User talk:DannyOnCurse/Clean-Up

Tbh, with the current level of admin activity, this wouldn't change anything even if it was a policy. It's probably too late to save PvX anyway. So many guys have just left..... 21:27, 13 July 2009

wall of text V 1.0
"Users who consistently show hostility towards the community, especially the administrative team, and who consistently produce and contest trash builds will be banned"
 * Users who are constantly/consistently (whichever you'd prefer) to whoever should be banned, and I would argue it's already under NPA (Spirit of the policy vs the letter).
 * As for the "consistently produce trash builds" users, banning them seems a bit extreme, if they're just contesting trash builds ("it's not trash it's the bestest build ever-er-er") constantly, then yes, a ban is probably a given.

"The length of the ban will increase at a rate of no less than 100% each time they display hostility."
 * You should leave the ban period to sysop discretion. For instance they may just be saying the "admins suck" or "everyone here sucks", and only a slap on the rest is neccassary each time (obviously it will increase each time), but if they started by saying the previous examples, then one day said "you're all mother fucking cocks I hope you choke on a cock and die" (for example) the ban would be significantly longer.
 * so basically I'd just change it to say something like "ban duration will increase with each ban, as deemed necessary by a sysop"

"New Users" (i'm jsut going to do this whole section at once =p.)
 * Yes wiki newbies tend to QQ, about how their epic build was unfairly trashed by people who haven't tested it, some of these newbies accept that and try again, they're the good kind of users we'd like to stick around. The ones who QQ and rage quit just generally are unwilling to learn from the experience, and are adamant that their builds are all great (obviously if you're submitting a build you think it's awesome, but most people can learn to live with it getting trashed).
 * Informing them of policies is something we can do quite easily actually. There's a feature wikia offers where a bot can leave a message on a users talk page when they make their first edit, which we can customise (it's kind of annoying but it would get new users to look at policies). It's also worth pointing out, that you actually don't really need to read any policies (with the exception of EB and VETTING), as long as you apply common sense. I'd also like some reference to what happens to users who flame new users, e.g. a warning and if persisted a ban, or should it be left entirely up to the sysops discretion?

"As noted above, much of PvX's userspace has become disturbingly stagnant and counter-productive."
 * well, yeh. The keyword there is "userspace". Strictly speaking, we don't mind if you're not talking about GW in your userspace, as long as you're not excessivly spamming or posting random shit (so no wtf chains or singing, or kept to a the occasional edit and minor edits, and a page off the users talk page). You can talk about other games, talk about what's going on in the world etc.

"Users should be encouraged to write Guides and flesh out build articles in areas in which they have experience"
 * True, but how do you encourage someone to do this?

"A recent trend of using Build articles as Guides has produced many builds of exceptionally low quality and, in some cases, which contain excessive amounts of text"
 * what? PvP builds are usually just a page with 4/8 bars on them now, that's it, no usage equipment, variants or counters (normally). I've tried stubbing these, but most people just end up bitching: "you can't describe how to use this in a few simple bullet points, you'd need a guide to explain it", or my personal favourite "it uses standard equipment" (so what? put what the standard equipment is >.>)
 * PvE builds are better, they'll generally have the required sections, and most will generally have a detailed usage section, even if it's a giant wall of text, it's useful information (I'd rather spend 5 mins reading a wall of text learning how to use a new build, then having to spend a few hours working it out for myself ("oh so i'm supposed to have this quest" or "oh so I go that way and the other person kills that group!" for example)).

"Builds which are so resemblant of other Builds that they only differ in title, a select few skills, and usage"
 * Builds that differ only in title should be tagged as a dupe, no user can argue that one.
 * If they only different a few skills, I'd say that has to be dealt on a case by case basis, sometimes those few skills are important (such as the various ranger builds where only the elite is different), and as such the usage will be quite different. If the different skills are minor in comparison, and the build it's a dupe of can do this builds job, then merge them.

"Guides should also be listed more prominently on the Main Page once this task begins to be accomplished, as they're currently not nearly as visible as builds are."
 * hey look a place we can suggest changes to the main page!

Summary: Enjoy!  ~ PheNaxKian talk  22:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The new users bit is useful, I suggest you go look at the policy Big started and fix it up how Auron suggested on the talk page, and try getting that done.
 * 2) Suggest a note on the RV talk page that PvP builds have to meet the requirements as outlined by the RV policy, or be put back to stub at best, or deleted at worst.
 * 3) Make you're desired changes to the main page Editcopy so we can see what you had in mind, and find something we all agree on.
 * 4) The rest is unnecessary really =)
 * "Users who consistently show hostility towards the community, especially the administrative team, and who consistently produce and contest trash builds will be banned"
 * The first part of the policy is by all means intended to help stem the flood of terrible builds every time a skill balance occurs. I'll edit it to include something about users who can't bother to use the Search function.
 * "The length of the ban will increase at a rate of no less than 100% each time they display hostility."
 * "Sysop discretion" sounds a bit waffle-y, but it works for me.
 * "New Users"
 * The problem isn't so much current users as it often is new users. On Wikipedia, there was a time where many long-time members were being banned for showing "hostility" towards new users. What eventually came out was that these new users were simply not reading previous discussions - when someone blatantly ignores policy or tells you they can't be bothered to read through previous decisions, it can be stressful and will often result in violations of 1RV, NPA, CHILL, and numerous other policies. It isn't the userbase's job to integrate new users, it is the job of the new users to integrate themselves.
 * PvX's policies are set in place, and our standards can be easily seen when visiting the talk pages of popular builds. Directing new users to these may be necessary, but it should not be necessary for current users to be patient with them - immigrants to other nations, including the U.S., are not provided a grace period in which they're forgiven if they violate standing laws.
 * "As noted above, much of PvX's userbase* has become disturbingly stagnant and counter-productive."
 * You misquoted that. It reads "userbase". The userspace of this wiki is an entirely different issue that I have no intention of addressing. The userbase, however, is largely comprised of trolls and members who have little knowledge of the areas in which they intend to edit or who are intrinsically biased due to guild affiliations, etc.
 * "Users should be encouraged to write Guides and flesh out build articles in areas in which they have experience"
 * You well all but one of the builds that all function the same way, then move the last one to a Guide. Simple enough. I'll work on a 600/Smite Guide as an example today, if I remember.
 * "A recent trend of using Build articles as Guides has produced many builds of exceptionally low quality and, in some cases, which contain excessive amounts of text"
 * The PvP section isn't what worries me. Guides can be written for general tactics on maps, but beyond that it would be unnecessarily difficult to explain how to run each build through each HA or GvG map. The PvE section, particularly the SCs, is. You can only really learn either through experience, but the next section will explain it better.
 * "Builds which are so resemblant of other Builds that they only differ in title, a select few skills, and usage"
 * Most of the PvE builds being submitted, especially the SCs, are all the same concept done over and over again. This should explain it rather thoroughly. These PvE builds could easily be merged into a Guide with sub-articles or sub-builds for the specific variations.
 * "Guides should also be listed more prominently on the Main Page once this task begins to be accomplished, as they're currently not nearly as visible as builds are."
 * Right now our guide section is a joke. I'll produce an editcopy once it's a bit less of a joke. ;o
 * There wasn't anything else in the policy, afaik. o_O
 * ··· [[File:Danny-sig.png]] 18:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not finished reading, and I probably won't respond until much later, but it actually does say userspace =p, just under "all users" in the first sentance (where I copy and pasted from, so I've not edited it)  ~ PheNaxKian talk  18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * oops. fixed. :> ··· [[File:Danny-sig.png]] 18:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Zzz. I had started to make a CoP guide when it was still good, as you suggested, but noone was interested. It sounds nice and ideal to have all these guides and I certainly think it has the potential to neaten things up but is this what normal uses of pvx want? Your average pve user (and there is more than you think, judging by the number of wiki builds in game) will just search "urgoz" and for it to tell them they can complete in casters, warriors or whatever and each with a relevent usage guide. I doubt it would be the case that someone would think "oh, manlyway, wonder where that can be run" and then scrolling through a long page of variants and usages to find what they want - the DSC variants taught me that only slight variants can get very messy very quickly, so although great in theory, I dont think GuideWiki will really work in practice.  Athrun Feya   [agro]  21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, judging by the users who mistook the Ask a Question box for the Search box, most users search for terms that will never get them anywhere or the name of the build they saw someone spouting in ToA. Having separate build articles that stick to a certain standard (Manlyspike Urgoz, Manlyspike FoWSC) won't hurt, but the massive amount of text on them that is simply copy-pasted from one build to another or that needs to be there to understand how the build functions but isn't there could be easily condensed into a single Guide article explaining the basic mechanics. The basic bars, as well, could be displaced to the Guide, and the Guide and Builds could be inter-linked to provide easy cross-reference. I'm not necessarily talking about deleting the build articles so much as condensing them.
 * Another option is to swap my idea and make a primary Manlyspike Build article with links to Guides for various areas which would contain walkthroughs and necessary variants. ··· [[File:Danny-sig.png]] 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically you're suggesting guides to explain the "theorycraft" in brief, something a long the lines of this very outdated CoP guide, that then links to other acticles? Oh standard naming would be great btw.  Athrun Feya   [agro]  21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * *Cough*  ~ PheNaxKian talk  22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * to start, you guys can decide between Manly Spike and Poroway. I couldn't give a fuck myself. ··· [[File:Danny-sig.png]] 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Phen, and that was linked because? Most, if not all, follow those guidelines, but there's still a big difference. For example, "FoW Speedclear" "Cryway Deep Group" and "Urgoz's Cryway" have quite different name formats, despite all being the same theorycraft. Poroway was based around the paragons, so a build without them couldnt be called that, so came up with a new name which I think has stuck  Athrun Feya   [agro]  22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Time to rewrite PW:NAME, then. Fixed the first 2, but bullshit throttling means someone else needs to go here and fix it. ··· [[File:Danny-sig.png]] 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with NAME, it's people naming something FoW Speedclear, when you could probably speedclear it about 50 different ways.  ~ PheNaxKian talk  22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But that had been named when speedclears were uncommon and it was unusual, not to mention UWSC has always been a pretty standard thing with a few variants.  Athrun Feya   <font color="RosyBrown">[agro]  22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When it was uncommon that's fine, but when SC became the thing to do, we should have moved it to a more descriptive name (so "FoW SomethingWay"), UWSC could be "UW PermaWay" idk, the names should follow the pattern "Area KeySkill/Playerway", that's descriptive, I know it's for "Area" and it's uses the "KeySkill/Player" (which will generally be associated with a given type of build, such as how I know CryWay will have most of the users bring CoP) <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ups
new section because loltext. also, fixed most of those name issues. ··· 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

?
by your own suggestions you would have been perma'd by now. "Users who consistently show hostility towards the community". like you posting on the AN that kids need to "uninstall" and are "terrible niggers"? like you telling people that their builds are terrible instead of giving suggestions on how to fix them? id bet anything that you would give me a response full of insults if i wasn't bringing it up right now (then again you might even still, purely because of your asinine nature). 66.90.73.246 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you fix a build like Andy 22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * lolurbad. i usually call people "terrible niggers" after they show a clear ineptitude for both guild wars and human interaction. i also usually tell people to "uninstall" because they don't understand basic game mechanics but claim to be good. context helps, tbh. also, whoru? also also, PW:NPA probably would've bought me a good ban by now, too, if it weren't for the fact that calling someone a name isn't considered hostile around these parts. ··· [[File:Danny-sig.png]] 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet...XD <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)