PvXwiki talk:BM Vetting

Free bone dragon from gcardinal if this gets passed. Misfate 22:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)

{ec} Nope. Plus, there's not enough active BMs to uphold this. &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  22:44, 30 January 2008 (EST)
 * Before this could be implemented, we will need more Build Masters. We can't expect the few we have now to review every single build on the wiki. &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 22:45, 30 January 2008 (EST)
 * Build Master-worthy candidates then. &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  22:47, 30 January 2008 (EST)

+1, if we can get enough BMs -- Armond Warblade 23:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)


 * Favoured. We need more BMs, however. FAR more BMs. Napalm Flame  >=] [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)·(contributions) 12:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

We'd have to make anyone who can think a bm before this would work. Even then, we might be a few short. Lord Belar 15:29, 31 January 2008 (EST)


 * I dunno, I think a dozen BMs or so could deal with all the votes needed. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 16:53, 31 January 2008 (EST)
 * 20-30 is more reasonable. Napalm Flame  >=] [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)·(contributions) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (EST)
 * 15-20 would work. Problem is, we only have like 15-20 voters as is. All this would do would keep random people from voting. Which wouldn't be a bad thing. Lord Belar 18:02, 31 January 2008 (EST)

To be perfectly honest, whether or not I agree with this proposal (and I have not formed an opinion as of yet), this is highly impractical. Am I the only one who doubts that Gcardinal would allow this to happen? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  18:03, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I've been thinking about this some, and I think I came up with a better way to do it that's a) more practical and b) still accomplishes the goals I had in mind when writing this. I probably won't get around to rewriting it until tomorrow or the day after, though. &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (EST)

So basically... I can just stop voting because it doesn't make a difference anyway? Dark Morphon  (contribs)  11:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * That wasn't really my intention when writing this, it just kinda came out that way. I'm pretty sure the plan for the search system included the ability to search by rating, so it wouldn't be difficult to allow users to choose to search by BM ratings or everyone's ratings. So while BM ratings would be the only things determining whether it gets tagged with a good, great, other or whatnot, people wouldn't be using those tags to find builds nearly as much. But anyway, I'm planning on rewriting this to make it less drastic. &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 13:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Rewrite
Discuss. &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * Like. [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (T/C/Sysop) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * That seems very much more balanced than the current system. Selket Shadowdancer 14:59, 1 February 2008 (EST)


 * Agree that more BMs are needed. If you need one BM vote to get it out of testing more BMs are needed. God  box   15:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I don't see why builds need more than one BM vote to trash them. -Shen 15:52, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * In the case of differing opinion I would assume. Selket Shadowdancer 15:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * In any case one BM is "wrong", discussion takes place. I see this as really limiting. -Shen 15:59, 1 February 2008 (EST)

This is dumb. Opposed. &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  16:27, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * Agreed. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:52, 2 February 2008 (EST)
 * Me too. -Shen 16:49, 2 February 2008 (EST)
 * Is there a specific part you guys think is stupid? Because pretty much everything after the first three bullet points is just me tossing ideas out there. <font color="#CD2626">&not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (EST)
 * BM's are given vote weight for a reason. Taking it away and separating the BM's votes is overly complex and accomplishes little, as voters will be inevitably swayed, and in the chance they aren't, BM's will be able to remove votes that do not correspond with theirs'. Vote Weight simplifies the whole thing and allows a build to be more accurately rated. Just first impressions. -<font color="Black">Shen 20:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)

This doesn't look that bad but I'm not gonna vote anymore anyway. <font color="Black">Dark <font color="Black">Morphon <font color="Black"> (contribs)  12:01, 2 February 2008 (EST)


 * This, similar to Bob's idea, makes BM's more than just vote removers and weighted voters. And I like that. Having a build stay in testing until a Build Master has given it a look and a vote will, I believe, raise the quality of builds in this place. But, as I said on Bob's proposal's talk and has been mentioned many times here, this would necessitate the introduction of more BM's, which again isn't that bad an idea. Full support from me on this. - <font color="#000080">(nō'vĭk dăn tĕt') [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] [snō hwīt tăn] 04:24, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * Mine was here first :P (and yeah, we definitely would need more BMs). But to respond to Shen's comment above, this would allow us to give more leeway in vote removal (i.e. - allowing some opinion in there, basing votes partly on ease-of-use, etc.) but would then make it so that "bad" votes wouldn't affect the BM rating. <font color="#CD2626">&not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * With the extra leeway in vote removal thing, the first step might be to bold the word "flagrantly" in the rules for vote removal. Or possibly give some examples of what is "flagrantly misrepresenting" a build and what is not. <font color="#CD2626">&not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Changing from full support to partial support. Weighted votes is a good idea and should not be removed. Go bold "flagrantly" anyways though ^^ - <font color="#000080">(nō'vĭk dăn tĕt') [snō hwīt tăn]  01:34, 1 March 2008 (EST)
 * This seems an overly complicated system, similar effects are already achieved. Build masters will remove all the high votes on a build that should be in trashed, vote it low themselves and it ends up in the trash. The opposite effect also happens. 200% weighting and vote removal achieves the same thing and is more transparent. Perhaps builds could require a build master vote to be moved from testing to vetted so it can be guaranteed that at least one build master has looked at a build to check the votes aren't crazy. This would require a new category, requires BM attention, which would go between testing and vetted. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   -TALK  10:19, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Seems outdone by current real vetting procedure, we assume that BM's are correct, so why give them a seperate voting system instead of weigted votes in a coloberated system. <font color="Blue">Frosty <font color="Blue"> po!  21:48, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * yarr. pretty pointless when the current system seems to work. - [[Image:Panic_sig7.gif‎]] 04:52, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * yeah, if its meta, delete all votes under 5-5, otherwise 0-0 it if another build works better--Relyk 06:07, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wouldn't the same thing be taken care of by just increasing BM vote influence to 300%? -- &mdash;The preceding trolling attempt was made by Chaos (talk) . 06:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's a possibility, since there aren't many (active) BM's their votes should really count. [[Image:Frostrage.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Frosty <font color="Blue"> po!  06:25, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * If it's not used more than rarely in the current meta, it shouldn't be on here (or it should be archived) in my opinion. Things are vetted Great far too often and the category's lost any meaning. - [[Image:Panic_sig7.gif‎]] 06:44, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * much agreement [[Image:Frostrage.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Frosty <font color="Blue"> po!  06:59, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * In order for the place to be taken seriously, Great builds must actually be great. As I've said before, there's a lot left to do. [[Image:Biggles.png]] <font face="Arial" color="navy">07:00, 17 February 2009
 * That's kinda what I've been working with on the PvE section lately. -- &mdash;The preceding trolling attempt was made by Chaos (talk) . 07:04, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * the build masters need to get on their jobs. [[Image:Biggles.png]] <font face="Arial" color="navy">07:06, 17 February 2009
 * There's only a page worth og Great builds, and half of them are monk and ranger builds, which are extremely versatile. There won't be many more great builds until an update. The bms dont pve that much which explains the "pve is easy we dont care about it" thing. The builds in pve are pretty much common sense though but there's a lot of crap that needs to be sifted through--Relyk 07:09, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * I say there should be a lot of merges made. Some of these builds are so similar it's crazy. [[Image:Biggles.png]] <font face="Arial" color="navy">07:10, 17 February 2009
 * You need a pretty damn good reason to merge a build tbh. Less information is seldom better. - [[Image:Miserysig.PNG|117px]] (talk)  07:27, 17 February 2009 (EST)

So how do we kill this policy off, because it is pretty inferior to our current system (which is pretty meh at best) <font color="Blue">Frosty <font color="Blue"> po!  02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, you put a failed tag on it and move it to the archived section or something. - [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#0d0">Misery <font color="#0e0">Says <font color="#0f0">Moo   19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)