PvXwiki talk:BM Testing

I like this idea. Weird builds get into great (or good) and good builds go to other, or even trash sometimes. Having a BM vote before it can be categorized is a really good idea, but would require more BM's. Also, these BM's should be going through the Testing section regularly to make sure no build gets left there for too long. And some more PvE-oriented BM's would also be nice (not saying that the current ones don't know anything about PvE, just saying they have a nice userbox saying they're primarily PvP'ers), again to prevent builds from not receiving any love. - (snō hwīt tăn)  [sic]   [găl'ə-rē]  07:33, 23 February 2008 (EST)


 * I do agree. IMO, make it for all builds. Bob fregman, nice policy. --[[image:GoD Sig3.jpg|20px]] Guild of  Deals  12:33, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Good policy, not enough BMs for it to really work imo. --71.229 19:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
 * So get more then. It's a good proposal. Although you should make sure the BM's you appoint aren't complete assholes have some insight in whether a build is good or not. Controlling that will have to be done better, which can pose a problem.  Drag  nmn   talk cont  17:43, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 * The problem lies there. With so many people, there are always some people who think of someone as a 'complete asshole'. - Star Seeker  |  My talk  17:45, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 * (EC)Usually people think BM's are elitist assholes because these people are stubborn and don't want people to trash their builds. BM's know GW and they know builds, hence the fact that they're BM's. Good policy.  ɟoʇuɐʌ ʎʞɔıɹ [[Image:Panic_srsbsns.gif|37px]] 17:45, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 * There are elitists, and sometimes I do understand that people don't always like that. But yeah, I like the policy. - Star Seeker  |  My talk  17:46, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 * would need like a million more BMs. GL finding someone for all those pve builds. If your gonna do this make it apply only to pvp builds.  Antiarchangel [[Image:Antiarchangel No U Sig.png|19px]] NO U  18:19, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Pretty much what I said on the other policy. Perhaps it would be viable if only builds vetted Other or above required BM attention. It's really only the huge numbers of Trash builds that would require more BMs, but the author will QQ on the AN and there are two weeks to fix any mistakes with mistakenly trashed builds. That way I don't think many more BMs would be required, but a couple more might not hurt. Another build category should be implemented "Requiring BM vote" so BMs could check that periodically and clear it out, much like WELL for admins. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   -TALK  10:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 * It would be easy enough to change policy so that there's a new tag similar to the Other/Good/Great tags that informs viewers that the build has been vetted by 5 members of the community, but not a BM. It would then exist in both the Other/Good/Great category and another "Requires BM voting" category. Anything that's voted into trash should fall under the AN policy of appeals against bad votes. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]]  sexiness!  10:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think those temps would be too hard to make. In fact, it might be easier to do something like in the form  . Would simplify things a lot. You don't need to remember the names of 9 different templates.  Drag  nmn   talk cont  10:45, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 * What? You are talking about two different ratings, one from BMs, one from regular users? That sir, is a different policy proposal. I think what we are talking about here is more just popping on top of a build in testing when it gets 5 votes instead of moving it straight to good or whatever. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]]  isery   -TALK  11:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 * My bad. I had them confused. Drag  nmn   talk cont  13:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 * If the BM does his job, the build is rated before getting into favored. I myself camp untested, and i think tab also does. Also; remind that BM's already have the control of moving something into favored or having a bad favored build into unfavored, since of that we can remove the bad votes. I think it's better not to take this propose, as it takes alot of effort and the ending result is just a small difference. And again; pretty much most of the build masters we have are all pvp, and just check pve a little bit. That means the PvE section will be crushed. —ǘŋ  Ɛxɩsƫ  05:30, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * However; it might be something different, but i purpose a BM-way to insta-vet something(and by that, I mean like, if it's a meta build, being able to put it in great when it's made by them, or checked). Might be that the democracy will get overwelmed, but 9/10 times it will circle around the BM's rating anyway. —ǘŋ  Ɛxɩsƫ  05:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Tab is strong PvE. In retrospect, as long as BMs stay very active, current system works. BMs used to be slightly more inactive than right now. Occasionally builds slip through into great or good but they tend to get removalspiked. Don't really need the straight into great thing. Meta builds get 5-5-5s anyway. - 05:37, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Insta vetting isn't a good idea imo. It's taking the elitist asepct of BMs a bit too far. Generally, BMs will have enough influence to be able to vet something into a certain category if they feel it's needed. And yes, Tab is strong PvE. --[[Image:Ibreaktoilets_Signature.jpg|User:Ibreaktoilets|20px]]Tab  Moo  05:38, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

I suppose you mean by saying 'BM's used to be more inactive than right now' you mean, tab has become a BM? Pluto/Zurrie are still inactive tbh, and i'd suppose they won't become more active anyway as it's pvx. —ǘŋ Ɛxɩsƫ  10:32, 7 June 2008 (EDT)


 * If there were more BM's, this would be better. Still, ATM, it doesn't work that well. --Guild of Deals * Wah Wah  Wah! * 10:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Agreed; and neither can more BM's be made because the rest just fails at gw. God  box   11:02, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Delete?
Basically the same as the other BM voting suggested policy, but this one isn't as "fleshed out". PheNaxKian Sysop   11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)