User talk:Edspecial911

User talkpages are for talking. Userpages are your personal workspace. Also, welcome to the wiki!  —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ  〚 ŞƳŞŌƤ 〛 06:23, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

Your Votes
"im really starting to hate the dicks here who cant read. effectiveness is for how well does the build do what its SUPPOSE to do. i don't care what you want it do do make your own then

and try using the build before thinking your so bad ass sitting behind a screen taking shit about other peoples builds you've never tryed "

I've seen you use this quote on a couple of your votes that other people haven't liked. Not that my opinion matters much, but that's the price of real vetting. People get to share how they feel about the build and if they don't think it works then they have a right to say so, just like you have to right to say it's amazing. Also, insulting people and making false accusations of never trying builds isn't too wise. Some people might get offended. Regards. Punjab 02:28, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

No but i just started so i didn't know that the voting this was or how to vote so i look up what each part meant and i voted based on the categories. but other people just put 0/0/0 for everything if you never have tryed it or just looked at the skills pictures and say"hmm doesn't look pretty" i know its not your fault but something has to be done. Edspecial911

Just to clarify something, while effectiveness is "theoretically" based on what a build is "supposed" to do, if that something isn't effective, the build as a whole cannot possibly be effective. For example, an Ab Earth Ele Tank might be "good" at tanking, but the concept is ineffective. On the other hand, some people might say that the build deserved a 4 or a 5 in effectiveness because it can tank well. However, since you cannot say that the build, given the context, is good, would you still expect us to retain it? That's the problem. A few criterion cannot possibly hope to embody all the elements of a build, and in the same way, an explanation of one of the criteria cannot possibly hope to embody all of the elements that go into that criteria. The actual theory behind the line in the explanation of effectiveness which you cite was to prevent people from doing something stupid like: This monk sucks, it can't gank nearly as well as my Sin build! Finally, while we don't like to "compare" builds, in that same vein of only retaining good builds, we don't want to retain builds that accomplish a specific task less effectively than others (again taking into account the context), which "skews" the votes to an extent since people compensate for that when voting. Hope that helps a little. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  05:47, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

And I quote from PvXwiki:Real Vetting: "A vote may not be submitted by a sock puppet. Users who didn't edit a single page on the wiki yet are in general suspected to be sock puppets. If in doubt, a user may be requested to provide an in-game name on his user page.". May wish to keep that in mind. Oh, and tell User:Ccssneo, User:DqSniper and User:Ojc011 for me. –Ichigo724 05:46, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
 * I'm not sure about Ccssneo, and Ojc011 is not (or at least, Ojc011 doesn't share an IP with this user), but you do share an IP with User:DqSniper which means that it is in fact sockpuppetry. I'm gonna go and remove that vote.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:49, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
 * I'm also gonna go ahead and ban User:DqSniper. Feel free to email me, but the facts say that the IP is the same.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:52, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

no i do not he made his account 2 days ago same time i did he was posting a build but since is confusing to post a build here he asked me to go on his account and post it for him next time he logs in check it wont be me Edspecial911
 * Going on someone else's account wouldn't make you show up as having the same IP. That's like signing a business card with someone else's name. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 06:10, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
 * Ok... I did some investigating, and it would appear that User:DqSniper put the build in the sandbox before you (or more precisely, your IP address) ever edited it which leads me to believe that the two accounts are in fact seperate. I apologize for the misunderstanding.  In the future however, please understand that you should never log into someone else's account.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  06:14, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Its cool dude i just didn't wanna get in trouble for something that i really didn't do Edspecial911