User talk:Zuranthium/Archive 3

Scrubs of the Day - March 17th, 2008
Saffo Goes Monk has some wonderful words of wisdom for us - Don't use prot skills. Second pic is just a random bad Dervish.





I herd singing wuz gud. Anyway, all good Monks don't use Prots :O -- Guild of  Deals  13:38, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Singing? Zuranthium 13:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Signing, my bad. --[[image:GoD Sig3.jpg|20px]] Guild of  Deals  16:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, yeah, I guess I did forget to sign. But who else would be posting screenshots that are only located on my computer? o_O Zuranthium 18:15, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Hax. Lord Belar 18:23, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
 * sadly, just party with click or veign, and you don't need prots :/. <3 great rangers. --Readem 20:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Thwarted
Curses. --71.229 13:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * ? Zuranthium 13:55, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I've been F5ing for weeks, waiting for you to archive, and I got robbed of my first anyway. ): --71.229 13:56, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I really have no idea what you're talking about. Zuranthium 13:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, sure. Act innocent. D:< --71.229 14:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You are a strange, strange person. Zuranthium 14:03, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * no u --71.229 14:04, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * wtf? &mdash;  Skakid  17:26, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
 * ...Rusty 01:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Please respond
Please see the note I left on 's talk page. I'd really like to hear your response. Thanks. Aikavanak 11:48, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

ohai
lulz nice guild lord healing. needz moar manliness Rusty 01:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Needs more Frozen Isle! Zuranthium 11:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Corrupted wins. &mdash;  Skakid  11:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Possibly most fun GvG ever. Crippling Anguish flagger is so ftw...Rusty 20:07, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Temporary Update
BULLSHIT. Wtf? They finally nerf Aegis and it's just gonna come back. Plz die ANET. Zuranthium 10:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
 * burn bitch, burn! Or wait wut? God  box   10:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
 * You overrate aegis pretty much. It's generally interupted half of the time, and for the other half, be a man and bring mirror. Bsurge nerf and ward nerf is good, but that all with aegis nerf is making physicals too strong. —ǘŋ  Ɛxɩsƫ  14:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
 * But they nerfed eremites Q_Q God  box   14:09, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure, nerf stuffs, but then make stronger heals and stronger active defenses.  Fishels [슴Mc슴] Mootles  16:02, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, some of the other prots should get buffed. No, I do not overrate Aegis Unexist! Don't use Mirror as an argument either - that's a bad skill to have in the game. Having the situation of "this skill exists only to counter this other skill" around is not good for the game. Mirror should be changed to a general AOE enchant removal. Zuranthium 23:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Chilblains? :D  ɟoʇuɐʌ ʎʞɔıɹ [[Image:Panic_srsbsns.gif|37px]] 01:25, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 * It should be like that, yep. Zuranthium 11:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

You are bi-polar, but you also make me hard
I thought that was only real men. not skadid LOL.--X 14  14:29, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

hey u
can you show me the frag mes in your guilds sinsplits.-- aesthetic

It's worse post Fragility revert. &mdash;  Ska K  id  20:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
 * No Shell Shock. I forgot to make that build article. I'll do it now. Zuranthium 19:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

DUDE U ARE A JERK
TYVM FOR DIVERSIONING ME SO MANY TIMES. ITS BAD ENOUGH OUR TWO MONKS SUCKED BALLS AND OUR WARRIOR CALLER WAS LIKE 9.--X 14  22:36, 8 May 2008 (EDT)


 * Ups don't play rawrway, take a ranger and mesmers get sad in pants imo, magebane ownz, or be a faggot and bring preturn para.  Fishels [슴Mc슴] Jihad  07:48, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Lrn2 watch animations. —ǘŋ  Ɛxɩsƫ  12:12, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Build:R/W RaO Axe Pressure
Do you read talks at all? It came from a team build. Its great in a team. In a solo build tagged for arenas such as RA, you likely wont get what you need for it to be effective. Way to remove votes that didnt need to be removed. Gogey 10:26, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Nope, it's not bad for RA at all. And you vote on a build based on where it's most effective. The universality mark is where you can grade lower if you don't think it's as good in RA. Zuranthium 10:28, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Archive:Me/Mo Fast Cast RC
Please do not remove more votes as per PvX:MAA and PvX:VETTING. Thank you for your understanding. ~ ĐONT * SYSOP  08:36, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The non-troll ones, right. Zuranthium 11:43, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Please don't rewrite a build while it's already been vetted unless a concensus has been reached on the Talk page. Anyway, your edits are minor differences in the build EASILY put into variants (which I've done for most of the good ones). -- * Wah Wah  Wah! * 09:05, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Lol, that's my build. Someone took it from guru and messed it up. Zuranthium 17:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Of course they messed it up, this is a wiki.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 18:15, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Please do not remove any more votes as per PvX:MAA. If you are unsatisfied with a rating, you can ask the voter to change it or post it on the admin noticeboard. Thank you for your understanding. ~ ĐONT * SYSOP  12:38, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Try re-reading the build master policy some time. It's their JOB to remove retarded votes. Not only that, but just for clarification, weren't you elected to do menial tasks that Wizardboy got tired of doing, not think?  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 12:52, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, their job to remove retarted votes, but to play remove-restore BM wars is not. About why was I elected: nope, I am sure DE would have told me if that is the case. ~ ĐONT * SYSOP  13:06, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not going to allow votes that are blatantly wrong. Several users have made comments that show they clearly don't understand how to play the build to the fullest extent and, as such, it's pointless to recognize these votes as valid. Zuranthium 20:55, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The build is good, but definitely not worth more than 4, tbh. ــмıкε  нaшк  21:30, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Your removal of my vote is retarded tbh. Using Guardian once every 10 seconds isn't going to pressure anybody. Not even a bad monk. How do you plan on drawing someone out of position when you're shadowstepping to THEM?--<font color="Black">Black <font color="Grey">ened 15:50, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * They have to do more than use an occasional Guardian. You're simply using the build incorrectly if that is all the pressure you've managed to cause. You draw people out of position by kiting. When you annoy damage dealers, they will sometimes chase after you. Zuranthium 15:57, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The occasional guardian and cure hex. Apologies. That's some srs pressure. Also, ANY build can kite, how does that make this build better in any way?--[[Image:Blackened_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black">Black <font color="Grey">ened 16:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Because you have snare and a big chunk of damage to immediately use, as well as being able to get right back in position in the main fight and throw a bunch more damage via your quickly recharging tele and attack chain. As for the first part, you're ignoring the Deep Wound that is constantly being caused by Shadow Fang. When it ends (which often won't happen during your chain via hex removal from the Monk anyway because they need to use their removal on hexes from your teammates or need to actually heal/prot during that period), you can just get right back on the deep-wounded target. You're going to do damage, it needs to be healed. Your assessment of the build takes place in a world where you're the only person the opposing Monk needs to deal with and you are also looking at the way in which the skills can be used very superficially. Zuranthium 16:26, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * A big chunk of incredibly easily protted damage. The chain takes 12 seconds to recharge. That's not that fast. DW AFTER your chain is pointless. You need a hit in after it to kill. And the only thing the DW causes is make them go Cure Hex -> Dismiss Condition rather than guardian. Sure you have teammates, but guess what.. so does the other team. They'll be doing stuff to hamper you. It's a bad goddamn build and you fail to see that because YOUR assessment of the build comes in a world where NOBODY knows how to counter anything.--[[Image:Blackened_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black">Black <font color="Grey">ened
 * DW after the chain isn't pointless at all. You assume that hex removal will always happen immediately when this is definitely not the case. Also, Cure Hex + Dismiss condition doesn't stop the damage either...the target will still be Crippled and you can run up to them and do the last 3 parts of the chain, which is what I will do when I know the Monk has their hex removal recharged. My assessment of the build comes from how well it has done in RA, which is the area it is tagged for. LOL? Zuranthium 17:46, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

GvG|TA
You in a guild that would let a scrub like me in? I'm good when i play. I'm good at sucking up. Andi have a crappy 1.4 balth faction but only r1 glad =[ noobs are horrible. But yes. Can i? pleaase. ? Dutchess of Rose  aka  lukejohnson  - talk 07:05, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

GoR Spiker
Dont told you to stop removing votes that aren't retarted, and most of them aren't. Stop breaking the rules. I'm sick of everyone's vote being removed by your biased BS reasoning. --<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 16:22, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, they are in fact. I am biased in that I understand the character whereas you, and many others, do not. Zuranthium
 * lol. Zurrie's lost his fucking marbles. <3 u Z. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  16:28, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * BTW, "retarted" votes are basically "Lol this is shit terribad u guys suck at guild wars lol shit" not a long vote with reasoning. Dont told you to stop, don't ignore warnings. --[[Image:GoD Wario Sig.PNG]]<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 16:30, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Long votes with highly incorrect reasoning are still retarded. Zuranthium 16:33, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Long votes with correct reasoning shouldn't be biased removed because you like the build. You even removed Tab's and he's a buildmaster who KNOWS BUILDS, thus BUILDMASTER. --[[Image:GoD Wario Sig.PNG]]<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 16:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * My vote reflects how effective the build has been in practice. It has done very well for me in RA. This is a fact. Congrats for Tab being a Buildmaster, he doesn't understand this specific build. Or, at least the way it plays in the given area. Zuranthium 16:47, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * He understands it perfectly fucking well. This isn't some special spiker or pressurer or Shock Axe or whatever. It's RA. You want to kill-kill-kill. This sucks at that. And even then, the few good Monks you encounter in RA can easily prot through this. Once you're hit with Black Mantis, they could throw on Guardian or any prot they desire. I e-mailed Pluto to overlook the build. --[[Image:GoD Wario Sig.PNG]]<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 16:51, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No, it doesn't suck at killing, considering how well I've done with it. I'm sorry that you don't comprehend the usage. Also, I guess Liekkio isn't a good Monk, cause they were in RA this past Sunday and I won that match. Zuranthium 17:01, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * So do you think this is a great build, worthy of being in the great catagory?  Frosty  No U!  17:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It would seem that my vote reflects as much, no? The build has worked Great for me in RA since I started playing it last Friday, therefore I find it to be a Great RA build. It probably won't get to the Great section, but that is not under my control as I am not the sole voter on this database. I am empowered to clear bad votes, however. As such, votes that I find very off-base (which equates to less than a 3.0 for this particular character, or also a 5.0 rating) will be removed. Zuranthium 17:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

wow u mst b rly gud at da game 2 bet liko &mdash;  Skakid  17:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * tru pro rite heer. how else culd he b a bm? i meen, only teh 1337 get bm spots. Oh, wait ONE fucking minute, wouldn't that mean Tab was fucking elite, too? Oh, right.. He fails, terribly, and has no comprehension of game mechanics. Forgive me for being foolish. I guess complete fucktards get BMships, too. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  17:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Tab isn't infallible. Nothing against him personally. *shrug* Zuranthium 17:40, 23 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Addenum: One time I beat Last of Master 1v1 in RA &mdash;  Skakid  17:46, 23 July 2008 (EDT)


 * lol Guild Wars. lol Build Masters. lol stfu already :/. Back to making taco's nigger. --<font color="Black">Readem 17:52, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Third time's the charm
In re: GoR spiker. It's up to you whether you remove votes on that build (so long as you don't violate 1RV, of course) - but when a sysop specifically tells you to stop removing votes, you stop removing votes until whatever the problem is is resolved. Capiche?

I'm also going to ask you - much more kindly and politely than the above paragraph - to not remove votes made by other BMs. I could care less what the policy says about this, but BMs removing votes by other BMs just smells wrong to me.

-- Armond Warblade 18:24, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree that removing other BM votes is a bad situation to get into and that is why I didn't at first. However, a good point was brought up - if that BM's reasoning is just as terrible as the other votes that are getting removed, it's pretty necessary. Zuranthium 18:30, 23 July 2008 (EDT)


 * See, here's the problem you seem to be encountering. A BM's vote's reasoning, by definition, isn't terrible. They might even be right, come to that. In this case, they are - and you're going around removing every vote below 3.2 or whatever because you, personally, don't feel the build should be voted that low. Yes, you're a BM, and as such you're allowed to do that (along with a whole lot of other things) - but bear in mind that you're expected to exercise discretion and thoughtfulness with your powers. Removing votes that do, in fact, have proper reasoning can lead to you losing your BM powers. Remember that the best thing you can do in this kind of a situation (where dumb people are voting wrongly on a build) is to do nothing - if the votes are indeed wrong, they will be pounced on by the community and buried under the sheer number of votes against them, as there's so many more smart people on wiki than people that don't know what they're talking about. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 18:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Tab's vote had the proper reasoning, but the rating didn't didn't match. A build isn't insta-trash if it doesn't have an IAS, or if the DW is harder to use. ــмıкε  нaшк  18:38, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Honestly, at a certain point, I almost don't care how bad the votes are. Stop. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  18:43, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Tab's reasoning isn't correct at all. If you want me to "stop removing votes until the situation is resolved", then the problem needs to RESOLVED. The problem is that people are voting when they do not understand how to play the damn build or the way it interacts in RA. Let's look at Tab's vote - "Having a shadowstep every time doesn't do that much. Dash would do nearly as well". No, that is moronic. Doesn't at all seem like he understands how the character should be faking out prots and jumping on prone targets. Then he says "I know this is more for pressure than spiking, but you need your chain to pose a threat to pressure well with it." The chain does pose a threat, between the large packets of damage and DW getting thrown around. I have played this build in RA extensively, I wouldn't be defending the build if hadn't been working so well. Most everyone else has has tried it for maybe an hour or two. Or, worse, are simply judging it on paper without knowing what they are talking about. Sometimes you really don't need much actual play time to know a build is bad but, in this case, people are being woefully ignorant. Zuranthium 19:13, 23 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Actually, I was under the impression that the problem was more that you don't know what votes deserve removal and what don't. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 19:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You're under the wrong impression. If we want to make a Wiki policy for "no RA" builds, then go institute it. Until that happens, many of the voters on that build page are incorrectly quantifying the effectiveness of the build. Zuranthium 19:53, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * This guy's starting to sound like me back when I was a noob. T_T [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  19:23, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * None of the bad builds (which is most of them) on your build page would work nearly as consistently as this build has. Zuranthium 19:53, 23 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Everything works in RA, Zuranthium. I used to get 50 consecs with IW =/ &mdash;  Skakid  19:26, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Sure, back then you could get consecs with a lot of sub-par things a portion of them. Go try to do it now and show me a screenshot when you get there. But, as has been said, it's about the consistency. Just because you get a 10 win streak with some dumb build, that doesn't make it good. However, with this particular build the results have been constant. Zuranthium 19:53, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * My flare spammer was mighty brave. Still relatively consistent, especially with Meteor for res sigs. --<font color="Black">Readem 19:55, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * My stone daggers spammer was also pretty consistent back in the day. That's then, this is now. Zuranthium 19:58, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

In all honesty, this is a matter of "Fun" Builds vs "Effective" builds. Since both are relatively a matter of opinion, this issue is rather pointless. Whether or not the GoR Assassin is viable (as an RA/AB build lol...), is really no one's concern. The mere fact people are becoming heated during this internet discussion, is disturbing in ways more than one. In conclusion, I highly suggest a continuation of this argument, so I can be constantly reminded of how terrible you guys are (and subsequently, be driven away). --<font color="Black">Readem 19:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It's not a matter of opinion, though? FACT - I've been playing this build a lot and it's been doing well. FACT - I know what I am doing and wouldn't have kept playing the build for so long if it was bad or merely decent. I concur with the last part, though. This place is retarded and I'm not sure why I keep trying. Zuranthium
 * FACT- It's RA. And ye, perhaps you should just save it as a template, or un your userspace or so, and let it die. --84.24.206.123 19:58, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * FACT - There is a section for RA builds on this Wiki. If you're not going to evaluate the build in the correct setting then GTFO. Zuranthium 20:01, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * FACT - Your usage of the build doesn't outweigh the opinion of atleast 8 individuals on PvX. FACT - This isn't an issue of build anymore, it's an issue of BM abuse and RV1. FACT - The build is still on PvX. And it's rated to be acceptable. Just because you think it may be good or even great doesn't mean you can balance the votes to you're liking. --[[Image:GoD Wario Sig.PNG]]<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 20:03, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The opinion of you individuals doesn't matter since you don't know what you are talking about and have voted far too incorrectly to be allowed. That is the point of BM's. I remove votes that are terrible. Zuranthium 20:06, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Obviously your the only one who thinks so. ﮎHædõ๘ یíɳ [[image:Shadowsin_sig.PNG]] 21:34, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Incorrect. And I don't think so, I know so. Lol, I even talked to you in-game and you admitted to not playing the build much and I had to tell you like 6 things you should have been doing differently when you were explaining the problems you had. Zuranthium 21:38, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * (EC) Your job is to remove votes that are terrible. Not to remove votes you do not agree with. If this place is retarded, I don't see why you're sticking around. We're obviously far too retarded to know that a spike that takes half an hour is easily prottable amirite.--[[Image:Blackened_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black">Black <font color="Grey">ened 21:39, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The thing is, every melee (or physical) spike is easily prottable. This is still a 6 second spike. ــмıкε  нaшк  21:44, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The low votes are too retarded to understand that the build doesn't kill solely by spiking. I disagree with several of the votes I didn't remove, Blackened. It's just the votes with less than a 3.0 rating that go too far and absolutely need to be removed. Zuranthium 22:19, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * (ec)I remember something about CoP and making the other players on the team force the monk to use it but, well seeing as we had one hex and that was mine it was kind of hard. Also no, I didnt play it very long it was boring. always waiting around for the right time to strike, pissing off my team mates by standing on the back lines. getting blocked by any class with half a brain to bring self preservation into RA. I bring an assassin into RA purely for the fun of using one, but the only time it actually works to my advantage is when i have a monk who isn't a total failure on my team as well. Know why? because most players (American District excluded) know that if they leave the assassin alone its going to hurt them in the future. Same thing applies to mesmers. So yeah if your lucky enough to get a monk and another melee character to take some of the anti melee pressure off you, then sure the build can shine but more likely then not you'll end up monkless and on a team full of casters. You could sit there and debate the "complexities" of RA all day long but its not going to get you anywhere, because 1.RA is full of fail 80% of the time 2. GoR spiker, like back breaker assassins aren't suitable for RA because they offer no flexibility for self preservation and both are far too easy for simple counters to take advantage of them such as blocking or dshot(and its many clones). just looking through the "Great" section of assassins for RA, there are none that werent just thrown there as an afterthought. ﮎHædõ๘ یíɳ [[image:Shadowsin_sig.PNG]] 22:39, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

No, you're doing it wrong. You can get around CoP yourself. What you need to do is use Glyph, wait for it to be almost recharged, and then tele to the CoP Monk and immediately use Glyph again. They will use CoP and teleport you away, at which point you tele right back in. It's mainly HC monks that bring CoP, they'll probably have D-stance as well. Only use Black Mantis Strike when you tele back in, don't spam your chain. They will use D-stance and then you will count to 4 and continue with the chain. If anyone else on your team is forcing Monks to use their crucial self-saving skills (or any other character on their team that has such skills), you need to be watching for them; that will also help with the process of catching the people prone. The Renewal build has the advantage of constant, instant mobility. USE IT. Zuranthium 23:51, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * SORRY YOU'RE FUCKING DOING IT WRONG MORON. YOUR BUILD SUCKS. GET THAT. [[Image:Blessed Light.jpg|User:ISnowBunnyI|20px]]<font color="Black">Snow <font color="Black">Bunny  01:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Congrats at being pointlessly annoying and dumb. Zuranthium 02:06, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * OH MY GOD, POT MEET KETTLE HOLY SHIT.--[[Image:Blackened_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black">Black <font color="Grey">ened 02:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Shit, I didn't realize there was a cockroach infestation in my house. *calls pest control* Zuranthium 02:31, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Zuran - send me an email or drop me a line on MSN. -- Armond Warblade 07:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * About the waiting four seconds things, not that it's relevant to anything but correct usage of a block stance is to activate it mid-attack skill, not between attack skills, forcing you to watch like hawk for it's activation and cancel your chain mid attack, which is not easy. It's why I take Shield Bash, for interrupting assassin chains. One of the major problems with the RA section is that PvX assumes good opponents and teammates, which is impractical in RA. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  07:39, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Monks can't always be watching your every move and they are used to certain patterns. Most every Sin in the game spams their attack chain. When they see a Sin tele to them and use an attack skill, instinct is to use a stance if they have it. A lot of melee attacks are rather fast and don't afford the luxury of being able to activate the stance in the middle either. You can't just wait for Executioner's Strike when a Warrior is frenzied in your face and just used Eviscerate. It's not feasible to try and catch it mid-swing, you just need to use the stance right when you see that first attack skill (Eviscerate). The second attack of the GoR Sin chain is a 1/2 activation. If you don't your stance right after you get hit by Black Mantis, you can't count on catching the next attack. Some of this is mind games and, no, I don't always get my full chain off on Monk with dual self-protective skills on my first cycle, but I am frequently able to get around their crap by myself and having teammates who are contributing also helps and needs to remain a part the picture when talking about how this stuff actually plays out. Zuranthium 08:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I actually fairly frequently Shield Bash Eviscerate, Magehunter's Smash(Or Crushing Blow if I'm enchanted) and assassin chains by activating mid-swing, it's called field awareness and OMFG BIG PURPLE CLOUD OF SMOKE, I admit I would probably miss Jungle Strike the first time, but I don't think you would go Black Mantis, pause, Jungle Strike, Pause, Trampling Ox, so I would hit Trampling. That being said, it's a flaw of all melee, especially assassins in general and not really a valid reason to vote a build down. I haven't voted anyway, just pointing out a fallacy in your argument if we are going with the whole "assume your opponents are good" thing, which I believe is the basis we vett on at PvX. I really don't understand why you care exactly what number the build gets. It's an RA build, it's not meta, there is nothing associated with having a build in "Good" or "Other" or even "Great", you are a build master, of all people you should be able to separate yourself from your build and realise that if it ends up being just a template you have saved, absolutely sweet fuck all changes about anything. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  08:32, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, the thing about assuming your opponents are always good in RA/AB is that these areas don't work the same. Partly because opposition simply isn't as strong and party because there is no "brick wall" in these arenas. In TA, you want to get as many wins in a row as possible and, as such, losing a single time is more detrimental. Same goes for HA, GvG, and even HB. If you win 10 matches in the Monthly AT, but lose the final match, you still "lost". In RA/AB, it doesn't matter if you lose sometimes, what matters most is simply how much you are winning in general. Thus, RA builds need to be voted upon differently. It's about how consistent a build is over time, not how well it fares against the best TA team.


 * As for what you said about attack skills, it's impossible that you can interrupt all of those attacks equally. Hammers attack slower. It's simple math that you are going to be able to prevent those attacks mid-swing more often. I certainly DO pause between every attack skill of the chain at times as well. Sometimes I'll pause mid-chain just because I need to weapon swap (such as switching to +5 energy daggers in order to perform something, rather than just sitting there and wasting time, or switching from zealous to vampiric because the target is blocking and I want to maximize my energy regen). I do whatever it takes to get the kills and I try to recognize patterns in the opponents, not just swing mindlessly (although, yes, sometimes it can be relaxing to just run and in mash some buttons). And, as I said, you can't just look at it on paper as this one Assassin fighting one Monk. There are other targets for you to select and you have to consider your own teammates and how they will affect the battle as well.


 * When voting on builds and deciding if votes are valid (as is the problem in this whole situation), you most certainly need to assume that the character itself is being played to maximum effect. Not, "oh, well, I tried it for a little bit and wasn't very good at it / had bad luck, so now I'm giving up and only going to vote based upon that limited amount of experience." Although you don't have to assume constant, absolute best possible opposition for RA, you DO still need to understand the extent to which the character itself can be effective. As for me "caring about what number the build gets", I don't. I already said that. I care about votes being valid and doing my job as a moderator. Obviously I will disagree with the ratings on some votes and need to give leeway for other opinions. But, there needs to be a point at which you say "okay, that's the furthest it's going to go, now your opinion is simply too distant from my experience with this build to be seen as valid". In this case, I see that as being less than a 3.0 grade. The range that I feel is allowable for the build (3.0 - 4.8) allows voters to place the build within any of the 3 given categories for vetted builds (Other, Good, Great), so I hardly see how I am being "crazy", as several people have stated. Zuranthium 09:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * All of them are approximately 1 second attacks under IAS which is not a difficult interrupt. The speed difference between a hammer attack and an axe attack without IAS is 0.2 seconds, less under IAS, it's not that hard to be reliable on all of them. You clearly did care when you said that any vote under 3.0 was invalid and by doing that you bias the score to higher votes, votes below 3.0 would balance votes above 4.0 keeping the score wavering around other and good, which is where it should be. If the average was below 3.0 you would have a reason to look at votes, but you can't eliminate a single vote off of an arbitrary number or you will end up biasing the average high above that number. Tab could have removed your vote for being "unreasonably high", to do such would be wheel warring and dumb. It has been proposed that BMs and admins should not remove votes on builds they have made significant contributions to because of possible conflicts of interest, the response at the time was that BMs and admins should be trusted to put aside any conflicts of interest, I agreed at the time, but I have to say your recent contributions have made me question the ability of BMs and admins to recognise when a conflict of interest might exist and behave appropriately. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  09:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Difference between hammer and axe attack without IAS is slightly over 0.4 seconds, not 0.2 . Which is rather huge when talking about being able to reflex something. About the votes - yes I do care about the rating, but only because it's a depiction of the user's opinion, which needs to be valid. I don't care about rating in terms of builds landing in the section I voted for them. I didn't pick an arbitrary number, you simply need to have a realistic range. Regarding the Tab comment, this goes back to opinions not being equal. It's been proven that I have far more experience and expertise with the build and that many people who voted have little. That is rather important. It doesn't matter if Tab is BM, his reasoning has been shown to be incorrect. If the value of our statements aren't based upon the actual insight and knowledge we have behind them, then there is something wrong. Zuranthium 10:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Hammers are slower than I remembered, but you are still interrupting a .89 second cast with an instant activation (although some people claim stances are actually 1/16th) skill for an axe under 33% IAS, which is actually easier than interrupting a 1 second cast with a 1/4 second skill which is considered a "standard" interrupt. You also haven't "shown Tab's reasoning to be incorrect" because that is more or less impossible in this context. You could have "convinced other people that Tab's reasoning is incorrect", but as far as I have seen, you have failed to do that. The voting process is theoretically flawed, but works in practice because overstated and understate votes balance each other out. I think it's pretty stupid that anything below a 5.0 gets removed from shock axe, as long as the average is between 4.5 and 5.0, scores are fine, it's in Great, it's a great build. You think the GoR build is great, the vast, vast majority disagrees with you. In fact, your vote is the only one above 4.5. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  10:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Except it's not the same as interrupting. Anyway, that line of discussion is now pointless, what matters is your viewpoint. I have indeed proven that the removed votes contain incorrect reasoning. You're just being blind right now if you can't see this. People need to admit to when they don't understand a topic as well someone else. The very statement you just made - "Shock Axe deserves to be in the great section no matter what" - is based upon the build having produced consistent results over a period of time for a large number of people. It's something that is undeniable because they have the experience. People who are disagreeing with me on the subject of the GoR Sin don't have the correct basis with which to judge the character. They have not been playing the build correctly and for an extended period of time. I have. I have factual results. Given that I know what I am talking about as a GW player and that this build has done great and produced those undeniable results, it can ONLY be concluded that people who vote the build ridiculously low are doing it just for the sake of it or because they simply do not understand. I am going to bed now. *wave* Zuranthium 10:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You are right, it's not the same as interrupting, you can activate the skills during aftercast, knockdown and even while casting something else, so it's even easier. I do it, so it's demonstratably possible. I am terrible at interrupting. It's irrelevant to almost everything and it is clearly possible to do, so I don't really know why you are arguing against it. It's RA, you can't demonstrate anything there. Shock Axe's effectiveness is not based off of RA, in fact, it's kind of average there, not great. Gothspike has had great success in Vega's hands, he still runs it, go ahead take that out of archive and put it in great if you believe GoR should be in great. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  11:19, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


 * "It's RA, you can't demonstrate anything there". You can demonstrate consistency. That's what should matter when judging the effectiveness of an RA build. Shock Axe's effectiveness is not based off of RA because it's not an RA-only build...not quite sure what you're trying to say there. Zuranthium 18:35, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually, all you've proven is that you are better than the average RA player, congratulations ;o Good morning, I'll go to bed this time, we can have more walls of text in the morning. You can peruse the ridiculous arguments of people championing for you in the mean time such as the screenshot below of the build killing the master of healing. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  18:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

More screens for proof:

Can't do that with your BH Sin. XD ــмıкε  нaшк  10:51, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * That is so stupid. You can kill the Master of Healing with almost anything. Wow, just wow... I'm this close to crying in epicness. --[[Image:GoD Wario Sig.PNG]]<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 10:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You can't kill the Master of Healing with this, I already tried it. lol she uses CoP half a second after you use BH to shadow step to her, so you don't have anything to trigger Iron Palm. I'm just getting the point across that the GoR Spiker is actually pretty flexible because of the short recharge. Hell, you could probably even gank NPCs with it. ــмıкε  нaшк  11:24, 24 July 2008 (EDT)



<font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  10:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

My build
Take it of the build's you've contributed. The Shouting smiter build, you just put the elite as optional. So it wasn't yours. thankyou. Dutchess of Rose aka  lukejohnson  - talk 05:45, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I was going to create a build page for the YAA Smite Monk but it only makes sense to have it combined with the Charge one. Not a big deal. Zuranthium 05:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes. but u didnt make the page... so just remove it off your conrtibuted builds. plox Dutchess of Rose  aka  lukejohnson  - talk 05:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Pretty sure I did in fact make the page "Shouting Smiter". Zuranthium 06:00, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Well i KNOW you didn't, because i did that last night... whilst working out which elite would go best with the build. Dutchess of Rose  aka  lukejohnson  - talk 06:03, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Erm, no? Your page was called Charging Smiter. I made the page "Shouting Smiter", after changing the main bar and improving the page so that it was actually a completely build page. Multiple people can have contribution rights to a build on their userpage, it really doesn't matter at all. If anything, it just gets the build seen a bit more. Zuranthium 06:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Apparently, PvX is srs bsns.  Frosty  No U!  06:09, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Rather silly, huh. Zuranthium 06:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No, it's more srs than RA!  Frosty  No U!  06:16, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I owned RA and then 4 teams in TA using a scribe's insight smiter, with 1 ranger and 2 physicals on my team. I think i own you all Dutchess of Rose  aka  lukejohnson  - talk 07:05, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You are a truly epic contributor. :) Zuranthium 07:18, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

No one owns any of the builds they put up here.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş   08:01, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * What are you onnabowt? And yes, scribe's insight + SoH in RA is good. or at least better than noobs in Ta or RA =] Dutchess of Rose  aka  lukejohnson  - talk 08:02, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You just gave me an epic idea grinchie, see my user page for details. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  08:05, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * O.o an idea! Dutchess of Rose  aka  lukejohnson  - talk 08:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You'll like it too Luke, go see the top edit on my user page. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  08:08, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No! Shock Axe is mine. I'll trade you Wounding Strike Dervish for it. Yes? Talk on my userpage if you want to Dutchess of Rose  aka  lukejohnson  - talk 08:19, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Case in point: PvX:OWN. Anyway it's not "Builds I Made" it's "Builds I Contributed". That doesn't necessarily means he made him, he could've just helped with them. --[[Image:GoD Wario Sig.PNG]]<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 08:37, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * what u onna bowt? i already know... ? Dutchess of Rose  aka  lukejohnson  - talk 08:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

So I heard something about you claiming other peoples' opinions to be wrong, eh?
By definition, an opinion does not need to be valid. One may validate one's opinion with facts, but even this isn't necessary. Also, votes that appear to be rather low may simply have been cast as such to balance out excessively high votes. This has always been a practice here at PvX, done so to ensure the quality of the wiki. If someone says a build is bad because it's easy to counter, regardless of what you may think, that's what that user thinks, and therefore, their opinion is valid. Unfortunately for you, this Wiki is an oppressive tyranny that dislikes people who don't shut up. If you can't deal with that, leave. I took a vacation a while ago myself, for multiple reasons. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his or her opinion, nonetheless, and you can't go about removing peoples' opinions simply because you disagree. Reasons for vote removals must be more valid than the vote itself, and claiming a misunderstanding of a build does not qualify, namely because you'd be claiming to have an understanding of the person who cast the vote. Now, if you actually know that person, great, strike his or her vote. If you don't, you cannot claim to know what he or she knows, nor can you claim to understand how he or she thinks. Doing so is simply illogical and unreasonable. As a person in a position of power in our oppressive tyranny, it is generally a bad idea to refute your fellow peers when they are backed by multitudes of loud, angry peasants. Particularly when there are yet more powerful people above you who may or may not share your views, but who certainly don't want an uprising, and would surely take your head before risking their own. <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  10:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, misunderstanding a build does qualify. If it doesn't, then there's no point in having BM's. I don't need to know a person (what a silly comment), everything is provided in their reasoning. Votes don't have to agree with my position, but if what they say is wildly inconsistent in comparison to my experience with the build, then there is a problem. I remember seeing votes awhile back that graded Avatar of Melandru down because "it didn't last long enough". Misunderstanding a build is ENTIRELY grounds for vote removal and the people who have voted the GoR Sin really low have shown the same inferior level of knowledge with regards to the build as the people who thought Melandru was bad because it's only up half the time. Your analogy with peasants and tyrants is off-base, what's going on here is akin to a bunch students having read the cliff notes to a book and getting mad when their teacher gives them a low grade on a test about the book because they didn't understand necessary details contained therein.  Zuranthium 18:35, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Listen to Cedave, and send me that email. -- Armond Warblade 11:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and their votes are valid as long as their reasoning is correct and the rating matches, but you don't give Shock Axe a 4 in universality because it doesn't include hex/condition removal and anti-blocking, because it is easily countered. Then again, Shock Axe is team-oriented and wouldn't likely survive without decent support like most adrenaline-using builds. I don't find that being easily countered is a valid excuse; if it were, the majority of our builds would have been voted down because a good Monk would be able to survive their spike/pressure/whatever. Good Monks also aren't guaranteed in RA, and the point of Shadow Stepping is to catch your opponent off-guard, which the GoR accomplishes well.
 * I don't particularly care whether the build is in Other, Good or Great, but I know that the build definitely isn't trash-worthy, and the votes below 2.5, even if they're meant to balance the build into a lower category, still show that the voter believes the build is trash and doesn't deserve a place on the wiki. ــмıкε  нaшк  11:52, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Opinions should be based on fact and thusly, in fact, can be wrong, if the person making the opinion's facts are wrong. Unless, of course, uneducated gibberish is your cup of tea.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 11:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


 * An opinion can never be wrong, only uneducated. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  12:13, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Which is as good as wrong, so for all intensive purposes, it's wrong.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 13:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * *intents and -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 13:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Stop taking this out of context. It's Guild Wars and PvXwiki. In this context, your opinion can be wrong. My opinion of Assassin builds in general is that they should not exist at all. By your logic, I can delete them freely, because it cannot be disproved since, after all, it's an opinion, and it can't possibly be wrong. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, apparently subtlety isn't a trait you possess. You can believe that all you fucking like, but if you took action on it, that's different. In all honesty, go ahead. I wouldn't mind seeing you take a vacation. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  14:28, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It's funny how you're suddenly avoiding the issue. Are you saying it is reason enough for any admin to delete that entire section of builds? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:37, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * If you want to, go ahead. The rules in place might, however, cause you to lose your position, as well as access to your account. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  14:40, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I assume that's a "yes" on the "I can't compose a valid argument, so I'll try to start EDrama and avoid the issue". &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Not really. It's more a "You're being an ignorant ass, so I thought I'd try saying that without using the word 'ass'". Really though, go ahead, by all means. It'd make me happier than a fat kid with cake. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  14:48, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * So it's a confirmation of my assumption, then. Good. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * np buddy. Anytime. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  14:52, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually, Cedave's right. You're an admin; you can do whatever the hell you want. (Another example; DE could, at any point in time here, make a bot to wreck the wiki; as he has bureaucrat permissions, the only thing that could stop him would be a direct server shutdown, reconstruction, and modification to restore account access and permissions without using the in-wiki tools of blocking/unblocking and promotion/demotion.) Bear in mind, though, that you were (by definition) promoted because we (the admin team before you) thought you'd show restraint. Any admin (by which I mean sysops, bureaucrats, and build masters) is treated the same; any admin that doesn't show such restraint risks his or her position. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 06:47, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * That was a point out of sarcasm and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It was actually me countering User:Cedave's point with something logical, resulting in that red herring you see above you as User:Cedave's attempt to avoid making a logical point. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:40, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * And in opposition to your "I'm the fucking ADMIN" point, I find that it makes more sense to try and resolve the conflict logically though actually discussing something rather than blocking everyone. In build issues, it's often more logical to use Vote removals rather than blocks since it keeps all parties within the frame of discussion rather than shutting that out. I find it rather disappointing and maybe mildly amused that you would oppose doing something more constructive and just block everyone outright. There's situations that may call for that, but that's usually not present in build issues, and one more suitable for blatant disregard of policy and abuse of privileges. Note that I'm not using the "I'm a sysop, hear me roar" line that you seem to favour so much. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Does this page need an archive soon? The walls of text hurt my fingers when I scroll. XD ــмıкε  нaшк  14:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * We can archive all but this section, since the debate is still going on. --[[Image:GoD Wario Sig.PNG]]<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 14:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually the walls of text are still active too, just Zuranthium went to bed, so why don't you all just chill till tomorrow or take it to another talk page? - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  15:16, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Rapta, how can you deny however that Zuranthium isn't abusing the slight bit of power that he has? The build isn't very good; it actually completely is mediocre because it doesn't have anything that other assassin builds do: bar compression. Most assassin builds have a high power attack chain that's powered by ridiculous bar compression to negate a counter to that attack chain. It's why SP was so good and why shattering assault is pretty powerful as well. This bar instead has no compression at all, and if it's disrupted in the slightest bit, absolutely useless. Getting back to the point - despite Zuranthium's personal misplaced favouritism of the build, he hasn't a right to remove negative votes simply because they're negative. A lot of the positive votes say, "work great" and stay. A lot of the negative votes actually have a valid point with explanation as to why they're negative. This build is trash, as is the FC RC, but Zuranthium's stubborn blockedheadness prevents him from actually realizing that perhaps a build that isn't meta isn't meta for a reason. Z's acting quite poorly in this regard - when i voted against the RC mesmer I had a very valid point in that it had no emanagement and it loses a lot by losing the DF, especially on prots like RoF where you're losing 33% of its heal. This is an abuse of power and Adminastrative defense of this abuse is even more pathetic. [[Image:Blessed Light.jpg|User:ISnowBunnyI|20px]]<font color="Black">Snow <font color="Black">Bunny  17:25, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Results with a build =/= misplaced favoritism. You also don't understand the FC RC because you don't understand the teams the build is meant to be played against. With both builds you are only looking at it on paper. Zuranthium 15:13, 26 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Again, the build wasn't trashed before, so it isn't trash now. >.> Also, the majority of spike sins (although the GoR Sin isn't one, anymore) hadn't any bar compression, because their chain was 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 as well. The GoR Sin, at least, can use the double Shadow Stepping defensively, which SP sins couldn't do. ــмıкε  нaшк  18:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You don't think that Shadow Prison was bar compression? Lolidiot.[[Image:Blessed Light.jpg|User:ISnowBunnyI|20px]]<font color="Black">Snow <font color="Black">Bunny  18:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Blessed Light is bar compression; Shadow Prison followed by a 5-6 skill chain is not. Unless you're talking about the skill itself (shadow step+hex), but either way, you still lose out on a lot of utility. SP Sins had 6-7 skill chains, and the GoR Sin is no different, but instead of Dash, it has a return shadow step. The shadow-step+snare of Shadow Prison aren't worth the 25 second recharge. Hell, the 20 second recharge wasn't worth it. ــмıкε  нaшк  21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't believe that I've gone around to addressing that yet. But a large part of the claimed "abuse" in general (not referring to your case in any way, I'm not involved in that) is a result of stupid actions on the part of standard users, and the BM('s) are not solely to blame. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I think my issue with all of this Z comes back to your vote removal. I don't really care about the GoR sin, but vote removals on votes with perfectly acceptably explained negative ratings should not be removed on the basis that they're negative. And if you think I'm out of line, take a look at yourself. We both are. [[Image:Blessed Light.jpg|User:ISnowBunnyI|20px]]<font color="Black">Snow <font color="Black">Bunny  13:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
 * LMAO. Wow. How many times does it need to be said? The votes were removed because of terrible reasoning and not understanding the character in the area it's meant for. Zuranthium 15:07, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
 * If I vote down Shock Axe and said that it was weak against anti-melee (which, of course it is), I'd be right, but having counters doesn't make the build bad. I didn't 5-5-5 the Imbagon because there were areas where it just didn't make sense to run, and that was removed. I was right, but the Imbagon is still one of the best PvE builds we've got. Maybe the GoR isn't the best build out there, but it still isn't trash worthy, which many of the 2-2 votes imply. ــмıкε  нaшк  16:51, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
 * There are no areas where the imbagon isnt useful o_o. ﮎHædõ๘ یíɳ [[image:Shadowsin_sig.PNG]] 17:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Try it against Quetzals in Asuran Territory or the Mist Vaettirs in Jaga Moraine HM. You'll get slaughtered by the Vaettirs if you take Heroes and Henchmen. lol ــмıкε  нaшк  17:09, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Your "Proposed Guideline"
has been moved to PvXwiki talk:Practical Testing. &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 14:58, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, joy. We already have a guideline written up, though. Just waiting to see when it can be added. Zuranthium 15:13, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It does need to be decided on, though. --[[Image:GoD Wario Sig.PNG]]<font color="Black"> * Wah <font color="DAA520">Wah  Wah! * 15:17, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Already has been. ;) Zuranthium 15:38, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

July MAT
Do you want me to add some builds on QQ?  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş   15:06, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * If you were able to record any interesting builds that weren't played in the single-elim rounds, go for it. The single elim matches will be taken care of, though. Zuranthium 15:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, the most interesting one was the one 5 monks, 2 clumsiness warriors, a dervish ran by either KMD or DyS, and by interesting, I mean terrible to play and watch and terrible for the state of Guild Wars as a whole, so, no. I don't have anything.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 15:12, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

lolauthorvote--<font color=#C68E17>Golden <font color=#C68E17>Star 18:27, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Why? Old way was neater. --71.229 20:51, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah i was wondering the same thing, old way was neater, more organized--<font color=#C68E17>Golden [[image:Goldenstar.JPG|19px]]<font color=#C68E17>Star 20:52, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Wasn't more organized...everything was spread to different pages. You can look at all the possibilities on a single page now. Zuranthium 00:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I think they mean the old version of the Eviscerate page before you "fixed" it was neater. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   (TALK)  07:08, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Lol, wut??? It was much, much longer. Zuranthium 19:07, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * And neater. Organization > brevity. --71.229 20:39, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * How was it neater? This version is much better because the main optionals are listed directly underneath the skill bar. You had to scroll a bunch on the other one and there was a lot of superfluous crap. Zuranthium 20:57, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 * a) It wasn't superfluous. It explained things in terms that non-regular users could understand. b) There's a TOC for a reason. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2"> ツ cedave  (contributions☆buildpage)  13:50, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Nothing in the original version was explained any better, lol. It was just all separated into partitions which took up extra room and several bad skills were listed. Zuranthium 19:45, 4 August 2008 (EDT)