User talk:Jaigoda/Policy

Obviously the main thing I'm talking about is whether cross-profession comparison is valid or not. Other than that, it really seems like pretty much everyone agrees with Toraen's build standards. So could we actually get some civil, meaningful discussion on this topic, such as pros/cons or simply arguments for/against allowing (or disallowing) comparing different professions in voting? -- Jai .  -  02:41, May 2 2012 (UTC)
 * Fact is, people think this is a shitty fake law, because this is in an userspace etc. I find it funny since theyre arguing about the equally skilled teams in PvP. This is not a policy nor a fake law, this is something you should know. As I already said on the talk page of the FA Shittandru Tank: Hoping for a tank to work in PvP and then get vetted by PvX is like hoping that a person falls into traps placed by rangers not because of good placement, but because the person itself runs onto the traps. Silent   ( Chonsy )  16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad example, the build was super effective at trolling both luxons and pvxers. Cɥıǝɟʇɐıu Alǝx  16:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Chieftain Alex used Melandru's Tank! Its super effective! Silent   ( Chonsy )  17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I was hoping we could actually make it policy, instead of just dicking around about it. -- Jai .  -  18:24, May 2 2012 (UTC)
 * The cross-profession thing is more a guideline of argumenting against a build from being in the buildspace. There still has to be several requirements; 1. Good use of primary attribute 2. widely used gimmick. E.g. ER prot or meleemancer. ~  Ӎiñon Minion_Watching_Jew.jpeg 19:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You make zero sense. ER prot was never widely used until well after it being posted on Guru and PvX, and the "meleemancer" was trashed and definitely was not widely-used. The P/A Dagger Spammer isn't widely used either, but it was vetted because it's one of the only decent options a Para has for use with heroes. Same with pretty much all of the dagger spammer builds: They don't really bring anything to the table compared to sin primary (especially warrior and para) but they're still good options for their respective professions compared to the other possible builds. -- Jai .  -  19:51, May 2 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, you think anything with a dagger is better than any profession-specific build. ER was widely used by many good players, it was simply not documented as it is now. Meleemancers have been in use since the dawn of Prophecies; more of an alternative style of play. It has only recently become properly usable since powercreep and survivability not being an issue. Para dagger is pretty lame when you're just promoting the play-style of tank and spank, which can be performed with any build. I understand there's also a hammer ranger build... Which is pretty retarded, as far as cross-profession goes. It's about as rare as a meleemancer. ~  Ӎiñon Minion_Watching_Jew.jpeg 20:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to create a policy/set of rules, that say "This is a valid vote, anything that is bad logic or half true etc. can justifiably be removed". However the issues with that is you're still relaying on a very subjective (i.e. an opinion) as to what's "bad logic" and "half true". You will never be able to make a set of rules that covers these, as there's no possible way to cover them besides "Bad logic" and "half truths", and that then comes back to whether the admin(s) can be trusted to judge if something can be removed, which as you've said, we stopped doing for this very reason (because we get lots of "QQ you're bad at the game so you removed my awesome vote" (that's not to say they're wrong (all the time), but it's not worth dealing with it)  ~ PheNaxKian talk  22:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, and I'd only suggest this stuff if we can actually come to agreement on something. We obviously wouldn't be able to cover every bit of "bad logic" used by people, but I just thought it would be helpful to get down the main stuff that everyone can agree on. But again, I know all of this is somewhat unrealistic. -- Jai .  -  00:47, May 3 2012 (UTC)

and if an admin were to remove a (blatantly unjustified) vote, nothing really is stopping the guy from simply revoting with different words but essentially the same numbers. for example, common methods are exaggerating a bar's shortcomings or advantages and then finish off with a 1-1 or 5-5, respectively. &#9823;Fianchetto 00:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Revoting is a violation of 1RV and can result in a ban, so yes, there is something stopping from revoting. Usually the admins will allow one revote without saying much, but after that you can start getting in trouble. -- Jai .  -  00:47, May 3 2012 (UTC)
 * Um. No it's not, lol. Revoting again *badly* gets you a short ban. ~Soi_ɹәʞɔ!ʇs  00:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note I said *usually*. If you're stupid about it then of course you'll get a ban after the second vote. Hell, you can get a ban from troll voting just once. -- Jai .  -  01:03, May 3 2012 (UTC)
 * Troll voting may consist of revoting, but it's not the same thing. Revoting with the same exact reasoning is 1RV, as in copypasting. A user can give different reasoning with the same rating. By the first or second time, the admin will have warned the user about his vote. It's up to the admin's discretion at what point to ban the user blah blah-- Relyk 02:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)