured? How many votes are required before builds can be moved? How would the revoting process be handled? By the deletion of votes? Etc. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">19:13, 8 June 2009
 * scroll up. i said already they go in the build namespace, and the ones that we are getting rid of go back into the user namespace (probabably only if requested for though). i said theyd be revoted. i didn't say how many votes, but thats common sense (5). youre trying to poke holes in the argument for no reason, just to defend yourself for coming here and acting like an idiot. either start making real contributions or again, gtfo... 67.159.45.96 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm still confused. How and where do you disagree with what this policy says? From everything you've said, it seems like you agree with it.... [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">19:27, 8 June 2009
 * i cant tell if youre trolling or if youre just an idiot. this vetting system still rates builds 0-5, which is absolutely useless. it has a theorycraft section, which cedave says "is to let people stroke their e-peens with". its also poorly written, and doesn't take into account how to make sure that the meta stays here and non meta stays off, which is why i was discussing the 3 month/skill update plan before you came here and started causing drama just because im an anon. 67.159.45.96 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever said I did it just because you're an anon? I do this to everyone. And I agree with your no voting idea, but someone needs to write them up. Also, lol @ all the e-peen references considering the hypocrisy. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">20:49, 8 June 2009

I smell a whole lot of Autism on the way. <font color="Blue">Frosty <font color="Blue"> the <font color="Blue">Admin 18:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * huzzah! autism! Where's Luke? [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">18:30, 8 June 2009
 * I wasn't picking on anyone. I merely suggested that you type up your policy suggestion so we can see exactly what you're talking about. Otherwise you can stfu. It's kind of a "shit or get off the pot" suggestion. Take it or leave it, idc. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">18:37, 8 June 2009
 * So, anon isn't actually an anon. He's either a banned shitter or a shitter who cbf logging in. Either way, you just lost any argument you ever could have had, you furry autist faggot. (See, I can make insults, too!) ··· Danny   Does   Drugs  18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * in regards to the Anons first post, I believe the point of this policy is to separate Meta builds, from everything else. Builds will be decide if they're meta or not. Meta builds will be moved to a new name space (meta) and everything else is left in the build name space. The builds in the build namespace, will undergo the current vetting system (with some slight changes to boundaries). As for your other issue of clearing crap every so often, that's something we kind of do through archiving. Anything else will jsut naturally go down. If there's a big update we can always have a clear out though. <font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#9400D3">Sysop   19:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I love you, Phen. You always make things simple w/o sounding like an ass (which I apparently can't do). [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">19:40, 8 June 2009

shitters
For those who couldn't tell because KJ made this such a long and winded discussion, here are my qualms with this: 67.159.45.96 20:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 0-5 scale for meta builds is useless. It's meta for a reason.
 * No plan for how to make sure that builds that have fallen out of the meta are archived. I propose that every 3 months (or it can be any amount of time, im throwing out a number) a build is revoted, or if there is a large skill update.
 * Theorycraft section is useless. If people want to stroke their e-peens then they can do it in their namespace, not in our build space.
 * Poorly written.
 * We don't want voting on meta builds, just meta ye or no. It is poorly written, but no one has been fucked to rewrite it based on the talk page yet. I actually really agree on the theorycraft section, fuck off to your user space, but no one is as awesome as us Mr. IP. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   20:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I cbf to read all that above. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   20:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vetting

Rating is on a scale of 0 (hopeless) to 5 (excellent). is what the PP says. 67.159.45.96 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I fully agree with you (asidess from still needing to vote because zzz), whoru?;o Brandnew 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * its not really a matter of voting, its the 0-5 aspect of voting. if were keeping just meta builds, why do they need a number. and im the king of blight monks. 67.159.45.96 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Address: 141 w jackson blvd. suite 1135, Chicago, IL. Phone number (312)786-1695. No idea who the user is, but I have a good idea of how to stalk them (except it's probably just the server location). And I actually agree with the no voting on meta builds. "Yes meta" or "not meta" should suffice. We need someone to actually type it up though :D. [[File:KJ badge sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">20:41, 8 June 2009
 * it is a server location. 67.159.45.96 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah, I was stalking someone that had that on their userpage but I can't remember who.  Life [[Image:WikiLOD7.gif]] 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, anon, your opinion is that PvX should only hold builds that everyone's running. That's your opinion, and others can have a different one. Ever thought of that? It's not "all builds on PvX need to be meta, and all others need to be deleted," it's "I think all builds on PvX should be meta, and other builds should be moved to usespace." It is my opinion that builds that work well should be in buildspace, and not be stuck in userspace where no one but vets get to see them. Especially in PvE, people like to run different builds, so restricting stuff only to meta is just retarded (also, lolPvEmeta). Of course in PvP, I can completely understand your point; people are most likely to be running optimized builds, not ones that are simply fun to play. IMO, a site that only carries cookie-cutter builds, for PvE at least, is a pretty shitty site indeed. -- Jai Goes <font color="Purple">Monksassin Monksassin-icon.png 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)