PvXwiki talk:Build Master User Rights/Archive 1

Initial Discussion
Considering the weightng of BM votes, whether to have 2 levels of BMs, one with 150% the other with 200% weighting, etc. - Krowman    00:58, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Also, this (weighted votes in particular) work nicely with the criteria below that was hindering certain users from keeping the wiki's standards and build quality high, so parts of my posts below are pretty mute to this policy. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   01:07, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Insert obligatory QQing about elitism. Looks good, although I am personally somewhat divided as to whether I support this. --Edru viransu //QQ about me /sysop 01:08, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Ok, first things first, despite the disclaimer, people will QQ about this policy... but, whether or not that will be an issue would have to be determined later, so I'll leave that alone for now. Second point, can someone be, simultaneously, an Administrator and a Build Master, or, are the positions mutually exclusive? Also, along a similar vein, if you were to create a Wiki Org chart, and include BMs, would Bureaucrats be "above" both BMs and Sysops with BMs and Sysops as two completely seperate "branches," or would, for example, would it be Bureaucrat -> Sysop -> BM? As to having multiple "levels" of BM, I would simply question what the process for determining primary vs. secondary BMs would be. Obviously, some users are more knowledgeable than others, but, assuming we aren't factoring in seniority, number of contributions, etc., it might be hard to compare two knowledgeable users. Obviously not a big obstacle, but I thought I'd point it out. So, those are my general comments/concerns with this policy. Overall however, I'm still unsure whether or not I support this (especially given the WikiDrama that is sure to result, although that's not the main reason). *Defiant Elements*  +talk  01:17, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Oh, and have you (Krowman) talked to Cardinal about the feasibility of implementing this? I know that back when we were discussing the old BM policy, Cardinal said he could create a BM user group and allow them to remove votes (at least, I think that's what he said), but, do you have any clue how easily a "weighted vote" system could be implemented? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  01:19, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I suppose the chart would run BCrat -> Sysop -> BM, simply because sysops have additional powers that BMs do not. Not to say that BMs are less valuable than sysops, it's just a functionality decision. Admins can effectively be BMs (vote removal, 2nd para of weighted voting section) though I had hoped that our admins that have been appointed because they were essentially Build Masters before the policy was ever drafted could move to the BM category and leave administrative duty to users better suited to deal with it. Again, it wouldn't be a demotion to BM, that's why I didn't specify a hierarchy between Bcrats/sysops/BMs. Ranking of BMs was an afterthought, something I figured other users might have wanted and should put up for discussion; I'd prefer just BMs, not different rankings of the users. Needlessly complicated, questionably useful, and could be insulting to some. Haven't caught GC or Hippo on MSN, can be hard to meet them there as we live on opposite sides of the world from each other. The difficulty would be in the weighted voting, not the vote removal. Not sure if we could simply amplify BM vote by a certain percentage automatically, or if we'd have to reserve a little 'category' for BM votes only that, as a category, would be weighted more heavily than the standard, currently one-size-fits-all category for ratings from all levels of users. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman    01:31, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Discussion from PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting
"A vote must constitute an objective judgement of the build's qualities. It must not be biased by sympathy or any other prejudice regarding the author. This applies in particular to votes given by authors themselves or their friends. Votes that deliberately overshoot in favoring or unfavoring a build in order to 'compensate' another vote are not acceptable either."

This needs to be revisited. The first point about author bias is fine, but the second statement needs to be reconsidered. Until we have more experienced than inexperienced users/players contributing to the wiki, the odds that a sub-par build will be vetted favorably are pretty good. In practice (and even the user that pointed this out to me agrees), this is allowing the standard of quality on the wiki to slide, much as it did on GWiki. While enforcing this statement seems fair, it actually limits the power that regular users have in determining the wiki's fate. High or low ratings are how regular users can influence build ratings, while sysops have the added capability of removing votes. Taking away the option to vote highly or lowly, regular users have no means to ensure higher quality builds are endorsed by this wiki. Only sysops are left to remove votes that misrepresent the builds themselves. Now, this isn't to say that any admin takes unfair advantage of their powers; in fact, most of the admin team performs admirably. The back-end is usually well-maintained, user requests are responded to immediately, and admins take more flack and spam than they deserve and deal with it maturely and responsibly. In a nutshell, we need to revise this because, in practice, it doesn't work. In reality, some players are better than others (this shouldn't be hard for anyone to accept, GW is a competitive game). Some are more knowledgeable, experienced, skilled etc. But everyone gets an equal vote, and to make matters more complicated, there are unquestionably more unconditioned players than veteran ones. There are plenty of smart non-sysops, and they can do nothing to ensure high quality builds on the wiki. Btw, the solution is not a selective reviewing of every questionable vote, the solution is to cowboy up and give the better players (don't argue about points-of-view and subjective ranking etc, just deal with the fact that some people are better at GW than others) a firmer hand to shape the wiki into something of bonafide quality. Excuse the long read. - Krowman    03:17, 31 August 2007 (CEST)


 * I think this is what the Build Master's Thing was trying to address. I like the idea, but maybe something that would reward users after voting so many builds. If there was any way to count a users votes, minus the ones the get deleted, then after so many votes, 100?, then that person's vote would count for 1.2 or 1.5 of a regular vote. I know this would be really hard to implement, but I do agree something needs to be done. In case you're wondering, I would still be wayyyyyy under the limit. I know I do not play as much as other people, therefor not know as much, hence the small amount of votes from me. Anyway, yea. Bluemilkman 04:03, 31 August 2007 (CEST)


 * Vote-counting would probably end up with users voting just for the sake of voting; even if they voted more-or-less fairly, they're still going to end up voting on builds they can't use, don't know enough about, or so on. I don't disagree with Krowman's point of view; often, there are some players who's opinions I take into consideration more then others. Most of the admins are such people, normally; D.E. and Readem have played more builds then they really should have, so I trust them when they say something doesn't work because, I know they speak from experience.
 * For the most part, I think that the majority of people who's opinions I trust are already admins, and they do a good job already of removing votes that are based on false facts and bias. Giving some players more say then others is an option, but it all depends, I think; giving a player more say should be agreed on, in my opinion. Just because someone votes a lot, without getting their votes deleted often, doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about. Same goes for the reverse, there are plenty of players that do know a lot, but don't vote as often. An option might be users with a bit more say in certain categories; for example, Auron and Rapta are both especially experienced in GvG from what I understand, giving both of them a bit more sway in GvG builds would make perfect sense. Same would go for users who are particularly skilled with Ranger builds, or RA builds, or Farming setups. Such users could be "elected" much in the same way as admins are, via nominations and whatnot. Just my idea. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.> .cнаt^  04:54, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
 * (edit conflict)Know what, some form of ranked user vetting would work with BMs, but in their current manifestation, BMs are useless. They are just mini-admins in the proposal currently. I'd prefer a procedure similar to promoting admins. People can recognize who knows their stuff, and can nominate them to have a greater hand in shaping the wiki. BCrats would still get the ultimate say, so some really popular user with little in-game knowledge could still be prevented adminship, while someone who is despised for putting his knowledge to good use and shooting down numerous builds (and drawing the resulting newbie hate). Too bad that old policy wasn't written very insightfully. I'll dratf up a new one I think. Top of my head, I'm thinking three levels of vote weighting, similar to RfA process (criteria being quality, not quantity of edits/ builds submitted/favored) that is monitored by admins, vote removal capabilities, and held to similar responsibilities as admins in the Build namespace. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   05:00, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
 * Fantastic discussion. I think that a weighted system will properly address the situation.  Of course, as was mentioned or expressed above, discovering the correct weights may prove to be trying.  But, over time I believe a good balance can be achieved.  And you are right, particular people are held in higher regard when it comes to comments and discussion because of their experience by the community already.  It only makes sense that the wiki reflect what the community is already doing on their own.  But, by now effecting the rating more directly, we'll have more accurate ratings that have significant reading.  The comments by the respected posters and contributors of the wiki should be reflected in the rating of the build.  I think this would be a great step towards ensuring that.  Ascscorp 05:25, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
 * PvXwiki:Build Masters. Drafted here. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   00:57, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I like this policy
in its current state, but i didnt see anything about how weighted the votes would be.--Coloneh 01:47, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * 150% of standard, possibly 200%. It's in the 2nd sentence of the Weighted Votes section, if you'd like to see it in context. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   01:49, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * thanks, reading comprehension and memory ftw.--Coloneh 03:18, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * atm, I don't really know what to say. ‽ -(єяøהħ)  no u 03:24, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I like this policy as well. Elitism doesn't bother me at all. I 'know many other people are way better at making builds than me and 70% of the other wiki contributers. It makes sense to me that smarter people should cause more influence. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  12:17, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Elitism was what wrecked the old GWiki build section. In the end our alliance got so sick of a small group of admins stomping on good builds, we stopped posting on it, and kept on our forums.
 * The build in question was a Boon Sig/Divine Boon Bonder which we had members queuing up to learn the use of, yet it kept being shot down by admins who admitted never testing it, usually on the grounds of "Boon Sig is a Bad Elite".
 * One of the chief problems with wikis is veteran users abusing the rules. If you want a good example, check out the controversy over webcomic pages being deleted from Wikipedia. Many of these reach a wider audience than books or print comics, yet find difficulty asserting notability in the face of biased admins who repeatedly ignore evidence of notability.
 * Also, how do you rate "smart". If anything, it should be "BMs are the users with the 5 highest average build ratings, excluding cookie-cutter builds" or something, rather than a vote or nomination. Going by a ranking is quantifiable. Otherwise we end up with the "old boy's network" that puts off new people from contributing.

Oversight would also be good. Force a specific reason that can be challenged for removal of a vote. Egon 13:12, 19 November 2007 (CET)
 * Hate to break it to you, but your alliance's non-participation wasn't what stuffed the GWiki build section. It was a combination of admins getting bloody fed up with all the drama that the build section created, the low quality and inaccurate representation of builds within it, and the questionable effectiveness of the site's vetting policy (and the absence of viable alternatives). You can still read up on the discussion at GWiki here, so please don't try to distort the facts to persuade otherwise uninformed users. That build in particular sounds pretty bad. Bonding as a tactic is bad, real RA-calibre stuff. Divine Boon is bad since ANet gave it a smack with the nerf bat years ago, and as Izzy has stated, they have no plans to restore it to its former capabilities. Boon Sig is shitty itself, and pales in comparison to other elites that you could be using to make the best of a bonder. If the "old boys" are abusing the rules to get their way, then the problem lies in the rules that permit those actions. As to how this endorses elitism or an old boys' network is lost on me. By inducting a wave of new users with verifiable build knowledge, the old boys get displaced, and more numerous and fresh users take their place. One of my goals with this policy is to attract new, skilled players to the site to assume a leadership role and become BMs, so discouraging new users is also a poorly-founded argument. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   21:14, 19 November 2007 (CET)

Whoa, whoa WAIT right there.
This is going to be fucking mental if this policy is implemented. THIS will likely cause the downhill slide. Other than the fact that it is open to abuse, and people wiping negative votes from their own build that are valid, everything will end up in good/great, unless it sucks SERIOUSLY bad. Already from sysops and BCrats alone, I feel some of the votes are wrongly removed. And by making everyone special, no-one is special. I'm not a fan of elitism, right, in fact I'm AGAINST it. I hate elitism. My friends try it, and I'm always elitist over them, and it becomes a competition to see who owns each other more, and then friendships start to turn stale or fall to pieces. And by giving some people more weight over others, then it's just contradictory to the point of sysops/bcrats anyways. They are supposed to have an even standing on voting and discussions with the community, just because someone is very good at Guild Wars we don't need fucking build masters to see that. I already know Readem and Armond are fucking good at GW, and I know some other people who AREN'T sysops on this site that are very good, and we don't need build masters to prove THAT. Say I might be sucking up to the good guys all you like, but I'm making a stand on this one. This will be the DEATH of this wiki. It will WRECK any democracy on the wiki, it WON'T be a level field anymore, and it's just as bad as saying 'Right everything admins say goes because they are admins and therefore they are 10x superior to any user'. It isn't what PvXwiki is meant to be. Napalm Flame  ^_^ (talk)·(contributions) 03:40, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * /sigh. Alright, aside from the elitism spiel we all knew would come from somewhere, I'll go through your points one-by-one.
 * Downhill slide has started, if we ever really started at a peak to begin with.
 * Adminship is open to abuse. We can delete votes we don't like, we can delete entire builds that look bad and refer the author to PvX:WELL. Does this rampant abuse of power occur now? No.
 * Everything wouldn't end up in Good/Great, that's the point of fixing this. BMs get appointed because they are smart and know what is goo/great in-game, and can use their weighted votes to more ably ensure that those builds make it into the categories they belong in.
 * See here. This user states that he votes down a lot of builds, yet he has written a number of good/great ones. (No user-bias or anything here, btw.) Lots of people write lots of bad builds, so rather than putting everything into good/great (ignoring the monstrous exaggeration of yours atm), people vote negatively more often than not. More bad builds get shot down because there are more of them.
 * This wiki isn't about making friends. That's a great side benefit, but this wiki was created to document builds. This isn't a singles club or a 'Strictly Platonic' CList thread.
 * It contradicts nothing. Sysops administrate the site and keep it running. We don't regulate builds or conversations.
 * BMs aren't intended to show off how good someone is at GW. They are meant to allow them apply their knowledge in a way that benefits the site. They are not a reward for being good at GW or a good wiki-er.
 * Those other guys you know don't yet participate on the site. Improving the site's reputation would draw more good players (like your buds) to it, and the site can then benefit from their contributions. Site gets better then, better players take it seriously, maybe contribute a little themselves, snowball effect.
 * If this is sucking up, you must be new at it. :)
 * The wiki will die as the knowledgeable contributors get sick of all the crap that slides through the cracks of the vetting procedure while they can do nothing to stop it. Good contributors leave, wiki quality gets worse, more good contributors leave and stop making edits, another snowball effect. You're left to make the best you can with the bottom of the barrel. Site's reputation and ability to attract new contributors will suffer as well.
 * This isn't a democracy (yes, I am aware that GCardinal has a note on his userpage stating he would like this to be one, but wikis never are. Ultimately, the site is totally controlled by the administrators. Anything done to the wiki can be undone, if we don't like your opinion we can silence it, it's pretty totalitarian).
 * Level fields are bad because bad players and builds outnumber the good ones.
 * Like I said, PvX was meant to document builds. I'm not clear on what else you think it would become under this policy.
 * In short, this is a pragmatic approach to better the wiki. You can argue theoreticals until you lose your breath, but it doesn't mean a thing when I can see the proof of the wiki's decline first-hand. It does make sense that, since you are displeased with admin behaviour, you would be pleased with more of it coming from more users. In theory, I'll alow that something can go wrong. In practice, it rarely does and takes two clicks to revert it if it happens. Your language and tone suggests you've gotten pretty worked up about this policy; maybe you can reconsider after you read through my post. Basically, it comes down to a question of whose hands will hold the power to run this site effectively: the uneducated masses, or the knowledgeable 'elite.' You've got to ask yourself who would run the site most effectively. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   04:34, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Whole point is I WOULDN'T be pleased from more of it coming from users. Sure, we all know sysops aren't retarded/mingebags. But who goes to say that someone on the wiki who just HAPPENS to be good at Guild Wars ISN'T one? And sure, the knowledgable people should be the ones who run the site, and you do. But IMO it should be left down to sysops and BCrats, because you all run the site, not us users. And sure, you could shoot down and silence everyones' views, but you don't, because you are not arseholes. [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]Napalm Flame 04:49, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

On an extra note, it's not that I'm displeased with admin behaviour, your behaviour is mostly fine. Note the mostly. Sure, some of you do behave in a way that I feel is not suitable for an admin, but I have to live with that. And sure, some of your decisions I do not agree with, but I can live with that. What I COULDN'T just sit idly by and allow to happen is a decent wiki fall to pieces because of a select few arseholes (who just happen to be good at Guild Wars) decides to ruin the community. Sure, this is about build documentation, but with no community AKA a community of arseholes, where is the drive to document a build? <font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 04:53, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Quite simply, don't let assholes become build masters, just like we don't let them become sysops. --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 04:56, 3 September 2007 (CEST)


 * Where in the policy does it say BM's must be asses? I understand dislike of elitism (it bothers me too, it's the reason I hate PvX:WELL.  That policy is abused by elitists and a few morons who think they know everything) but you have to realize some elitist people aren't total a-holes.  Right now, I find the main problem is that people seem to refuse rating something in the middle.  Almost all votes have 2-1-1 or below or 4-4-4 and above.    ‽ -(єяøהħ)  no u 04:57, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I try to avoid the extremes by large. The thing about that is that sometimes this 'elitism' and this 'special status' gets to someone's head and it turns them into an arrogant arsehole. It's happened before, and I've been there to watch the shit hit the fan, and this was in real life. At least elitists in the core of the community (Armond, you, Krowman, Edru and me perhaps) aren't arseholes... Or at least I hope I'm not :( [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]<font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 05:01, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Simply as an additional note here regarding possible abuse, under the current structure, Administrators cannot remove votes from their own builds, and I assume the same would be true of BMs. Of course, simply by voting on their own builds, a BM could theoretically influence voting; however, all of the viable candidates I can think of wouldn't submit a bad build and then try to push it through, so that's probably not a big issue. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  05:05, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Well that's good, but the thing that really worries me is the thing that says 'You can never have too many'... Yes we can, too many will kill the wiki probably. And I'd bet any money I'm not one of your candidates, the only build I've contributed to the wiki so far is my PvE general team build which works wonders mind you, but I wouldn't push my builds through. Heck, I even deleted one of mine because it was basically an improvement on Skakid's mind blast nuker without realising it. And by the way, just one other thing, I don't WANT some elitist badge or title. I just want to be the user that sits in the corner looking useful. [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]<font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 05:09, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, if there's a lot of them, it's hardly an elite anymore. Giving more smart users more capabilities would be good here. I don't see how too many would be bad. Tbh, there probably wouldn't be that many BMs, not until we entice more good players to come and contribute here. It would be nice to have someone like Ensign chipping in every once in a while. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   05:16, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * True, true, and I've just realised something. You have just gone and shot down EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of my arguments. You must have been preparing for those sorts of arguments. [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]<font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 05:17, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Well, seems like i'm late to jump into this argument, and i don't want to read over everything and I probably won't even read the person that posts after me. But i'll just say two things. 1. it's undemocratic. 2. goes against GW:YAV which is noted to apply to pvxwiki as well - here: Build talk:N/P Remains of Sahlahja Fun by Krowman. -- Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Concerning YAV, you're looking at the wrong one. We have our own policy for that: PvX:YAV. Our version doesn't, at least not explicitly, forbid giving a group of users a higher voting weighting. In addition, if consensus is reached to make this policy official, any necessary changes will likely be made to any potentially conflicting policies. Also, citing someone to argue against themselves is a bit funny. --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 05:25, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

I was right then, and now. When I said that, we didn't have qualifications on the wiki (you could argue that we require certain things from admins, but w/e); this policy would incorporate some, giving certain users more responsibilities in exchange for more resources (again, similar to admins). Since you stated you didn't want to read through the above, I'll highlight this for you: Of course, you said you probably wouldn't even read this, but here it is for your benefit anyways. Not sure why you would jump into a discussion with no intentions to read what it has encompassed already or where it will be headed tbh. - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    05:19, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * This isn't a democracy (yes, I am aware that GCardinal has a note on his userpage stating he would like this to be one, but wikis never are. Ultimately, the site is totally controlled by the administrators. Anything done to the wiki can be undone, if we don't like your opinion we can silence it, it's pretty totalitarian).


 * Isn't a voting system supposed to be entirely balanced and equal for everyone? If a user displays misunderstanding of in-game mechanics, or blatant bias/disregard in their vote with little to no reasonable explanation, or is a sockpuppet etc, then remove it. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with the vote as it would show that indivduals personal opinion about the build, and has no reason to be weighted against. Also I don't think Authors should be allowed to vote on builds they have created themselves as they will obviously vote for it rather than against it. In all honesty sometimes I've seen some votes removed for completetly stupid reasons, sometimes they are justified, some of the time when they are removed it seems to be simply because of the admins opinion more than anything else completely disregarding the whole idea of another user having an equal oppurtunity to vote in the first place. Why not just recreate the function of the comments box to show the three fields being voted on and make the three cmments a requirement of voting so that the user voting has to give valid reasons in their vote for the three fields being voted on in the first place (effectiveness, universatility, innovation). Also how about a visual description of what each rating is, 1=poor, 2=average, 3=good etc. I know that part isn't exactly rocket science but it may help with making voteing easier to understand for newer users, and hopefully both combined would give a more informed vote and actually make users think before they vote. Hope that makes any kind of sense. :) [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Unreal Havoc  10:26, 1 November 2007 (CET)

A trial run
Could a trial run of a month be implemented for the policy if it were to be accepted to see whether or not it would work? The additional powers granted to BM's may or may not be abused and this trial would be similar. Merely a vote after the original policy becomes official a month or two afterwards would be sufficient.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ  〚 ŞƳŞŌƤ 〛 04:10, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Would make sense, since I think dumping this right in would be a MONUMENTAL fuck up. I'm still not in support of this policy in any way, shape or form, but that isn't a bad idea. <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 04:24, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Trial run would assuage many of the fears some users may have about the potential for abuse/ degradation of democracy/ whatever concerns there may be. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   04:36, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Precisely. It doesn't work- scrapped. It does work- keep. It's that simple.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ  〚[[Image:Shield of Deflection.jpg|19px]]〛 04:39, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Well what the fuck we doing standing around then? Let's get a vote started and see if we want this policy or not. The sooner the better after all. If this could determine the future of the wiki, and determine whether it goes uphill or downhill, then why stand idly by? [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]<font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 05:02, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * In this case, reasoned discussion of its pros and cons would be more better than a simple vote. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   05:11, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Then let's get summarising. What's our main pros and cons for the arguments so far? [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]<font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 05:12, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Since the coding does not yet exist to implement this on any basis, nothing is going to happen immediately. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:13, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Ah, is there a way I could perhaps help with anything? Since I'm feeling useful right now... xP [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]<font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 05:16, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Do you know anything of php, mediawiki, extensions, or even basic html? Otherwise, I doubt any of us will be able make any significant progress in that general direction. If Cheese were here, we might as well be "Deleting the Main Page". <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 05:20, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Basic HTML yes, I think I can handle that, I've done some coding, but as for php, mediawiki or extensions, I'm willing to learn, and I do learn fast. [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]<font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 05:23, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Unlikely. This will probably involve a great deal of coding (likely an entire extension will need to be built in to allow Bureaucrats to designate people as BMs, much like we designate Admins) and I doubt anyone other than Hhhippo or Cardinal can do that (even if people had the expertise, only Hhhippo and Cardinal have server access).  So despite the fact that I have a good deal of knowledge about a variety of coding languages, I doubt I could do anything.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:21, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I need someone to teach me, mind spending some time further enlightening someone seeking more knowledge? ^^ [[Image:Shield_of_Deflection.jpg|User:Napalm Flame|19px]]<font color="#ff0000">Napalm Flame 05:25, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Implementation
I got a chance to talk to Hhhippo, and he indicated that it would be relatively simple to implement this policy from a coding stand point. Just thought I'd throw that out there so we can get back to the question of whether we actually want to attempt a trial run. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  09:02, 4 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, I think we might want to nail down the rules and then go back and see the plausibility. When this was brought up, I believe we were talking about designating BM's for particular sections.  As opposed to a simple BM.   That is, you could have a Ranger BM, whose votes on Ranger builds have significant weight.  But, that user would not have significant weight when rating a Mesmer build.  Of course, we can add various campaigns to the mix as well.  Of course, this increases the level of complexity.  I would assume greatly.
 * So, we either make the assumption that a build master is a master builder of all builds. Or, we regulate it to the statement I made in the above paragraph.  Also, rankings of BM's was also introduced during this discussion.  And both the statement I made and BM rankings are introducing a hierarchy of build masters.
 * If the hierarchy is such that the sysop has all of the attributes, plus more, of the BM, we are then saying that the Sysop is a BM and will have a weighted rating. Is this what we want to be the structure?  I would probably be ok it (though I'll suggest something else later), but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks on the issue.
 * Also, I'd like to know if we can create a more complex hierarchy of the BMs (Ranger BM, Necro BM, ect.) where you could be any combination of the BMs. In this same vein, I suggest that BM be an attribute that can be obtained, as opposed to a particular role in the hierarchy I described above.  That is, a Sysop can be a Ranger BM or not.  This gives a little more meaning to the worthiness of the BMs.  Because, quite frankly, a Sysop may not be a BM of a particular profession.  Ascscorp 15:38, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * BM = master of builds, not professions, for similar reasons to why profession-specific guides are flawed. You're right about its complexity, and when I think of potential BM candidates, I can only think of one profession-or-role-specific BM: Luobailong, dealing with running builds. Every single other candidate I can think of knows more than one single profession/role. About your sysop note, I stated that it is my hope that we won't need to have build-knowledgeable admins; those that were promoted based on their in-game knowledge could become BMs. However, the capabilities would be extended to current admins, since we do have a few who are very knowledgeable players about the game, and were promoted before this policy ever existed. Ultimately, it is the admin's decision to remain an admin or become a BM. If you can think of any profession-specific candidates, please feel encourage to list them (I highly doubt they will be insulted), but for pragmatic purposes (which is central to this policy), BMs should be learned in more than one profession. Playing multiple profession makes you better at your preferred one anyways, as does being informed about the current metagame. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   18:08, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Question: Current admin have to make the choice between BM and Admin? If so, will the admin loose the current ability to strike votes?  I would hope not, cause even the most uneducated (in game) admin can tell a vote that contradicts itself. Єяøהħ 18:25, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * BMs also have the ability to strike votes as one of their two new tools. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   18:27, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I understand that, but will normal admin loose that ability when the BM's arrive, and if an admin goes for BM, will he/she be a BM only (meaning they lose adminship)? Єяøהħ 18:29, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Oh, sorry, misunderstood you. Admins may still remove votes. Current admins may stay as both, since they were promoted before this policy ever existed. Later on down the road, it may be decided that they be one or the other, but we won't find out which will work best until the policy has been active for a while, so that we may see how it goes over here at the site. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   18:36, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I think you cleared up some things, Krowman. And I do think that you are right about the master of builds 'type', that they (the BM) will need to be professed in a number of different areas to be a master of builds.  Perhaps profession was to fine grain to break down the BM concentrations, but there separations in game play based on the meta game that can be abstracted out; such as running.  We see it in the breakdown of builds here on the wiki.  PvP and PvE.  HA, TA, HB and GvG; Running, Farming and General.  Maybe we can just have PvP and PvE.  This would be a high level break down and I think at the least, if not a finer level, is needed.  Considering PvE only skills and the general the meta game of both PvP and PvE.  Ascscorp 19:09, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * The PvE/PvP distinction you make I think is a fair one, though I don't see why a user can't be both, so long as they can back up their claims of PvE/P 'build mastery.' :) - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman  
 * Agreed. They can be both, but I think there should be the process for each distinction. Ascscorp 21:43, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Regarding Voting on This Policy
When would voting on this policy take place? Additionally, how would users know that they could begin voting on it? Not only do I entirely disagree with this policy proposal, but I also see an inherent problem in voting for it. The policymaking process on the Wiki is typically only engaged in by users who spend a great deal of time on the Wiki. We'll call these full-time users. These users are the exact same people that this policy favors and seeks to grant weighted votes to. The part-time Wiki user that makes occasional changes or contributions here or there isn't going to vote on this policy. In fact, it's likely that they won't even be aware of this policy. So what we actually have here is full-time Wiki users voting in a policy that benefits them. It's similar to Congress voting to give themselves a raise. Now, I've seen many of you trying to make the argument that this policy wouldn't just benefit the full-time users; i.e, you argue that it would benefit the Wiki in it's entirety. But that goes against the entire concept of a Wiki, which is one of fair, open, and equally weighted input by any and all users. So how is any of this fair for everyone? The fact that full-time users are going to be the ones both voting on and benefiting from this policy should be a clear indication that it is heavily, heavily biased.--Ninjatek 19:41, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * There likely won't be a vote. If enough people like the policy, it will be given a trial run, as suggested above. As to benefits, this policy offers no rewards to full/part time users. BM status is determined by merit, not seniority or number of contributions. The 'perks' of being a BM are more responsibilities. They get additional jobs to do, not rewards. The only quasi-reward would be the title of BM; if you think that's unfair, get in-game and browse through the dozens of titles that varying levels of players are sporting. Life isn't fair, neither is a wiki (wikis aren't democracies either). If I don't like you, I can make sure that no one here ever hears from you again. Is that fair? Is that equality? Your points are based in idealism, while this is a pragmatic approach to fix a problem that idealism got us into in the first place. (It sounded great to give everyone a free and equal vote, but I guess the fact that bad players and builds outnumber the good ones eluded the grasp of these freedom-loving users). This policy improves the wiki, that's a benefit to all. It doesn't contradict a wiki, as I explained above (mainly, that wikis aren't fair or democracies). The "full-time users" will be ensuring a better site for everyone; since the people who would become BMs already know a lot about builds, they are getting little out of a builds-help site. The benefit is to new players who deserve better information than what we are giving them. BMs stand little to gain from having a strong builds resource (because they already know the builds), so I don't know how you can figure the policy is biased in their favor. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   19:53, 7 September 2007 (CEST)


 * I don't like the idea of this policy. Having specific users with greater voting power goes against the point of having a vote. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:28, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Not exactly, it changes the weight of some votes, its gonna take more than BM's voting 4-4-4 on a build to get it into the good cat. The only thing I don't think we can ever fix, is users voting the same way as other users or perpously voting the opposite.  Theres always 2-3 people who don't even fully understand the build and its purpose, and they vote the same way as everyone else. Єяøהħ 22:32, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Yes it does. A vote with everyone at equal weighting = a vote. Anything else is not a vote. The only thing that should be changed is to increase moderation on existing votes, rather than create a new category of users that have power over other users in build vetting. For this to be a wiki, all users should have the same power when voting. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:35, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I would still have vote power. If bm = 1.5 of a vote, people can easily overcome that vote. Єяøהħ 22:36, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * If that's the case then why have it at all? It's pointless. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:37, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Again, the best solution is to step up moderation of votes (quality control over votes that don't provide a reason, going against "the flow" of votes without a reason. Votes placed purposely to screw up the system should be removed; something the administrators should be doing, not creating an entire new class of users. A simple solution is to have more administrators. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:39, 7 September 2007 (CEST)


 * Dunno, most people sound for this idea, so maybe one of them can answer. I have never liked elitist people {mainly because most of them let it get to their head) and I kinda dislike the idea of promoting an elitist person to have more power, cause that won't ever go to their head... Єяøהħ 22:40, 7 September 2007 (CEST)


 * I guess it could depend on your definition of "elitist". For example, if someone votes every build that's not on observer move every other match as "trash", then they should not be given Admin-like powers on this wiki. But depending on a person's build standard, elitism may or may not be an issue. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:52, 7 September 2007 (CEST)


 * As an addition to my reasons above, I don't think that these "powers" would benefit the community much. Personally, I see users having the ability to delete Builds (ie, redirects, dupes) as a more useful tool than screwing up vote pages. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:45, 7 September 2007 (CEST)
 * I also dont like to see more users get more power - Because even now there are users who dont like particular admins. and when u give several users more power they each have their own opinion about stuff and it is just giving more useres reason to hate more several BM that has more power. i agree with naplam and Rapta here. too many "leaders" is never good.[[image:thelord23.jpg|20px]] thelord23 23:33, 7 September 2007 (CEST)


 * (to Rapta) Tbh, increased vigilance in vote surveillance is more unfair than appointing BMs. Removing an increased number of votes, based on tightened restrictions is much more oppressive, enforces a much more conforming approach to builds, and not particularly helpful to players seeking build advice. Under your suggestion, we would merely be removing more and more votes than differed from popular opinion; under this proposal, we would be effectively pointing to good players and telling the inexperienced players to listen to their advice, while empowering those 'gurus' to better formulate a comprehensive and accurate build resource. Deleting redirects and duplicate builds wouldn't help improve the quality of the builds on-site what-so-ever. As I have pointed out many times here and elsewhere, wikis aren't fair, and they aren't democracies. Our voting system in place now is unfair. You can be an experienced, skilled, and highly-ranked player, and your vote is to be held equal to a player who is new to the game and the site. An extreme example of course, but it serves to illustrate the point. When it comes to this fairness/equality/democracy complaint (on any policy, on any wiki), it is necessary to accept that people aren't equal; therefore it makes no sense to treat them equally. Some sites look for programming skills in their appointed leaders, some look for patience/tolerance/general people skills; we here should be looking for build knowledge in our leaders, and give them a means through which they can put that knowledge to good use. Deletion powers etc don't do that at all. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    08:03, 8 September 2007 (CEST)


 * I don't see how increased vote surveillance is unfair. The section on "going against popular opinion" was merely a suggestion, but is not necessary. For any wiki, and for any voting system to be successful, each and every user, during the vote, must be held as equal to another. That is the only way a vote would actually work. Shifting this "balance of power" to another user or specific group of users (no matter how slight the shift may be) changes the system completely. It does not matter if people are equal or not, but they should be treated as though they are equal. This is one of the fundamental rules in which a wiki, and in turn, this voting process, can be run. Suggestions in all points of view should be included in discussion. If a vote doesn't make sense or fails to describe the capabilities of a build, then it can be removed and a message placed on a user's talk page, telling them to re-vote or "tweak" their vote. The ability to delete and revote is one of the areas in our voting system that stands out to give users more chances to correct mistakes, and in turn, make better builds themselves. But in the current state of this wiki, there are very few faults in the voting process (most complaints being from admins who don't want to remove votes or users whining/QQ'ing about their build being voted unfavorably). Right now, most bad builds are filtered out into the trash category, a few slip into the "Acceptable" category (which is fine, as far as I see), and the good builds get voted favorably. As such, I just don't see this policy as being necessary or benefitial. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:16, 11 September 2007 (CEST)


 * Just a quick question; is it possible to make Admins who's only ability is vote removal? Giving too many users Sysop abilities might not be great, but a few more half-admins, just for vote patrol, might be good to have, and might make it simpler to keep 0-0-0 votes saying "Shadow Form can't stop Power Attack" out of the system. More eyes makes vote cleanup a simpler task, and frees up some of the other admins for more administrative duties. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  04:33, 12 September 2007 (CEST)


 * In answer to your question Jioruji, from what I understand, it would be possible to designate a group of people who would have the power to remove votes, but would not have other Admin abilities. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:48, 12 September 2007 (CEST)


 * Perhaps that's a viable option. Admins with very specific rights and abilities; users with the sole ability of vote removal and adjustment could be close to "build masters" as it is. Either way, you're going to need those users to have a good understanding of how builds work, be it so they can make the best possible votes, or spot votes based on flawed logic. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  05:49, 12 September 2007 (CEST)
 * No, that's exactly what the old BM proposal concerned, and that is why it failed. The talk page goes into this in greater detail. As well, how many of those "Shadow Form can't stop Power Attack" votes are out there? The problem with the wiki isn't the number of bad votes, it is the good ones that are so damaging. We have people over-rating builds, guilds co-ordinating to vet their own builds, and other mischief. Some of our 'Great' builds aren't great at all. Basically, the only-vote-removal user rights have been discussed and shut down before, and the entire discussion can be read at the link I provided above.
 * As to you Rapta, I don't see how anything good can come of treating unequal people equally. One point that I have tried to make repeatedly on this page is that GW players aren't equal whatsoever. Not even ANet pretends that they are (in reference to the title function). What is a good reason (or reasons) for treating two unequal people equally? Wheelchair-bound people have access to larger stalls in bathroom. Is that fair? No. Does that make it a bad thing? No. Look at foreign students for another example. Are they thrown into classes where they don't understand the language being spoken, and are expected to achieve equal performance under equal conditions? No. There are ESL classes that they can receive and benefit from. Is this option extended to everyone? No. Is it a bad thing? Again, no, it isn't. Equality for the sake of equality reaps nothing constructive for the site. It's a nice ideal, but that kind of idealism is what is dragging the site down (it's not all our fault, when we ported GWiki's builds here, we ported over the same problems). This is a practical, pragmatic solution to the problem before us. Deleting more votes or builds will do nothing to ensure the accuracy and quality of the builds PvX hosts. As to the idea that "a few" bad builds slip into the Acceptable category, I guess I just have higher standards; to me that is a problem, not something we can tolerate/ignore. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   07:02, 12 September 2007 (CEST)
 * This site is where it is today due to unequal people being treated equally. In short, GW is not analogous to anything other than GW, since it is in all essence, a computer game. Additionally, some of the examples you brought up don't make as much sense. Are you suggesting that newer, less experienced users be given greater voting power?
 * I honestly don't see where so many of these significant problems are, that require dragging on a new policy that throws away the very basis of voting. Sure, there are a few users that are inexperienced, but treating them as inferior in voting solves very little. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "deleting more votes or builds will do nothing", as it will, infact, accomplish a lot.
 * The examples you brought up, in a way, prove my point. The unequal people in your scenarios, the ESL students, the disabled, are given additional help in order to become equal to others. The ESL students are tought English so they are able to speak on equal terms with others in society, and disabled peoples are given extra benefits to live an equally normal life as a regular person. Instead of looking down upon newbies and lowering their voting power (albiet, indirectly), they should at least be treated equally. Many users who are here today, for example, may not even be here if no one knew who they were or how much experience they had, or simply would have left the wiki, were it not for the equality system we've (as well as every other wiki) has in place. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 07:20, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

(ri) I find that this discussion, at least between you & me Rapta, is getting very drawn out, a little abstract, and less and less related to the subject at hand. In short, what you dislike about this proposal is that it undermines voting and treats users unequally, and your suggestions include more vigorous vote moderation, and giving more users, possibly the BMs, the ability to remove votes and delete builds? - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    01:38, 17 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Rapta, i honestly don't think you have a valid point. The purpose of the vetting process is not to store builds that people want to be stored, rather, it is to store builds that people think are good enough to be stored.  Build Masters(as i understand) are people who have demonstrated enough knowledge to be able to discern a builds performance greater then that of the average person, and thus, their vote counts for more.  It will be MUCH easier for the admins to control a BM whos acting irresponsibly with his/her greater voting power then it is for the admins to remove a larger amount of votes.  Again, this isnt a case of where people are voting for what they want(in which all oppinions should be equal, and all votes the same) but rather a vote of what people understand about the build(and thus, those who understand more about the game and build should, in theory, have greater voting power).Bob fregman 22:01, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * It simply does not matter whether people "want" to store crap builds or good builds, but whether they are stored in the end process, and how long they are stored for. I'll state this again: there is no significant problem with the current vetting system that requires changing the balance of votes. I also fail to understand your logic. How is it easier for admins to control a BM that acts irresponsibly than a regular user? It's not. If an admin wants to remove a large number of votes, or even a single vote, to balance a build's rating to what they think is right, then that's already abuse. All votes should be counted the same, regardless of experience ingame (again, reasons above). If users think that there is such a huge problem in the voting system, a simple task (stated above) would be to add more admins, point users to the Admin noticeboard, etc... Right now, there are not many issues that have been posted there, so I hardly see the need for this policy's implementation. And in any case, what you don't seem to understand, fregman, is that every vote shows what people "want". There is no way, even with this policy implemented, to moderate what people "want" in a build. It's simply shown that what some people want are similar to each other, while a few votes stand out to oppose popular opinion. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:52, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * This policy is NOT needed... Admins, such as myself, do the work just fine. DE and Auron are our oversights, and they are responsible should something go wrong. [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (T/C/Sysop) 22:55, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * No, is a great (har har) example of why the system is not working. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    23:01, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * That's is not because of lack of admins... That is because people are bad at GW, I mean what can we do about that? We can't remove em, they contain all parts needed for a vote... [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (T/C/Sysop) 23:03, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * We could enact a policy that grants more power to people who are good at GW to rate builds accurately... - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   23:06, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Hehe... I'm fairly certain there is a failed policy... [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (T/C/Sysop) 23:10, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Not really sure why either one of you didn't just remove the votes. They're really bad. Like the build. =P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:19, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Additionally, I'm pretty sure that build violates PvX:WELL... &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:24, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * The thing is, for all intents and purposes, those are valid votes. It's user who are expressing their oppinions about a build.  From my perspective, you Rapta, are being very contradictory.  You say that equality is the basis of a wiki and a voting system, yet you propose to strike votes simply because the voters in question have expressed an oppinion that is different from your own.  Personally, i agree with you're oppinion, but who am i to remove their oppinion because i disagree.  Instead of going around and silencing the idiots, why not just grant a number of people, whove clearly displayed sufficent knowledge, a greater capacity for counteracting them, while still allowing their oppinions to hold weight(and depending on the number of BMs, the increase of 50% probably wont be that drastic anyways).  In krowmans scenario, regular voters will all have an equal vote, while a group of voters will have a vote with a little more weight to it.  In your scenario, the admins will simply remove the votes of the users who are "newbs" or are just plain bad at the game.  Those users now have no voice.  How is silencing oppinions an equal and just way to handle things, yet elevating someone oppinion slightly above that of others is a fundamental error to a wiki or voting system?Bob fregman 03:35, 20 September 2007 (CEST)
 * To be picky, this idea wouldn't work very well in a voting system (giving some people a vote and a half, imagine a RL election -.-), but in a numerical ratings system such as this, it works better. And yeah, removing more and more votes as prescribed above does equate to us practicing the idea of "you can vote anyway you like, as long as you agree with us." - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   05:28, 20 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Haven't looked at this page in a while. No, I'm not saying that votes should be struck when they differ in opinion from you. Votes should be struck when they are bad and have no meaning to them. More struck votes =/= make all votes belong to you. Just wanted to clarify that. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 05:05, 25 October 2007 (CEST)

GW Titles and BMs
Could there be a short list of GW titles a user would need before they might be considered a BM?Kiteeye 05:47, 22 October 2007 (CEST)
 * Meh, I don't think that's necessary. — Skakid9090 06:29, 22 October 2007 (CEST)


 * Like, I have I'm Very Important, but Readem, Krowman, Edru, Ibreaktoilets, ect.. are all better at the game then me and don't have it — Skakid9090 06:35, 22 October 2007 (CEST)
 * Depending on who you ask, I'm pretty good at game, but I'm r1 hero, prot cantha, and... that's it. =\ That, and the fact that it's too easy to fake titles, makes me say no. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 07:16, 22 October 2007 (CEST)


 * Simply having BMs be elected to their positions should work nicely for keeping the good users in the right positions. If someone's not that great at the game, then people will probably figure it out. If they generally speak truth in their votes, and know what they're talking about, then you've got yourself a good candidate for a BM. Simple as that. Adding more requirements and whatnot just complicates a simple-enough process. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  11:11, 22 October 2007 (CEST)
 * Elections will work better than any promotion based on titles system. If someone's in a position to be promoted to BM, it's pretty likely that a fair few people on the wiki will know how good they are, and whether or not they're a good candidate. [[Image:Ibreaktoilets_Signature.jpg|User:Ibreaktoilets]]<font color="Blue">Ibreaktoilets 11:47, 22 October 2007 (CEST)
 * I'm opposed to elections, because I'm fairly certain that someone like Skakid(and Skakid is one of the main reasons I would like a BM policy, because he's someone with the knowledge to really benefit the wiki with BM powers, but who might not necessarily be a good choice for admin(both because a lot of people dislike him and because he sometimes is too blunt)) would lose in any voting-based system simply because of the dislike many people have for him for voting badly or criticizing their bad builds. --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 01:03, 23 October 2007 (CEST)
 * Meh. We're never going to promote Users to BMs, Sysops, etc., based on a straight up election.  Popular users are not always the best users for the job and vice versa.  Inevitably I think, if we do decide to implement a BM policy, it's going to have to work on a similar principle to RfAs.  We have nominations and votes, but, inevitably, it's going to be a core group of people (namely the bureaucrats and sysops) making the final decisions.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  01:17, 23 October 2007 (CEST)
 * Exactly. Any new user can tell you, Rapta's a bad choice for a BM position. But anyone who knows how builds actually work can attest that Rapta knows what he's talking about. Hell, sometimes Rapta's votes still tick me off, but that's why I always ask for explanations; I know that I'm rarely going to get anything but an informed, experienced opinion. "Voting" for BMs is a good idea, but pure unpopularity with a majority shouldn't outweigh someone's experience. When I say elections, I mean it in the loosest sense of the term, not necessarily the same method as presidential elections or anything. (we all know how those turn out sometimes.) --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  07:29, 23 October 2007 (CEST)

Yes, this is why I stated when drafting this policy that BMs would be appointed based "on merit alone." - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    08:07, 23 October 2007 (CEST)

I didnt know it was easy to fake titles. How? Like the Gladiator Title (for RA build votes) Kiteeye 09:54, 5 November 2007 (CET)
 * Pho-to-shop. --InternetLOL 10:00, 5 November 2007 (CET)

Implementation 2
I think we need to begin implementing this policy, be it trial or not. Elitism is a moot point. As can be seen, most notably in the recent touch ranger ratings, Auron and later Armond made the proper steps in removing innacurate votes and came under considerable criticism from a fair amount of people. People are going to complain about having their votes struck, and about the elitism of this, so i say we let them have a voice in their votes, but give good players a louder one.Bob fregman 23:43, 30 October 2007 (CET)


 * Elitism? Hehe, I was looking at people crying out that I was corrupt. Don't think Auron got any of that, but hey. :P
 * But you're right - the main thing standing in our way, however, is the coding involved. Hhhippo, Gcardinal, if either of you are reading this, could we get a statement on how much coding it'll involve, and how long we could expect it to take? -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 00:26, 31 October 2007 (CET)


 * I've been informed on previous occasions that it shouldn't take long to implement; however, the hard part is getting in touch with one of them when he has a second to spare. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:29, 31 October 2007 (CET)


 * Im sure Cardinal and Hhhipo have alot to do, so i'm really not trying to rush them on anything. As armond implied, the responses by some users to his legit removal of their votes was rediculous.  The main argument against this policy was that admins could just remove votes that blatently misrepresented a builds abilities, and we see how well that worked.  I think this policy is a good way to maintain the quality of builds on the wiki, while still allowing others to have a voice.Bob fregman 01:04, 31 October 2007 (CET)


 * I think it shouldn't be too much work. Once there is consensus here that we want it and how we want it, we can work on it. Timescale is hard to estimate, depends on unexpected obstacles showing up in the coding or in RL. If all goes well it could be possible this weekend, the worst case would be a few weeks. –&thinsp;<font color="darkblue" face="times">H HHIPPO  &thinsp;&lsaquo;<font color="blue" size="-2">sysop &rsaquo; 09:52, 1 November 2007 (CET)

Support

 * 1) ya rly --71.229.204.25 00:19, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 2) [[Image:Hammer And Sickle.png|19px]]<font color="Red">Viet  talk  00:21, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 3) <font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 01:59, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 4) The arguments presented above as well as the issues that occured when an alternative was attempted are proof that this is needed.Bob fregman 03:52, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 5) — Skakid9090 03:57, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 6) Equal voting isn't so good if 80% of the population has no clue about what they're talking about. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  04:08, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * Re: Touch ranger explosion. =\ -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 06:28, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 1) I would be against something that values some user's votes more then others, but let's not forget, this is rating, not voting. :P --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>  <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  15:15, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 2) Conditional Support I'd like to see this implemented on a conditional basis and then re-evaluate it after a couple of months or so.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:36, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 3) Conditional Support only if the votes are not weighted weighted only slightly differently.--Coloneh 08:01, 5 November 2007 (CET)
 * 4) Conditional Support Only if the difference in weight is slight to none.  —ǥrɩɳsɧ  ƿoɲ  11:36, 7 November 2007 (CET)
 * 5) Would totally help.&mdash;[[Image:Cheese Slaya's Sig.jpg|50x19px]] Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 02:49, 8 November 2007 (CET)
 * 6) yes plz. [[Image:Frenzy.jpg|50x19px]]<font color="Brown">Punjab 00:10, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * 7) Yes.--[[image:Victoryisyourssig2.jpg|19px]]<font color="black" face="times new roman" size="2">Victoryisyours ( talk / pvxcontribs ) 01:09, 10 November 2007 (CET)
 * 8) My thoughts are down below. I also changed Victoryisyours' bullet to a number.[[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|20px]]Shen (contribs) 19:03, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * 9) <B>Conditional Support.</B> Only if there is no vote weighting. Lord Belar 22:16, 13 November 2007 (CET)
 * 10) Yes please. Would certainly help as long as you don't pick the wrong people and if you can swiftly demote asses. - Star Seeker  |  My talk  00:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)
 * 11) As much as the vote-weighting, when you consider that these people are put in place by the community, the Wiki starts to look a lot more like the U.S. Gov't with Senators and all. They get power from the community, which itself is already not democratic as has been stated in several places, several times, and they're expected to use said power properly, or they'll be stripped of it. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2">cedave  <small color="#AA226D">(contributions_buildpage)  18:06, 2 December 2007 (CET)
 * 12) What Cedave said. Kabu To 19:41, 4 December 2007 (CET)
 * 13) Conditional Support What DE said. [[Image:Image-Dark_Morphon's_Siggie.jpg‎]]<font color="Black">Dark  <font color="Black">Morphon <font color="Black"> (contribs)  14:18, 8 December 2007 (CET)
 * 14) Conditional Support What DE and Coloneh Said.--[[Image:Assassin-icon.png|20px]] The Gates Assassin 20:56, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Late, are we? :P Lord Belar 20:57, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Better late than never =D--[[Image:Assassin-icon.png|20px]] The Gates Assassin 15:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Oppose

 * 1) A policy that values one person's vote over another has no place on this wiki. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey   (talk)  02:20, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 2) This is not the way forward to create an equal voting system for everyone. [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Unreal Havoc  02:21, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 3) <S>A wiki is founded on the principle that all users arguments should be equally for merit. Also, if someone is a good player, and knows that a build is bad/good, they should not need extra powers, as the intrinsic merit of their argument should sway others to remove votes or vote like them. Lord Belar 00:21, 9 November 2007 (CET)</S>
 * 4) Strongly Oppose. My reasons are voiced a few pages above. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 06:05, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * EDIT: and now below. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 05:35, 19 November 2007 (CET)
 * 1) Strongly Oppose. The old Gwiki ratings system was heavily influenced by a few admins (unoffical) weighting, and PVX should stay free of this kind of "elite user bias" Egon 12:31, 19 November 2007 (CET)
 * 2) Strongly Oppose. this wiki has enough elitism. Already. It would just give the already popular users even more power and imho is a direct violation of PvXwiki:You are valuable.Grobilikesmudkips 15:19, 8 December 2007 (CET)

Neutral

 * 1) Misfate  03:53, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * 2) (your vote here)

If we are going to implement this soon, it might be nice to have a poll set up as to people wo are opposed/supporting of/neutral to this policy ---  Ressmonkey   (talk)  00:16, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * This is a poll?--[[image:Victoryisyours_Sig_Image.jpg‎|19px]]<font color="darkorange" face="arial bold">Victory <font color="Brown" face="arial bold">is <font color="black" face="arial bold">yours 00:18, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * I dont understand what you're saying, but yes this is a poll. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey   (talk)  00:19, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * I don't understand, you said it would be nice to have a poll set up as to people who are opposed/supporting/neutral to this policy. This is a poll with who is supported/opposed/neutral of it...isn't it?--[[image:Victoryisyours_Sig_Image.jpg‎|19px]]<font color="darkorange" face="arial bold">Victory <font color="Brown" face="arial bold">is <font color="black" face="arial bold">yours 00:24, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah, I kinda set up the poll and the order in which I said it in my comment was bad. Makes things clearer? --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey   (talk)  00:38, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * Lol, yeah. I thought you didn't notice the poll above your comment.--[[image:Victoryisyours_Sig_Image.jpg‎|19px]]<font color="darkorange" face="arial bold">Victory <font color="Brown" face="arial bold">is <font color="black" face="arial bold">yours 00:40, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * No one's going to remove votes from this are they? Unregistered users with no contributions of any kind should be denied from voting. [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Unreal Havoc  02:22, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * Well, this isnt an actual vote, its a poll, so whoever wants to state an opinion can. This is just to collectively gather thought as to how people view this policy.  If we want an actual vote, that can be done, but this poll counts for nothing (but should be representative of what an actual cote would look like). --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey   (talk)  02:37, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * I know, it was sarcasm. :) [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Unreal Havoc  02:43, 2 November 2007 (CET)

Coloneh and Havoc, you are misunderstanding the purpose of this policy. Ress, please don't respond to a user's vote, you have interrupted the poll's flow and format. I removed your comment, but feel free to re-post it down here somewhere. - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    22:13, 6 November 2007 (CET)
 * Sorry about that. Also, my comment to Coloneh was "They will be though. If that wasnt part of it, I would be all for this policy." --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey   (talk)  22:22, 6 November 2007 (CET)
 * Np. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   08:04, 7 November 2007 (CET)
 * what part of "conditional" dont you understand? I support this, under the condition that the weighted voting is removed. this is not a policy. it is not set in stone. the point is not to make some users votes more effective. its to give responsible, knowledgeable users more authority so this site can actually be managed and admins can spend their time on things that actually require an admin.--Coloneh 00:09, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * The policy you seem to want(this minus higher vote weighting for BMs) already failed, didn't it? --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 00:55, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * Yes, precisely because it didn't do enough. PvXwiki:Build Master Status Requests. Judging by the reasons given by the dissenters, it seems they haven't yet read through the discussions further up on the page before entering the poll. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   03:11, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * I read it perfectly well thankyou. I disagree with the outcome of a build being determined by a select few people rather than the majority. Doesn't matter how you try to put it across politically, that's how it is. Put 5 regular users on the vote "for" side, and put 5 build masters on the vote "against" side, what's the outcome? A build masters voice and reasoning should be more than enough to shift the balance in voting, not privelages that tip the balance in their favour as they see fit. Sorry if you don't like the fact that I disagree, but that's my opinion. [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Unreal Havoc  04:19, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * Stop talking in 'shoulds' and 'opinions,' and start working with the facts. This isn't politics, this is documentation. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   04:22, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * <B>This</B> is politics, the builds namespace is documentation. Lord Belar 04:30, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * Shoulds and opinions huh? Lol.[[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Unreal Havoc  04:36, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * No, this is a documentation site. If you came here to play politics, somewhere along the way, you got lost. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   04:42, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * Hmmm... I thought this site was a politically based documentation site... --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey   (talk)  04:48, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * A documentation site that has a voting policy with weighted votes against the regular users favour? I think you missed Lord Belars point entirely. Yes this is a Documentation site, this discussion however is politics. [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Blue">Unreal Havoc  04:51, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * And I think you missed the point of the policy. This isn't about taking anything away from the regular users and our current userbase. This policy doesn't hurt anyone, especially the regular users. Perhaps you could elaborate and explain how this policy negatively affects the site's users, rather than simply stating it does again and again? Constructive criticism helps work out the kinks before we implement a trial run. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    07:02, 9 November 2007 (CET)
 * When one person's vote counts more than anothers, a more heirarchical system develops. The more heirarchical a system is, the more oppressed the lowest level of society is (Karl Marz got something right, OMG!). --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey   (talk)  21:49, 10 November 2007 (CET)
 * Maybe I should make my question more pointedly. To what extent does this hurt our users, especially our 'lowest level' users? (Btw, Marx got a lot right, that's why his societal-political ideas remain popular even to this day, and continue to shape the face of global politics and economics.) - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   21:57, 10 November 2007 (CET)
 * It makes them into appendages of the machines, duh! --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey   (talk)  22:10, 10 November 2007 (CET)
 * Em, what? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   09:38, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * Its what happens to the proletariat in the communist manifesto, havent you ever read it? --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey   (talk)  13:40, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * Make it relevant to the site. Otherwise it's apples and oranges. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   21:56, 11 November 2007 (CET)

A suggestion

 * Moved to PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   20:38, 10 November 2007 (CET)

I believe
that in reality this policy, implemented in its entirety, will be auspicious. Having submitted quite a few unfavored builds, I've been frustrated many times by votes failing to provide suitable explanation, and credit goes to Armond and Edru for their input that has proved supremely valuable as I worked my way off my path of noobiness (and yes I was a noob, not a newb). Hopefully my scenario will seem familiar, as it was listed by Rapta as one of our vetting system's most redeeming qualities. Yet at present, this function of the vetting system remains scarcely appreciated, for it has scarcely been seen, that is, implemented. BM's, with their explictly enumerated role in PvXwiki, should therefore be expected to raise the average level of 'knowledgeability'. Now of course my argument is idealogical, but if this policy will raise even one contributer to the plateau of experience, it has already proved worthy. And should many be so blessed, as I (not to optimistically, I hope) foresee being the case, Rapta's argument that this policy does not treat people equally can be thrown out the window. For treating people equally means giving them the same opportunity. BM's provide the means of doing so, but both the contributer and the helping hand have responsibility, and should the average PvXwiki-er decide not to take advantage of a BM's wealth of knowledge, the fault lies in the former rather than the latter.
 * In a huge digression, the simple fact we've got uneducated masses rating builds proves something needs to be done. Admins should not be so pressured trying to maintain a high standard on this wiki.
 * Regarding the weighted rating, it is absolutely essential part of this policy. It will force the masses to recognize the BM's guru status.

Thanks for reading Shen (contribs) 18:55, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * Thx for the input, but I like not being a machine's arm. (read above discussion) --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey   (talk)  19:04, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * Well, I haven't read the Communist Manifesto, but I don't get your point...did you care to read mine? Or perhaps some elaboration would let me see your logic. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|20px]]Shen (contribs) 19:07, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah I read yours, and I wasnt actually trying to make sence with the communist thing. I don't get your connection with the implementation of this policy and the betterment of people's experience, though. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey   (talk)  19:12, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * Good BMS with more vote weighting leads to better builds being vetted and bad votes being removed more, which leads to people hopefully using better builds and learning from the knowledge of the BMs. --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 19:24, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * It also leads to a lack of creativity and stagnation, turning this in to nothing better than the many preexisting forums. Lord Belar 20:23, 11 November 2007 (CET)

"For treating people equally means giving them the same opportunity." -Shen. QFT QFT QFT. Creativity doesn't suffer at all. We don't vet bad builds positively simply because they are creative now, and we won't under this policy. If people make a good, original build, it will get a good rating, same as ever. No difference. - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    22:04, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * Ahhh what's QFT mean? [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|20px]]Shen (contribs) 22:07, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * quote for truth — Skakid9090 22:08, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * QFT = Quite Fucking True. Repeated for emphasis. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   22:11, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * Hah I thought it had a negative connotation. Excuse my newbiness. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|20px]]Shen (contribs) 22:13, 11 November 2007 (CET)
 * No no, it was good. I would've have put it differently (same oppurtunity =/= equal treatment), but it is an important idea. For example, say a rich man and a poor man want to educate themselves, to get good careers. Rich man can get himself to school, and we should encourage that. Poor man may not be able to afford it, so we should accomodate that. After all, we all win by them having better jobs (because they pay more taxes, thereby funding more social institutions like health care, policing, and education). In relation to this wiki, it is important to designate and promote knowledgeable players, so that new users/players have examples to follow. At the present time, a new user can happen across a ratings page, see the scores given by both a good player and a bad player, and will have a 50/50 chance of following in the bad player's lead. This doesn't benefit anyone. More bad players contributing to the site will fill it with bad advice and builds, perpetuating the problem. Bad players will be ridiculed in-game (and will not know why), creating an unpleasant experience for them. This way, no one benefits. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   05:19, 13 November 2007 (CET)
 * Don't weight the votes, just put some designation next to a good player's name to show their expertise. Also, being a little more vigilant on the bad vote removal will serve to curb the problem. Lord Belar 05:28, 13 November 2007 (CET)
 * Discussion about those two points is placed in the above sections for easy reference. In summary, weighted votes allow BMs to actually do something with their Expertise, and without it, this is little more than a different BM proposal that was shot down before (because the BMs only had vote removal powers). More vote removal amounts to us removing votes that disagree with our own opinions. I know that you have a personal interst in heightened vote removal. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   05:36, 13 November 2007 (CET)

On the Issue of Weighting
If these points were already answered, feel free to point me back to them, since i havent read all of the text and these point were left unanswered in the discussion in which i was involved. Basically, as Krowman has said, the way we evaluate a build capabilities is a rating system. Though we call each persons rating a vote, in fact the ratings are supposed to be an objective analysis of the builds capabilities, instead of an oppinion. Rapta has stated that for a system to be fair, everyones vote should account for the same. However, we do allow for admins to strike votes. A vote should be irremovable, as it is a representation of a personal oppinion on the build and for a voting system to be fair, all votes should be valid. Thus, raptas argument is flawed in that he supports invalidating votes at administrative discretion then advocates that all votes must be equal, when in the first scenario, it is obvious that this is not so. Is silencing a vote justifiable, yet giving someone a greater voting capacity is not? So why then does this happen in our system? Because it isnt a vote, it is a rating, and in this rating system, it is evident via precedent that obtaining an acurate and reliable rating is the goal of the wiki, and satisfying that goal is more important than promotimg a democratic rating system. Again, if this was not so, then ratings would not be removable. Thus, instead of placing an unfair strain on administrators, this policy seems to be an easy way to further the wikis goals.Bob fregman 01:57, 14 November 2007 (CET)


 * Ratings would be removable regardless (oh look, someone running around giving every build in sight a 0-0-0!), but your sentiment is correct. Build masters would be given a stronger vote to better reach the goal of an accurate rating system. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 07:50, 14 November 2007 (CET)


 * I don't believe you've read what I typed above clearly. Vote weighting involves changing the vote system entirely, and gives users unfair advantages in a vote (well, rating system, but that is irrelevant). We allow for admins to strike votes that are invalid and meaningless. This "unfair strain" on administrators is really non-existant. And even if there was some form of existant "unfair strain", the obvious solution would be to simply have more Administrators. The entire basis this policy is founded on, is one that counters users with votes of invalid reason. Such votes should simply be removed, not rated against in a form of "rating war". If a vote misrepresents a build's ability, it should be removed. In addition, you fail to understand the basic definition of a vote, that is "the right to show or showing one's wish or opinion". If a vote misrepresents a build's abilities, then that vote is simply deemed as misplaced (because, via common sense, if that vote does not represent such a build, it doesn't belong there). Accordingly, simply by voicing our opinion in a build, it is a vote.
 * In addition to what I have already brought up above, I fail to see why vote weighting is even necessary. There are extremely few, if any, issues with a build's rating page that require this implementation. We have the admin noticeboard for Non-Sysop users to report issues of invalid voting, and we also have a team of administrators on daily to maintain this voting system. Not only is your argument of "my argument being flawed" incorrect, but your claim of a connection between conflicting votes and invalid votes is flawed as well. Conflicting votes, what this policy tries to abolish, is not something that should be combated entirely. An example of conflicting votes, would be:
 * User 1: 5-5-5 - meta build, good utility, good damage, powerful spike
 * User 2: 4-3-3 - decent utility, nice damage, but is working on an old concept and utility can be improved
 * Where user 1 and user 2 have slightly differing views on what the build's capabilities are. On the other hand, an example of an invalid vote would be:
 * User 1: 5-5-5 - even though this is pvp i use it in pve too
 * User 2: 2-1-4 - lacks deep wound, kd, ias, utility, or a res sig for arenas, but innovative synergy of skills
 * Where User 1 has an invalid reason for a 5-5-5 rating.
 * What this policy attemps to do is to compensate for lower monitoring of invalid votes (situation 2) by weakening voters' positions on conflicting votes (situation 1). That is exactly what I am against - this "ratings war" on invalid votes that should simply be removed, and weakening of valid votes. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 05:34, 19 November 2007 (CET)
 * Since I originally drafted this policy, I'm in the best position to say that this policy doesn't attempt to compensate or accomodate lower vote monitoring. Really, with more users who can remove votes (the BMs), vote monitoring and removal should increase, not decrease. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   08:29, 19 November 2007 (CET)
 * Like Krowman mentioned, BMs will have the ability to strike votes; at the very least, even if the weighting system is scrapped, I think BMs are still a very helpful and important addition to the Wiki, even if their only job becomes vote removal.
 * The vote removal and weighted voting should be considered separately, IMO; in a best-case, these invalid votes should be dealt with no matter what. Any invalid votes people are seeing, they really should be reporting, not just counting for use in arguments later. The vote weighting (technically "rating weighting", but I refuse to use a serious term that rhymes so well), is a separate thing. Like Bob explained in his comment, this Wiki's main goal is not just to document builds, but do so accurately; every opinion is valued, but I would personally pay a bit more attention to the opinion of someone who's got a deep understanding of the builds. That's what the weighting would do, because I highly doubt most people will take such opinions into account on their own when they rate.
 * ...On that note, BMs could, rather then having weighted votes, have more prominent votes. Place their vote at the top of the ratings page; indicate their status; and make sure all BMs always explain their votes clearly, even if it's an awful build. If I see a good player vote 0-0-0 with no reason on a build, I don't know what that means, and I likely ignore them. If they explain exactly why the build doesn't work, they not only help influence other voters to make a more educated vote, but they help buildmakers really fine-tune their "craft", if you know what I mean. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  09:34, 19 November 2007 (CET)
 * The thing is though, Rapta, whether or not a vote misrepresents a build is the oppinion of the administrator. I guess what it basically comes down to is, how is weighting the votes going to interfere with the goals of the wiki.  The only time that weighting will matter is if the votes significantly disagree on a build potential.  Realistically, if two votes disagree, then one of them must be subject to deletion since it is impossible for 2 votes to be vastly different yet both give an accurate representation of a builds performance.  Thus, if 2 votes are significantly different, then one if misreresenting the build and should be deleted.  The reason that this is not so in practice is because the votes are primarily oppinions and whether or not a vote is misrepresenting a builds performance is also an oppinion.  Thus, this policy is created so that people who have proven to be more capable or sucessful at discerning, accuratly, a builds ability get a greater rating ability.  What're your arguments?  It's unfair, to which i say cry me a river.  It is a flaw to any voting system, to which i say this isnt a presidential election it's a wiki with the goal of accuratly assessing the abilities of GW builds.  Overall, i fail to see the negative aspects of implementing this.  Do you think that it will make cause the wikis build quality to drop and that we will start having build masters vet all the trash and trash all the greats since they're uber rate weighting will cause all other votes to slide into obscurity?  Because if your only argument is that it isnt fair, then i just simply dont see why anyone should really care.  Wise men discerned that life isnt fair a hell of a long time ago, so lets move on.Bob fregman 06:54, 21 November 2007 (CET)


 * That is completely false. Your idea of the "perfect vetting system" subjects all votes to be one-sided, as such, goes against the very purpose of a vetting system. There was no reference on the toleration of 5-5-5 vs 0-0-0, but such votes, as you said, are removed. I never gave the example of 5-5-5 vs 0-0-0 voting, which you would realize if you clearly read what I typed above. Regardless of whether this policy has the correct intention, the way this goes about accomplishing its object is completely wrong. It is unfair, and thus, should not be implemented. It is important to maintain some degree of balace in a wiki. The voting system is an integral part of this wiki, and fairness should not be compromised by people (regardless of status) trying to pass a build but are frustrated by votes against them. If they can't prove a vote to be wrong then that vote should stay. The subject of equal voting alone is enough reason for why this policy should not be passed. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 07:04, 24 November 2007 (CET)

Forgive me, Krowman, for assuming this policy's intention included compensating/accomadating lower vote monitering.

Addressing Rapta, I'll agree issues can be deferred to the admins, and that problems don't often arise. But that hardly can be equated with there, at present, being nothing amiss. The sheer number of votes by the uneducated is demonstrated by the ever-increasing length of the admin noticeboard. These later get removed, so, as you say, without issues. But tolerating, even promoting, such evident uneducatedness isn't economical, nor does it improve the overall quality of the wiki. Nothing gets done, nothing addresses the gap between the uninformed and the experienced. Every day, build stubs made by new users end up in the abandoned/unfavored pile, to be dealt with at a later date. And though a BM policy will not immediately reform, it essentially functions as quality-control, where detailed explanations of builds become commonplace. I'll agree that your "rating wars" indeed discourage. Yet the concurrent beneficence of a BM's knowledgeable input cannot be so quaintly ignored (as you did), and is largely preferrable to sustaining such conflicting votes. The vote weight furthers this cause in that it forces acknowledgement of a BM's status. <font color="Black"> Shen (contribs) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (CET)


 * The main point is, theres is no way that giving BM's weighted votes will have a negative effect, and there are only good things that can come from it. Unless he can provide a  tangible way in which the wiki or anyone will be negativly effected, then i simply dont see his argument.  It will compromise the integrity of the voting system?  As far as i see it, the voting system is a means to an end, and that end is to accuratly assess a builds performance.Bob fregman 22:32, 21 November 2007 (CET)


 * The main point is that giving BMs weighted votes throws away the idea of having a balanced voting system. It is in no way needed anyways. Removing votes is enough to compensate for the "lack of education" you're are complaining about. In fact, leaving such votes and simply voting against them counteracts the very point you're trying to address with this policy. This policy doesn't address the subject of "uneducatedness", but rather promotes it. If admins simply removes "uneducated" votes, it will come to surface the fact that this is not needed. And yes, it does compromise the integrity of the voting system. The bulk of the problem isn't uneducated votes. It is a perspective problem, on people disagreeing with others on builds and trying to pass this policy in order to have a larger say on rating pages. The identifiable motive behind this policy is one problem that must be addressed. Quality control at the expense of warding off contributors? I don't think so. &mdash;  Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 06:58, 24 November 2007 (CET)
 * I should point out (again) that this is not a voting system. This is a rating system, and it will remain one until Real Vetting is no longer the site's vetting policy. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   07:56, 24 November 2007 (CET)
 * Stop arguing over word choice and address the issue at hand. 72.150.108.135 16:45, 24 November 2007 (CET)
 * That is part of the issue they are discussing, whether the Builds section should be a reflection of fact vs. opinion. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   19:41, 24 November 2007 (CET)
 * Theres nothing to suggest that this will ward off contributors, any more then having admins will ward of contributors. Again, you're only argument is that it breaches the integrity of a balanced voting system.  If that's the only negative aspect of the policy, then frankly, i just dont care.  I know that's my oppinion, but the point of the voting system is to accuratly assess the builds, and if it works, i dont care if its a balanced voting system or not.  As some greek dude once said, I can't imagine a world where the village idiot has the same say as aristotle(paraphrased).  Bob fregman 20:26, 24 November 2007 (CET)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see your argument. Please correct me, but wouldn't BM's still be able to strike votes, then 'teach', so to speak, the uneducated voter? I wouldn't think BM's would just leave votes and then vote against them in a rating war. The point I could understand was your perspective one. I'll admit, I haven't thought of it that way. But is this policy not merely an extension of admin power to strike votes plus, as I said earlier, the concurrent beneficence of a BM's knowledgeable input? Therefore, would this position not be contested and chosen just as... carefully as adminship? Assuming this, would you still say perspective will still be a problem? Forgive me for saying so, but I think you are overlooking the human aspect, that is, that disagree'ers will learn and will not get in nasty perspective problems. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black"> Shen (contribs) 02:44, 1 December 2007 (CET)

Users
Since it seems as though this policy will be enacted, be it a trial run or not, would it be approporiate to begin the nominating/electing process now? The reason being that, while the coding for this may not yet exist, creating a RfBM(or w.e we call it) seems relativly painless and it will make sure there is a prepared list when the time does come. Just a suggestion.Bob fregman 00:36, 1 December 2007 (CET)
 * Go ahead. See PvXwiki:Requests for Build Master Status.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)

Stuff that (probably) hasn't been discussed yet
Some things I think need discussion. --Wizardboy777 (T/C/Sysop) 18:24, 1 December 2007 (CET)
 * 1) Would Build Masters have access to the CheckUser function? For those of you who don't know, it allows admins to check IP addresses to detect sockpuppetry. Build Masters would have the ability to remove votes, but without any means of checking to see if two users have the same IP, a sysop would still have to handle cases of voting sockpuppetry.
 * 2) For the purposes of determining when to move a build out of testing (i.e. - when it has five ratings) will a Build Master's rating count as more than one?
 * 3) If this policy passes, should in-game experience and skill be considered less for promoting sysops than it is now? Should it not be considered at all? Or should it be considered just as much as it is now?


 * Probably, but it isn't that important since they can just remove people with no contribs and they arent responsible for banning anyway.
 * They have a weighted vote, but its still 1 vote.
 * Idk how much its currently considered, but itd depend on whether or not wieghted voting is extended to the admins as well.Bob fregman 21:02, 1 December 2007 (CET)


 * I don't think it matters a whole lot either way. I'd lean towards yes, but maybe that's just me.
 * I'd lean heavily towards no, I see no reason why their votes should count as more than a single vote.
 * In-game experience isn't a factor for sysop promotion, at least it isn't supposed to be. And I know that when we've been discussing the actual promotion of a sysop, we've for the most part discounted negative votes that are based on the premise that the user does not have enough in-game knowledge.  All Admins will have the option of being in the BM category, but, I suspect that in cases where the Admin isn't a "good" player, he will decline that offer.  Hhhippo is a good example, when I nominated him, he was very frank about the fact that we wasn't the best player, and we assume that all sysops will be that responsible.  So, it hasn't counted in the past, and I don't see why it should now.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  01:41, 2 December 2007 (CET)
 * I agree. Though really, I want to get the above issues sorted out before we talk about this stuff. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black"> Shen (contribs) 01:44, 2 December 2007 (CET)
 * DE says it fine in the first two points. Last one makes sense too, though note that when I drafted this policy, I had hoped that our sysops who have been promoted because they good at the game would become BMs once the system was implemented. Because we didn't have this policy when they were promoted, they will be be extended BM status, and they can focus on one or the other at their leisure. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   07:34, 2 December 2007 (CET)
 * What about sysops who were promoted not because they're actually good at the game, but rather because they're good at theorycrafting about the game? --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 13:34, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * Surely admins were promoted for reasons other than demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of game mechanics. But assuming the two are mutually exclusive, I'd say it hardly matters in light of the the scrutiny every BM's actions will be subjected too. That alone should dictate the decision. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black"> Shen (contribs) 13:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * I was mostly referring to myself, and wasn't being entirely serious. I'm not very good at the game, personally, and have no high-level experience(I have played with high-level players(from [Call], [cow], [OUT], spectral agony, etc.), but not at a high level, just in PUGs and them guesting for us). Looking back at my RfA, there were other reasons given(apparently I'm cool-headed, yay!), but it mostly seemed to be my contribs to the Build: namespace. My comment wasn't entirely serious. --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * Oops, sorry. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black"> Shen (contribs) 14:21, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to address a concern that came to me as I was entering my vote: Would Admins be able to strip BMs of their power? I'd like to see this in place, simply to keep the Admin > BM status present. Also, it'd help cut down on abuses of power should they arise. <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2">cedave <small color="#AA226D">(contributions_buildpage)  18:08, 2 December 2007 (CET)
 * It would be left to Bcrats. If we ever establish a BM Bcrat, it would be his decision primarily. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   20:37, 2 December 2007 (CET)

BM vs. Admin
Admins pretty much can already remove/delete votes and etc, but that would mean that BM's are not even as powerful. I think it should work like this:

Admin
 * Can ban users
 * Resolves conflicts between users
 * Can delete builds
 * Responds to user-specific issues

Buildmaster
 * Can delete votes
 * Can resolve conflicts between users over builds
 * Can delete builds
 * Responds to build specific issues

That way, Admins wouldn't be overpowered and there can be equality in the world. Yay. -- Guild of  Deals  13:25, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Admins are supposed to be imba. :) Lord Belar 13:27, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * ya rly.Bob fregman 13:31, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * Then make something else be the very top of the food chain, people who can focus on both builds and people. Currently, it seems buildmasters are just weak admins. --[[image:GoD Sig3.jpg|20px]] Guild of  Deals  14:01, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * I don't know how you draw the comparison to Admins. BM's deal strictly with builds. Admin/BM's have it differently, but that is irrelevant. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|19px]]<font color="Black"> Shen (contribs) 14:02, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * Bcrat>admin>BM>u. Lord Belar 15:42, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * ViY>Belar [[Image:ViYsig5.jpg|19px]]<font color="Darkblue">Victoryisyours (<font color="Darkblue">talk /<font color="Black">RfA ) 16:03, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * Dyslexic? Lord Belar 16:10, 30 December 2007 (EST)