This new policy will be aimed at restructuring the wiki to a large extent. Namely:
- The vetting process will be replaced with a concensus-structured system.
- This will be largely reliant on actual discussion of the build and knowledge of what is played in game.
- Discontent whorus and other people who display a lack of knowledge will largely be ignored.
- Theorycrafts will have their own namespace "Theory:".
- We'll need a new template for proposed moves, which would hopefully be resolved in a quick manner by an admin.
- The Other section will be removed.
- No one even bothers to look there. (Page view counts should easily confirm this.)
- Build Masters will be eliminated.
- Or changed into an "Obs Whore" position.
- None of us are actually good at Guild Wars, so why bother trying to pretend like we are?
- Guides will play a larger role.
- Most builds have come to be simply variants of other builds, even on the team level.
- Storing multiple variations isn't bad, but Guides can serve as springboards for on-the-fly modification and buildwarsing.
This policy describes the procedure by which builds are determined to be "worthy" of placement on PvX. Each user can assist in the determination of whether or not a build is "meta". By this same method, users will determine the quality of a meta build. Theorycrafted builds and other non-meta builds will be placed into a the "Theory:" namespace, from which they may be moved should they ever become meta.
- Newly entered builds on PvX should reside in the Build stubs category until they are compiled.
- At this point they should be moved to Trial builds for further annotation and modification by editors, as is seen fit to match the meta.
- Once this process is complete, builds should be moved to Testing to be vetted.
- The determination of whether or not a build is meta will be done by contributors. Anonymous users, whorus, and discontents will be largely ignored in this determination if established users have reached a concensus themselves.
- Once a build is determined to be meta, it will remain meta until archive.
- Should a build be determined to be a theorycraft, it will be moved to the proper name space.
- If that theorycraft is already represented or "out-theory'd" by another build, it can be WELL'd.
Should a theorycraft appear to have become meta, a re-evaluation tag will be put on it, at which point it will undergo the same process it underwent the first time.
- Common sense is to be applied in all aspects of the wiki, but particularly in the determination of builds. If you feel a build is doing something wrong, fix it, or bring it up.
- Attacking a build on premises such as "rune suicide", "bad skill choice", or "terrible attributes" can result in a ban of length to be determined by the administrative team. Displaying such stupidity and blatant disregard for both policy and fellow contributors will not be tolerated.
- Arguing with several users about why a build is or isn't meta can result in a ban as well. Most of the time, when several users are telling you you're wrong, there's a reason. Such arguments may appear as variations of: "but you haven't tested it", "you're a (insert epithet here) and don't know how to (insert action here)", "no u", or other fallacies, particularly circular logic.
Don't be autistic.
Depending on the concensus, 3 such things may happen.
- The build is tagged as Meta and remains as such until archive.
- The build is tagged as Theory and moved to the proper namespace until such time as it comes up for re-evaluation or is archived or deleted due to crippling nerfs.
- The build is WELL'd as per the Build Deletion policy.
For additional information regarding both the process of creating/vetting a build under the Meta system, as well as additional policy aspects, see PvXwiki:Editing Builds.
- whoru - A person who is relatively unknown or new to the community. Someone who has established little or no reputation among active users.
- circle-jerk - A group of users who show support for eachother regardless of any logic or reason. Many times, several users in such a group have little knowledge about the subject that is being discussed.