User talk:Sneakysmith12/vetting procedure

Discussion
I have to say this. It has voting, it wont work. Voting is the reason why we are doing the wipe in the first place. For reasoning, see the multiple discussions that we've had on the wipe page etc. -- (gem / talk) 05:11, 8 April 2007 (CDT) And I also don't like the 'submitter owns the build' idea which has been in this wiki for far too long. -- (gem / talk) 13:49, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * "submitter owns the build" well I'll revise what I put it there to "submitter may remove their own build" as a submitter you should be aware that when you put anything on the internet it will be copied promptly if it works, or it will be disreguarded and you will eventually develop a bad repuation, thus forever being ignored.


 * I do believe the concept of ignoring the untrusted should work, and in no way does the submitter own their buid, it can just as easily be reposted by the next person, however I believe that any one who decides to edit this wiki should take the responsiblity to watch their work carefully. If something is not correct that will build a bad reputation. If something iis not correct in this wiki then it is either that the wiki starts to get ignored, or the user will.


 * That is why I do have this set to voting. People are ment to be responsible, yes I understand that there are a few younger people amoung us, however it is their responsiblity to behave, not the authority of an admin or another user of this wiki. Voting allows us to preview content in to that we only accept the best. I diliberatly however put a lot of restrictions on vetted/unvetted though as builds should not be "discarded on sight". As my father has told me before their is beauty in everything, you just have to look for it. That means that we as a group must help the fellow users into being able to understand what they have done wrong, and how to fix it.


 * I know for a fact though that though this is only able to work in theory because the're quite a few people a little less than mature thus the wipe in the section all together. I accept the wipe, and in fact support it, but please wiping the current build sections does not wipe the people who fail to realize that this website is being paid for by other supporters of it, so when you say that wiping voting will fix problems is compelty wrong. It will just generate another batch of overwhelming problems (IE people submiting things that are compelty bogus, making new pages, taking up server space). --Sneakysmith12 16:42, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Why voting? Why not normal discussion? All normal articles in the wiki are formed through discussion, not voting, and it all works fine. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:23, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Just about all the normal articles are not heavily opinionated.....--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I've seen articles with highly opinionated information being discussed. It sometimes gets a bit heated, but the resulst is always better than with the build voting system. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 18:55, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Let me say this, the discussion can work, and works better when the actual topic of discussion is proven fact, ie there is a weaponsmith in Droknar's Forge. The voting is practically the only extent that I can see to remove worthless information from this wiki. I understand, Gem, that your an Admin who nevertheless deals directly with deleting things, and so I must ask. If users could help direct you toward pages that need to be deleted wouldn't you rather have that then being forced to go through each individual one, or have your talk page filled to the brim of requests.--Sneakysmith12 16:41, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't quite see your point. That is what the deletion template is for. People may request deletion by placing the tag. Then an admin views the page and deletes if there is consensus or leaves it undeleted untill consensus is reached. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:28, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * My point is that it is easier to get a consensus first :D--Sneakysmith12 18:44, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
 * But why do we need voting? Voting rarely causes a consensus as people rarely change minds after voting. In a discussion people often change their opinnion when the opposing side can present good arguments why their idea is the better one. Consensus is more easily reached with discussion than voting. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 06:44, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * First off I love to quote myself "This will support articles to be rehabilitated rather then shut down." This meaning that when someone is voting no they are giving a reasonable suggestion. The fact that it takes so many no's to turn it down will in fact support the build into something worth having. The fact that someone say's no and does not give a reason could be completly subjective to the author. The way if you read through this though that I have it set up the merit of the build will have to support it self or get better.