GuildWiki talk:No original builds/Archive 1

Heh. I like the idea but it's impossible to define or police non-originality for builds. I'm still in favor of killing all builds unless someone can come up with a real policy that doesn't involve voting. --Fyren 15:11, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * In the past, I've argued for removing the builds for pretty much the same reasons as outlined - but I acknowledged the existing body of users who this would displace by saying that a partner site would be needed to offload the community that currently wants to create/develop builds here.
 * I do agree with Fyren though; if a non-voting method can be formulated which wouldn't result in the endless build quality debates we already see, then I would support keeping them here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:17, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I'm FireFox and I approve this message. --FireFox  15:16, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I don't like the idea - I don't care if somebody is having a snigger at the wiki in some PvP forum elsewhere. I don't go to Guild Wars forums as I've found pretty much all internet forums to be a complete waste of time and energy. Better to leave things how they are if this is the alternative.

That said, I do agree that the build section is a mess - I think it'd be a good idea to formally separate it from the rest of the wiki and farm it out to another site, as the whole concept does not really tie in. --NieA7 15:15, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I see three things that could work. 1. what this already says no original builds. 2. What I have suggested before have a tested section that can have original builds and a fotm section. 3. number one+a page that has links to user pages with builds.--A Guy 15:18, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Oh yah would get rid of the tedious vetting system to some extent. If we are just adding non original builds it is not gonna get worse than "I have never seen this build on tv etc.--A Guy 15:26, 16 December 2006 (CST)\

Look, i said I had my final say in the matter but this idea is pure crap. Who cares if some other site thinks we suck? I have never heard once ingame that this site is full of bad builds, never once. and if people are saying this on other fansites that is no reason for us to change. @#$% them is what I say. The builds section is full of good ideas and if you remove all the good ideas and leave only the plain old boring ones YOU WILL RUIN THIS SITES REPUTATION. Simple as that.-- Sefre  15:39, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * I hear talk about how bad the build section is ingame all the time, it is the build section that ruins the reputation --FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 15:54, 16 December 2006 (CST)


 * I wish Xeeron was here! I can't strongly defend the builds section, but I can't strongly support this policy either. The builds section isn't perfect, but I'm hesitant to see it considerably altered. The voting system is not ideal, on that much I will agree, but I don't want to undo all the positive work people like Xeeron have done on this section of the site. I realise that from Skuld's POV this is quite a moderate policy, but I wonder if it alter the builds section too much.


 * As I say, I wish Xeeron was taking part in this discussion.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:50, 16 December 2006 (CST)


 * Skuld couldn't ruin the reputation if he tried. Your reputation is already horrible.  The current build section system is broken and has failed.  Guild Wiki is absolutely horrible at documenting things that involve opinions or intricate PvP knowledge.  I think I have run into maybe two or three other people who I consider to have some solid PvP knowledge.  A system like this works far better.  You post a GvG build and say "I saw Guild X running this character, they are rank x."  Then everyone could fire up obs mode and see if that guild is still running it.  There is no debate, it is either run by a top 100 guild or not.  With HA and TA builds players can post what they see in HA and TA and other players who frequent those areas can verify if they have seen that build or not.  It shifts the debate from "does it work good enough to be favored" to something much more definite "have you seen this build commonly run?"  This is why farming builds work very well in the Wiki, there is no debate.  "Can you farm the areas indicated?" and the answer is yes or no. -Warskull 16:20, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * SO you say that a buidls worthless is one of the top guilds doesnt run it? Are you aware most of those top guild players are obsessive 12 year olds who spend 23/7 hours a day in fornt of the computer? Thats not the type of person Id turst for info.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 16:49, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * You are demonstrating exactly why Guild Wiki is bad at making builds. You simply show a disdain for the experienced GvG players and an unwillingness to learn anything.  You clearly don't know any players from the top guilds.  You are basically saying that GuildWiki shouldn't document successful guilds because you hate successful PvP players.  The ladder system pushes players who win towards the top.  If a top 100 guild is running a build and winning with it, that means they are winning against other successful PvP players.  Thus if the build beats other good PvP players, the build probably works.  I didn't say anything about letting only top guilds post either.  I simply said that it should document successful builds in the top 100.  The top 100 is clearly visible on obs mode and everyone can see the builds played.  This gives clear criteria to vote on.  You are simply coming to irrational conclusions about the more experienced players.  The top 100 are the perfect gauge to determine if a build is successful or not in GvG.  Which do you trust a test of good players vs good players or a test of questionable players vs bad players? Not every build in the top 100 is something you want to document, but they are easily verified and give a solid criteria for vetting builds.  For some reason I think team iQ and QQ might know a bit more about this game than rank 500 guilds or yourself. -Warskull 17:01, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * There should be a distinction between builds that are widely acknowledged as good among experienced circles of players, and builds that are... not, but still may be good regardless. Whether or not we should exclude all builds in the second category completely is debatable.
 * In Magic: the Gathering, there are three basic classes of players: Timmy, Johhny, and Spike. Basically, Timmy likes big, powerful creatures and spells, Johnny likes being creative and finding  cool card combos, and Spike just likes winning.  I'm not really sure where Timmy would be in the Guild Wars PvP community (Timmy's aren't necessarily newbies), but the Johnny and Spike classifications should be obvious.  Sites like GWGuru are very Spike-oriented.  Right now, a lot of GuildWiki users want the build section to cater more to Spikes than Johnnies, and that's fine.  However, we shouldn't alienate all the Johnnies in the process.
 * The problem is that these build aren't Johnny builds. It is insulting to Timmy to even call these Timmy builds, they are builds from Timmy after he has suffered severe head trauma. Some players think it is fun to run Mo/R with a bow.  Should guild wiki extensively document how to bow monk because someone likes it?  Some things are jsut plain bad ideas. If you are a new player trying to learn the game would you prefer to have some good functional builds to look at and help you learn the basic concepts or to wade through a bunch of "Timmy" and "Johnny" failed experiments? Remember much of what this is trying to get rid of lacks one of the core elements of Johnny's builds, working.  Johnny's builds may not be the absolute best, but they work. -Warskull 22:46, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * I'm a big fan of MTG's design philosophy. I'd clarify/expand the concept, though, to say that Timmy plays for the game experience/fun, Johnny plays for creativity and Spike plays to win.  It's important to note that Timmy isn't necessarily a newbie, Johnny isn't necessarily smart and Spike isn't necessarily good.
 * Spike can be both the idiot that quits RA teams every time it doesn't have at least 2 monks (or every time it does), who rants and raves when he loses. He can also be the guy who's the first to play new content, who gets memberships in top guilds.  For Spike, the key thing is the fact that he plays to accomplish his goals.
 * Timmy is the guy who plays for the game experience. You're making it too narrow in saying that he's interested in big summons/magics.  He can be the guy who just logs on to chat & share his experience with others, he can be the explorer who likes seeing the game world, and he can be the W/Mo nub who just logs on to play and doesn't care about style or pwning.  For Timmy, it's just about having fun, and having fun with buddies.
 * Johnny is the guy who plays for creativity. It's not just about combos.  It can be about making a character that looks good, about creating neat builds, or about pulling off that one-in-a-million stunt.
 * It's true that we can't cater just to one of those three areas: there's plenty of players in each category.Craw 12:43, 18 December 2006 (CST)

As to qualifying builds as popular in high-level PvP, a main problem is, of course, documentation. Determining full skill bars in Observer mode is hard enough, let alone attribute allocations. The problem is even worse in TA. Because actually providing hard documentation of builds is a little impractical, I propose some sort of appointed commitee of Wiki users experienced in PvP. --Chris with Lime 18:34, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * It is still more solid criteria than "does this work" you can usually figure out the attributes or something close to the attributes. If not, the build can be posted without attributes and those can be worked out later.  The big thing with attributes is nabbing some numbers and working from there. If they are wrong someone can always post "Guild X has a 100 point signet of devotion, that means their monk must have 15 divine."  Documenting common builds by observation has much more solid ground to base changes upon. -Warskull 22:46, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * I suppose it dependson how strict the definition of "documentation." Taking someone's word that the person saw so-and-so using this or that is one thing, requiring an actual screenshot is another.    -Chris with Lime 22:35, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * Well with tombs or GvG you can load up obs mode and hunt it down. With top 100 it is fairly easy to verify characters being run by guilds.  For example if I say that I saw QQ running a blinding surge E/A with feigned neutrality in the qualifying matches today, you can load up those matches and look for it.  The need for screen shots shouldn't emerge unless a conflict arises.  You could even have votes like with the old builds.  "Have you seen than this build is popular in the current (gametype of build) metagame?"  This is much easier for the average Guildwiki user to come to a solid conclusion on.  With the current system people could lie about the build working or not working.  However, I don't believe people are maliciously voting, they  just don't know any better when they vote to favor bad builds.  I think giving more tangible criteria would help these people and clean up the build section a lot. -Warskull 03:17, 17 December 2006 (CST)

Why are you going to cut off the strength of a wiki; the ability to operate in some democratic fashion by allowing the input of the public, to be destroyed? Why are you going to allow only a few people who influence you dictate what belongs or doesn't belong? When did this become the Warskull (And the backing of a magical legion of top 100 GvG Guilds and only GvG, which seem to answer only to him) and GHGURU forum website? I do not support this idea.Isis In De Nile 18:14, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Is there going to be a vote later, or is it just generally argued over on this page until a consensus is reached? Anyway, I support this idea. --arth 23:38, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * I don't have a problem with getting rid of all the bad builds hosted on GuildWiki. I'm using the Johnny and Spike classifications to refer to players rather than builds.  Spike isn't the only one who can make good builds. Johnny can contribute good ideas too, but removing all traces of originality from the Builds section discourages that kind of creativity here.  --Chris with Lime 12:06, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * How would this get rid of "Johnny", Spike devours anything that works. If it works and the metagame is right for it, it will emerge.  Plenty of creative and successful builds end up popping up within the top 100. -Warskull 13:30, 17 December 2006 (CST)

Some suggestions for criteria
GvG: Has a top 100 team run this for a significant period of time. You can verify this by going into obs mode.

HA: Have you seen other people run this build in HA? This is a bit harder to find, but you can still watch obs mode if a specific guild is cited to run something in HA. In addition players who frequent HA can say if they have seen other people run the build.

AB/CM: You probably don't want an AB/CM section, they are famous for having rally bad players running really bad builds. There really isn't a hard criteria to let you go in and say "this build is good for AB/CM."

TA: Again the question would be "Do I see other people running this build in TA, how often do I see it run?" This one gets a bit more subjective, but the criteria does become which versions are run the most and which versions do I see run?

RA: Similar problems as AB/CM. You swing back into PvP experience ect here.

PvE: This rapidly becomes all opinion, almost anything works in PvE. Possibly this should be reduced to sepecific builds for areas such as DoA, FoW, UW, and other Elite or highly difficult missions. The PvE section (outside of farming builds) is one of the worst offenders for having trash favored.

PvE farming builds: These actually do seem to work as is. The question is simple "Does this build successfully farm the area that it claims to?"

Hopefully, these will give you some ideas Skuld. -Warskull 16:29, 16 December 2006 (CST)


 * Right, copied that over. I can't think of any changes atm &mdash; Skuld 17:08, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * No AB/CM, it's pointless. No PvE; equally pointless. Farming builds, sure; but not 100 variations of some 55 build. GvG/HA are somewhat easy to verify, and specific skillbars are easy to obtain. RA and TA seem the most challenging to document, and are worth working on. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 05:41, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * High-end PvE is not pointless. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * I think high end PvE builds could work. You do get fotm builds for the elite missions and you could use other forums to help verify a demand for the builds.  With general PvE builds though, almost anything works and as a result a lot of complete trash ends up vetted. I am not sure of a surefire way to help document elite mission fotm.  If you made them post the full team and enough walk through info it could be worthwhile. -Warskull 11:56, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * There's utility in individual stock builds, too. Many PvE team builds use stock components, just like GvG team builds often recycle skill bars for runners, monks, &c. I'm thinking back to nine- and six- man Deep runs, for example: custom warriors that would seem absolutely retarded anywhere else, specialized rit and monk builds, but standard SS/Shivers or Renewal nukers. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2006 (CST)


 * Instead of going after the specific locations where a build is to be used, I'd go for, instead, a purge of concept-specific builds. For example, builds like Invincimonking or anything related to the 55 concept, should be removed. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:14, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * High-end PvE (Which I take to mean FoW/UW/The Deep/Urgoz and Domain of Anguish, as those are the only "hard" areas in the game) I can see; but how are you going to get builds that everyone agrees on? No observer mode for those exist, and everyone uses different builds. I've done FoW and UW for almost a year now; builds don't really matter for it, if you take a balanced party; so those shouldn't have builds (like I've said, a 2-person FoW/UW build would constitute Farming, not PvE). The Deep and Urgoz see more of the same builds, because the builds need to be very specialized (for room-by-room breakdown of the dungeon), so documenting those shouldn't be too much of a challenge. I've absolutely no experience with DoA, aside from hearing that it's hard; that may or may not use the same builds every time. Aside from those, builds that "work" win PvE. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 22:56, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * Uh, you share stories and vote? I don't see a lot of controversy over high-end PvE builds, nor anything to really indicate that the current system is flawed (other than the paucity of high-end PvE team builds, which mostly results from how much work it is to write up 8-12 characters). It's mostly people testing random stuff in Kaineng City and then coming back and saying it works that's causing problems, isn't it? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * Considering the ease of running a mending whammo up until the end of prophecies, factions, and most of nightfall, I don't think it's anything around kaineng - but yes, it is those people that are the biggest threat to the integrity of the build section. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 19:55, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Is there a way to have our cake and eat it, too?
Hmm...

Rather than a massive purge (I'd prefer a mini-purge), why not simply label the current stuff as "original builds" and then identify other builds as "documented"/"spotlight"/"popular"/whatever? And put the latter prominently on the build page, &c., while all of the "original" builds stay more-or-less where they are, maybe even keeping the existing voting structure if you're lazy? This way you can both see what's popular and good and still have some kind of access to new ideas. Good idea? Bad idea? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * A large portion of the builds don't even deserve to exist. I could very easily get idiotic builds vetted on Guild Wiki by posting it and telling a bunch of friends to vote for it.  There really does need to be a purge of the build section, keeping only a handful of good builds. Skuld is right, how many decent builds get developed on Guild Wiki?  You guys get the trickle down of other areas, but I have never seen a build get developed on Guild Wiki and then some top 100 guild come and run it in GvG. If the current section has failed, then why continue to keep it around? I think putting the old section to rest would be an important part of helping to repair GuildWiki's reputation. -Warskull 16:52, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * If all sides are going ot be settled there needs to be a split of the build section. There could be a section for the fancy pvp crap and a section for all the original builds that peope lspent time developing. If you just purge it your gonna make many people, and I woudln't be surprised if a rise in vandalism occured due to your actions. Just make a section for PVP Established builds or something....-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 17:01, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * Also: Guildwiki is a development platform for, say, PvE farming builds. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I think this is a great idea 130.58, I support it entirely. All the PvP types can set up the rules and delete anything they want in the documented builds, which is kept wholly separate from builds that are put up here as originals, with the strictest of criteria to allow anything through. --NieA7 19:32, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I agree with Sefre here, I wouldn't mind seeing a PVP established section and a community builds section. Because what we're getting down to here is that you CAN verify GvG run builds that are effective. And they're good builds generally, no question. But if someone was to take that build into RA or PvE, oftentimes they don't work. Because, well, GvG has a better team system and without support or the intricate multi-person spike setup, some GvG builds literally aren't effective on their own. It's different tactics. I support splitting of the established pvp builds from the main build portion of the site. If I'm going through the builds now for a farming build (not ALL are listed under farming), it's quite annoying having to sift through all the pvp builds. Is this the pvp'ers fault? No! When I go to look for pvp builds, is this a bad thing? No! But what people are complaining about is that the voting system right now is a little... squewed. So why not make an area for builds you CAN verify and establish the basic pvp builds, and then maybe a section for community builds where people can establish those trick RA builds. So what if they don't work anywhere else? If they work, what's wrong with them?Cyrogenic 12:23, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * That is just it, they don't work. You get stuff like Build:R/any_Lava_Spitter and Build:D/E_Icy_Fighter vetted.  People don't know how to gauge the effectiveness of RA builds and end up vetting some terrible builds. Farming builds do have their own sub-section of the wiki. Category:Farming_builds The GuildWiki user base does not have the experience necessary to determine if a build should be favored.  People overtagging builds and allowing them to be favoured with too many tags is another major issue.  A build should not be tagged for GvG, HA, TA, RA, AB/CM, and PvE.  Skuld's policy strikes at both issues. -Warskull 12:33, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * While I also agree that those shouldn't be used in PvP, they both specifically mention PvE, and in the case of the lava spitter, a specific area. And you're probably about to start shaking your head and telling me that anything works in PvE, and while a lot does (and some things don't), I think that's a greater part of the issue here than we're giving it credit.  PvP and PvE builds are fundamentally different.  Energy intensive and party wide spikes just don't work in PvE where you have to kill twenty or more targets, and might have PuG's.  Right now, if you hit tested builds, there is no way to separate between a PvP build and a PvE build, no way.  Using the farming, etc links, you get both unvetted and vetted builds in that area sure.  But the VAST majority of farming builds are not in the farming category, and most PvE builds aren't labeled for such either.  I'd rather have a separate builds section entirely for PvP, and an entirely different section for PvE, rather than a single "vetted" category.  And Skuld's proposed policy doesn't solve the second issue you reference as well as I think a solution should.  Just because you see a build in TA, RA or any other area (with the exclusion of GvG most probably, and conceivably in HA, though it'd be hard) can't really be verified.  Just because the team beat you and you saw a build being used does not mean that it's effective.  Obviously, this applies most to PvE and RA, the sewer system of the "pure" pvp elitists, but honestly, a lot of people DO come here for RA ideas.  I think the real problem is where do we draw the line?  Under Skuld's proposed system, what about tactics like the B/P group for Tombs?  Or the Deep and Warren strategies and team builds?  And the answer isn't "oh, we'd let them stay" because somewhere there has to either be a home for them, or they can't stay.  And I think GuildWiki would be hurt if they were to get deleted.  Please note that I'm not disagreeing with you.  Only I don't think this proposal fixes it in the best manner.Cyrogenic 15:06, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * B/P, the Deep team builds and strategy, 55 monk documentation fine; backfire ranger no. &mdash; Skuld 15:16, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * Heh, nice choice. The mind shudders.  Anywho.  Um, just a question, I didn't find any note about how we'd arrange these strategies under the proposed.  We're talking about obliterating all but GvG builds, essentially, so where would these other ones go?  It's not something to shrug off, because it begs the question of what would be allowed THERE.  See what I mean?  Cyrogenic 15:45, 18 December 2006 (CST)

What exactly is this promoting?
What is it making a rule of? Like, no builds you think are good? No builds you made yourself? I'm confused. --Blastedt(Talk) 16:55, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * A bunch of obsessive pvp freaks aparenty claim that there are to many builds that dont meet their standards and a bunch of idiots here agree with them. They only want the builds the cocky pvpers want.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 16:57, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * Insults will not help your cause. To Blastedt, it's basically no builds being developed here --FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 17:00, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * I was not useing a insult, I used the term idiots because the idea is idiotic.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 17:01, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * Edit Conflict, twice here too Biro.


 * Awww, no more fiddling for me? Awww, :'(  --Blastedt(Talk) 17:04, 16 December 2006 (CST)


 * Edit conflict. Twice. :( Anyway:


 * There's no need to be hostile Sefre. Calling people here a "bunch of idiots" will not win you any allies. You catch more flies with honey than insults.


 * To answer your question Blasedt, the idea behind this policy is that the wiki is not the place for new builds, only those ones which have already been proven.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:02, 16 December 2006 (CST)


 * Taken from Insult: An insult is a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireFox (contribs).
 * No, the idea theese....misguided people... are pushing is purgeing all builds that a top guild doesnt use and not allowing any new ones. Thats a easy way to screw one of this sites best feature over.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 17:09, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * Please, point out some examples of good stuff &mdash; Skuld 17:11, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * Do own builds count? :) - Cracko 19:35, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * The YAA axe is pretty common tho ^^ &mdash; Skuld 08:28, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * Yesyes, but it wasn't there yet ;) - Cracko 08:29, 17 December 2006 (CST)

*breaks comment tree* Must post my kryta solo build as soon as possible now :P  --Blastedt(Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * Actually, I am of the opinion that farming builds like those should be allowed to stay as there is a solid gauge. Does that build you post farm the divinity coast at a reasonable speed.  If yes, then favor it.  If no, unfavor it. Original farming builds are fine because there is a very clear gauge to determine if it works or not.  However, no more vital backbreaker.  It is a bad build and really not something other people should run.  You can always go share it with people in forums somewhere.  The basic goal here is that people would only post PvP builds they observe and shift towards documenting known successful builds.  The only good PvP builds I see on guildwiki are those pulled from existing PvP.  The original builds tend to be bad. -Warskull 22:54, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * So you're saying that poeple cant make decent builds? Thats a insult. Nightfall Came out only recently and new good combinations of skills are being discovered every day. What you say is that theese new combinations have no right to be tested by others,And that is a horibble idea-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 23:08, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * People will put together effective new builds all the time. It sure as heck hasn't been happening on GuildWiki, though.  If you put together a new awesome build go play it.  If it is truly good it will end up working its way into the metagame and trickle down to GuildWiki.  The current system just ends up storing everyone's failed creations. -Warskull 03:59, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * And aside from being a graveyard for failed experiments, people start bitching when you delete the failed crap. "Oh noes! I wanted to use it for inspiration!" Orly? Put it on your userspace then. (I think I'm agreeing with Warskull almost as often as I agree with Skuld... scary thought :p) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:25, 18 December 2006 (CST)

''People will put together effective new builds all the time. It sure as heck hasn't been happening on GuildWiki, though. If you put together a new awesome build go play it. If it is truly good it will end up working its way into the metagame and trickle down to GuildWiki. The current system just ends up storing everyone's failed creations''

We're not all in the top-100. How the hell can a normal person that isn't worshiped by all of the newbs in the game let their ideas out? Through a wiki, which everyone can edit. The whole point of a wiki is collaberation. What you are suggesting is that the creativity of the masses be controlled by a select few. I bet you're the kind of people that support big cooperations. What you're suggesting will be the death of the metagame.--TheDrifter 18:25, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * If you truly believe GuildWiki has any influence on the metagame you are deluding yourself. No one is proposing that only top 100 players should be able to edit the wiki. The proposal is for a solid guideline to determine what builds get in.  For GvG, is this build a popular build in the top 100?  For HA, is this an in demand HA build? For farming builds, does this successfully kill the bosses or creatures it claims to? -Warskull 20:13, 20 December 2006 (CST)

 No one is proposing that only top 100 players should be able to edit the wiki. I never said that. I said the top 100 guilds would be determining what builds were posted on this wiki. ''The proposal is for a solid guideline to determine what builds get in. For GvG, is this build a popular build in the top 100?'' My point exactly. As someone who couldn't give a crap about what the top 100 are doing, This wouldn't help me. I respect the top 100 beacause they are inovative, but it seems you people think they are the only ones that are inovative. They aren't the only ones. If you truly believe GuildWiki has any influence on the metagame you are deluding yourself. I have heard people say guildwiki is the "bible" of Guild Wars. If soemone wants to know anything I tell them "look it up on guildwiki". New players look to guildwiki first for build advice. I feel strongly about this issue. So strongly, I am going to get the comments of a member of one of the top 100 to tell you that you are all full of hot air and that this idea is full of crap.--TheDrifter 20:22, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Build section overstuffed.
The problem with the build section is that it's overstuffed and (in my opinion) unorganized. I find it impossible to find any specific farming build for PvE and I find that a lot of the builds have minor variances that could be merged together (when I say that, I mean taking a look at the section as a whole). I suggest overhauling the section to make it more of a guide. When fighting this enemy in this area, use these skills with this weapon and this armor set. If this does not work for you, try this variant. I find a lot of build pages lacking in usuage information (or any information really...) and, honestly, isn't information what a wiki is about? I would like to see more on how to make a consistence build and a what trends are current and what skill combinations are working well together.

When I look back at what I've written, it becomes more apparent that what I am suggestion may be a new section entirely. Either way, that's my two cents.--Jack 23:25, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Put "saving a lot of time on getting a quality pvp builds section" as an advantage? This will be so much quicker--A Guy 01:37, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Split?
I tihnk the builds should be split into categories. these would be established builds(popular builds that many people run eg sf ele and thumper), untested vetted original builds,untested pve builds, vetted pve builds. i think that unfavored builds should be deleted after a time (dont know if they are as it is now). i think that pve and pvp builds should be compltely seperate, since the two are completely different. just my thoughts before i go to bed. BMW 01:50, 19 December 2006 (CST)

A different proposal
I have created an alternative policy proposal at Build Split, essentially saying that the PvP stuff discussed here is good and should be used, but at the same time it shouldn't be applied to the PvE stuff. Please go take a look and discuss. --NieA7 07:16, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * I like the different proposal I think (still thinking about it), but it should be noted that what you are talking about (split PvE/PvP sections) doesn't preclude THIS proposal on the PvP section. My primary concerns are A.) to have a good build section for PvP (like Skuld, Auron, etc. are suggesting), B.) to have a good place to document farming and solo builds, C.) to document PVE concepts (ranger interrupters, ranger condition spreaders, general 55, Bonders, Protectors, Degen Necro's, etc.) through the use of concept builds and general guides, and D.) Have these things in an easily navigated user interface. The good news is that I think this is something we can do.  I really think we can have our cake and eat it too by combining this policy with your split policy suggestion. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * Build Split doesn't preclude this, but this precludes Build Split, sort of. This proposal strongly implies, without ever actually saying, that all original builds - PvP and PvE - should be removed from the wiki, and then goes on to talk about how PvP builds should be documented. I don't want to see all the PvE builds go, nor do I think "anything works in PvE", hence the suggestion that the builds should be split. After the split this policy can then be applied to the new PvP builds section, while the PvE section goes off on its lonesome with another set of criteria/policies. Basically what I wanted to avoid was a headlong rush into a PvP build purge which managed to take out all the PvE builds with it. The PvE builds section is far from perfect, but it's not so bad it should be deleted in its entirety, in my opinion. --NieA7 12:09, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * The only PvE builds worth even reading are farming & team builds. I've never seen a bit of value in builds for individuals for PvE.  Most of PvE is so simplistic due to the AI that most builds that can be slapped together will work.  I could see a handful of demonstration builds - but multiple developed builds for PvE really is pointless.  It's only in certain high-end areas or for farming where PvE builds really show any value. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:35, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * Even if that is true (I happen to agree), doesn't the split idea solve half the problem? And isn't that better than no solution? I mean, it looks VERY unlikely to me that we are going to axe the builds section any time soon. So doesn't this split a.) help the PvP builds and b.) leave the PvE builds in a perhaps non-optimal state?  Half a good is still good.  Am I missing a downside to this idea? -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * I don't agree that there's no value in individual PvE builds. For new players especially getting 8 skills together that work really well (out of a choice of hundreds) is a daunting prospect. Just because most these new players don't join in with policy debates doesn't mean they're not there going through wiki pages. You're dismissing thousands of people in one fell swoop if you decide to only host builds for The Deep and other high end areas. --NieA7 05:11, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Agreed: builds for everyday PvE can be quite useful. The key here is that "this is okay" shouldn't cut it anymore. You can slap basically any skills on a Sever-Gash-Final warrior and it'll work, for example. We should be identifying a few standard concepts (e.g. the General Interrupter) and looking for original builds that actively rock, not slapping "vetted" on anything that can do more than 30 DPS. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * That sounds fine to me, but it's looking further into the future. Right now I'd like to get the PvP and PvE builds split - once that's done I'd love to help out with setting criteria for the PvE builds, but if we try to do that now nothing'll ever get done and the number of builds will just keep on increasing. If we don't take it one step at a time I don't think we're going to get anywhere - it already takes a painfully long time for even simple stuff to be accepted. --NieA7 05:24, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Ok, I just read the main proposals here, and a question comes to mind. What is the point of a wiki? Obviously (at least I hope its obvious) the point of a wiki is documentation. So then, how does the current builds section add to this? The most obvious answer I can come up with is that the builds section demonstrates which skills synergize well, as well documenting popular builds in Guild Wars. However, documentation is based on facts, where as the build section is founded on opinions. This seems to be the wikis main flaw. Facts and opinions just aren't the same thing. Opinions are introduced in the form of voting, which is the foundation of the builds section. Therefore, removing the opinions from the builds section would be no less devastating to it than a total purge. However, if the point of the wiki is documentation, and the point of build is to document skill synergy and effective combinations, then is a build section really necessary to achieve this? Couldn't the same things which the build section achieves now be achieved by the skill section? If so then most builds would be pointless on the wiki. The only thing left for the builds section to do would be to document the most commonly used and effective builds in Guild Wars. This would be a matter of observations and thus would be founded on facts, not opinions, and would eliminate the conflict of interests between what a wiki is and what the builds section wants to be. However, is it possible to do this? Can we actually fix this error, and do either of these two proposals accomplish this?&mdash; Azroth    15:27, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Hmmm...I think my argument is to opinionated and thus flawed. As such pay no attention to it. I cant just assume that the point of a wiki is documentation just because that is what it has been dedicated to up to this point.&mdash; Azroth    22:50, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * Meh. Both are better than what we have, but NOB is a better policy for solving the problem we have. It deals with both the PvP and PvE problems, and solves them both quickly, simply and effectively. Build Split is basically NOB for the PvP section, and absolutely no improvement for the PvE system; and the PvE section is the most common "how-the-hell-did-that-ever-get-vetted?" section we have, so it needs most work. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 00:08, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * NOB only pretends to solve the problem. It's a total teardown and rebuild not only of the policies and categorization scheme, but also the data. What you're really saying is, for all intents and purposes, "delete everything and start over." You know what they say: when you have a hammer...
 * Moreover, what you're going to be putting back after you purge everything is really the same stuff. At least part of the problem with "builds" comes from the way we look at the concept of the build itself: eight skills, a few attributes, and some usage notes. Is that the best way to think about this stuff? I think the volumes of 55 builds, Sever-Gash-Final-Frenzy-Healsig warriors, AoD assassins, etc. speak to the fact that we're looking at the very concept of a build in an altogether too piecemeal kind of way. I think there's too much of a focus on components without much cohesive exploration of what a build does and how it does it rather than just what skills are on a bar. You don't really need 20 Dragon Slashers. But you do need a careful and well-thought-out analysis of how a Dragon Slasher works and what a Dragon Slasher is for. I don't want to go ahead with sweeping policy changes, particularly those that destroy data, before we look at that basic issue some, too. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Your response ties into what I've been saying better than you may think. These "noobs," for lack of a better word, do *not* understand what a Dragon Slasher is for, and they *will never* understand it - nothing we can do will change that. We can throw guides like this at them all we want, but that won't change anything. We cannot *force* them to read the guide on basic build-building; we cannot force them to understand anything. Keeping original builds on the Wiki is a mistake; it hurts our rep, it harms more people than it helps (and those it "helps" could easily find better sources to look; most are just too lazy to look around). While NOB would effectively (and really) solve the problem by eliminating it entirely, I haven't seen any better options stated (aside from my first one, which people said wouldn't fly unless we backed up the info we had).
 * I am fully supportive of an original build section if we have a way to weed it out - to prune the crap. Unfortunately, the best and most effective pruning methods go against "the wiki way." This ties into my argument before, which I'll repost in a new section. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 01:02, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * In effect, I guess, what we really want is guides. The thing is, I look at something like Effective warrior guide and, well... jeez. I don't even know where to start. That thing just needs to contain a lot more information, and a lot more of a different type of information. This is where our real efforts should be going -- not what to play but how. Agree? Disagree? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * :p You know, that's what I wanted to see as well. That was part of my original suggestion (while removing all builds, expanding on the Guides). I stopped trying to push that when I gathered that the build section wouldn't ever be removed. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 03:40, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * While I am a huge fan of the Effective * Guide's, and think that is a thing that should be enhanced. I do think that build pages like "general interrupter" are very useful as a supplement. I think such PvE build pages should link liberally to such builds. I think the real problem is proliferation of things like 55 builds... not that they are bad, just that we don't need so many of them. But even those Effective * Guide's need to be careful about the PvE/PvP differences. The games play so differently that it becomes hard to talk about a single topic without conflict between the different camps. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * All right, so it looks like if we went to a guides system we would at least need more descriptive guides, separate PvP and PvE sections, and example builds such as the previously mentioned general interrupter. Is there anything anyone would like to add/remove?  And do you agree/disagree with a guides + examples system replacing the current build system and why?&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  13:31, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * I've commented on this already at Build talk:Main Page, but to reiterate: A good idea but difficult to execute in practice. For example, a 55 build is (as I understand it) a core selection of 4 or 5 monk skills and another 3 or 4 skills from any profession (depending on the primary/secondary profession of the player) designed to deal damage. This could easily be merged into a single, simple build/guide as there's not much difference between the individual "builds" (just the damage skills). However, while the idea of a Minion Master is well known in PvE there is a fair variety of different, equally viable MM builds that could easily share only 2 or 3 skills between them. A guide swiftly becomes something like the General minion mastery guide - there's nothing wrong with that, however I think having much more concise examples in the builds section is a benefit rather than a duplication of effort. Similarly a Fast Casting Elementalist is a simple, single idea, but the skill bar and AP spread depends entirely on what Elementalist discipline you choose to follow (Build:Me/E Air Spiker, Build:Me/E FC Water Ele and don't have a single skill in common other than a Res Sig).  is pretty much the ideal I'd like to see in the PvE builds section, but not at the expense of losing all the FC Ele builds because they can't be summed up on one page easily. --NieA7 14:33, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Breaking indents. I've read this proposed policy and I've read the Build Split proposed policy; I think they're basically stating a separate policy needs to be around for PvE and PvP. I generally make it a rule to stay far far away from the builds section of this site... this comes from a user of the site who uses this site as the bible of Guild Wars, and contributes with intent to keep it that way. The reason is as most have stated: clutter and crap in the builds section. From the viewpoint of someone who plays a good deal of PvE, and only casually plays PvP, here are my opinions. I believe most of these agree with Skuld's intent, if not his actual statement.
 * PvE
 * Tips on playing a specific class are helpful. Thus things like Effective warrior guide are good, especially for beginners or players new to a class. As you guys mentioned, they may need enhanced, and they may need to be broken out into PvE vs. PvP and have example builds, that's all good and fine.
 * I usually make my own builds. As someone mentioned (as was correct) a PvE build generally doesn't matter. Throw some random skills on your bar, and you'll probably still complete your quest/ mission. Just to prove the point I once did the Iron Mines of Moladune (Mission) with no skills on my bar and using all henchmen.
 * I look here and other fan sites for tips on builds for difficult missions, elite areas, farming, etc. I don't even care if you give me a build, but telling someone that running an interrupt heavy build for a specific difficult mission/ boss (Ring of Fire and Coventina the Matron come to mind) is a great help.
 * I look here for fotm type builds, because sometimes there's an inkling of creativity to them, and usually they just work. They didn't become a fad for nothing.
 * As for the rest, you may as well have 1000 monkeys in a room with typewriters cranking out builds, as I don't care to read them.
 * PvP
 * I want to know what the winning guilds run in GvG. Top 100 guilds, repeatedly used builds, or something like that. I use observer mode and take notes for this reason only. If the builds were here, it'd save me time.
 * I want to know what the winning teams run in HA. Once again, repeatedly used builds.
 * I want to know what the winning teams run in TA. Same as HA to me, just scaled down team size.
 * RA builds that are commonly used to win over and over are rare, as once you get on a role someone will come along with a counter. This is the fastest changing meta-game in GW. If something DOES stand out for awhile, we should doco it.
 * AB/CM team builds are pretty pointless because of the randomness of the team. Because of that it gets the same treatment as RA.
 * Hero Builds
 * Same basic concept as PvE and PvP builds. The only difference I have is I'd enjoy seeing tips on what skills Heroes use poorly or not at all (i.e. Dervish heroes don't seem to use Faithful Intervention).

Builds I've seen on this site that were useful to me and people I know are all fotm type builds, and they certainly weren't generated here, only documented here. Things that come to mind are Minion Master,, , or even Build:Team - IWAY. These guides and builds are (or were) documented findings of well know builds, and a learning tool for anyone looking for builds.

I'd fully support a policy like this, even if the wording and format need a workout. Otherwise I'm certain many people (including myself) will continue to scoff at the idea of finding useful build info here. Purge everything may not be right, but categorizing most of the junk out there right now into a "deprecated" type category and moving forward with a new plan might be good for us. --Zampani 15:27, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Hehe, I think Iron Mines is everybody's whipping boy. I remember doing that one with a lowbie ranger just directing the henchmen (in order to get to Grotto for the good armor). &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Lack of Creativity and total Staleness
Many people in this discussion have said there is in-game talk about how bad the builds section is. All those people are correct. However, what is being proposed is pure crap. Everyone hates the builds section because creativity is frowned upon, and the only builds that are vetted are variations of the same old stuff. No one sees any creativity here, and it seems it is only the top-100 guilds that actually come up with any unique ideas because everyone on guildwiki is too scared and too stubborn to give creativity a shot and to actually stop glancing over new and innovative builds and saying "It is unique. Thus it looks like it will not work. Thus, it won't work and I hate it." New players look to the builds section to find builds, and it is guildwiki that helps contribute to the staleness of the metagame. You people have to stop proposing ways to make this section more boring. You have to make it more creative. The core of Guild Wars, creativity and innovation are being denied here.--TheDrifter 18:00, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Uh... the proposed changes are being brought about because the builds that we are making suck. Creative, yet useless builds are *still* useless. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 18:03, 20 December 2006 (CST)

The stale builds suck too. Its just that all these epople don't want to admit they do, and are keeping builds that should have died a long time ago alive. One of my guild members stated "I hate guildwiki. Everything I see there is are just the same things. They really only have like 5 builds in their builds section. I see like a million sf too, and sf sucks. Worst build ever.".--TheDrifter 18:21, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * I dunno what you're trying to say, but I deleted all the SF variants and improved . &mdash; Skuld 18:25, 20 December 2006 (CST)

I'm tyring to say my guild members think that guildwiki is trying to tell Guild Wars members that the only people that can make builds are the top guilds and that it seems that you all think that everyone else is stupid. Rule of the privlaged. I honestly thin, that the admins of Anet and Metawiki would be sad if they saw their ideas being used in this way.--TheDrifter 18:28, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * I think this specific proposal is rather shortsighted, but a bad build, honestly, is nothing more than a vanity page. Wikipedia deletes things as being "irrelevant," "not important," or "too crufty" all the time. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * *sigh* How long have you been with us, a month? Were you here before Nightfall?  Back when Rapta was on break and the untested section was growing unchecked.  Have you even looked at all the builds in the build section?  I'm not trying to be elitist here, or trying to prove that you have no standing to question this policy.  I'm merely trying to ascertain how long you've been involved in the wiki and how much you know about past events and policy discussions here.
 * The reason people cant find anything creative is because they have to sift through all the inefficient builds and minor variant builds to find the diamond in the ruff, and most people don't go digging through all the builds to find one. Nothing gets shot down for being creative.  A good creative build would be a godsend.  The things that get shot down are the 30+ versions of a build which should all be one build with variants, and bad builds.  A creative build can be bad.  If a build utilizes a clever skill combination, it is creative.  But if that skill combination requires double your max energy to use and includes no way to regain that energy, it is bad.
 * If we thought that every one else was stupid, we would have some kind of elite group of buildgurus who would be the only people who could make and vet builds, instead of letting everyone contribute. If this was rule of the privileged, then these so called privileged would have slapped a ban tag on you, and every "creative" person who ever submitted a bad build or questioned their policies.  The fact that your guild mate ran into a ton of SF builds is a testament to the fact that everyone can contribute.  Tons of people saw SF as a good skill and so they all built their own set of skills around it and all submitted them.
 * Please think a bit more before ranting. There is not a single build on this site which was voted down with votes like "too creative".  However, if you have a specific build which you think was railroaded, please bring it up for discussion and ask the people who cast the initial votes to reconsider the build.  This is done all the time, and a build which was voted down before a skill balance may be more viable after one.
 * However, please don't just come in here and say that we're scared, stubborn, anti-creative elitists. The people who are discussing this policy here come from both sides of the fence and care about the wiki.  Pre-Nightfall we had many discussions of ways to try and fix the builds section, but none of them went anywhere.  This is the newest one, and you're free to express your opinion about it.  However, many people here have been around through many more of these debates, and have seen the flaws inherent within the builds section.  So please don't act like we have no idea what were talking about when we discuss a possible solution to the problem, no matter how much you disagree with it.  I encourage you to discuss and debate, just not demean other users.  Sorry for the lengthy rant.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  22:56, 20 December 2006 (CST)

I did not use an acount before last week, I used my ip adress, and found Rapta to be a jerk that had no idea what he was talking about.

Anyway, there are many builds that are bad in the builds section. There are many more that are medoricre and many more that are good. And, I am not insulting anyone, I am posting my thoughts. it seems you are the one being insulting, insulting my right to opnion and my intelligence. I am not saying you people are stupid, I am saying you are mistaken and are not coming up with rational ideas.--TheDrifter 15:09, 21 December 2006 (CST)

On the top 100 and GvG
I see a lot of people freaking out about the top 100 proposal. The problem is simple, the users of GuildWiki do not have enough build making and PvP experience to ensure good builds are vetted and bad builds are not. I see tons of overtagged builds being placed in the GvG section that have absolutely no place being there. Ask Skuld how often he is removing builds that don't belong in the GvG section. Thus the solution is to change the vetting system from a vague "does this work" or "is this good" to a question with a clear answer that you cannot get wrong. "Is this build being used in the top 100?" has two answers "yes" and "no." You can easily prove it, if someone claims the build is being run they can state which guild is running it and on what date they saw it. Other players can hop on obs mode and try to catch that guild playing and verify if they see the build. The wiki users can then focus on properly documenting how the build is played instead of trying to figure out if it is good. Guilds below the top 100 are not on observer mode for easy verification. Name me another method that you will be able to guarantee that even players completely clueless in regards to PvP will be able to see in plain black and white if a build deserves to be vetted or not. This build was in the GvG section earlier Build:N/any Spoil Victor Necro, 4 people vetted the build for GvG play. That is proof that your current system is broken. -Warskull 20:21, 20 December 2006 (CST)

So, you are saying everyone but them are stupid morans? Nice.

I am going to talk to some membs in the top 100 about this. Many of them would be happy to discuss this.--TheDrifter 20:24, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * You mean morons, if you are putting words in my mouth I would prefer you spell them right. I did not call anyone a moron, I said GuildWiki has a history of vetting builds that are not effective.  There are very clearly players who do not have a strong understanding of skills and builds.  Everyone makes bad builds when they are newbies.  Some people continue to make bad builds throughout their guild wars career.  It is clear to any experienced player that the number of players who really understand build making are outnumbered by the people who don't.  If you stick to the current system bad builds will continue to get favored.  This devalues favored builds to the point where it means nothing and forces admins to forcefully remove bad builds outside the existing process.  So if you are going to let everyone post whatever they want how are you going to fix the problem with bad builds getting favored consistently?  Also a tip, don't try to pull "I know people in top 100 guilds" on me, it won't impress me. -Warskull 20:32, 20 December 2006 (CST)

I'm hesitant to talk about this, as it doesn't pertain to me (I'm PvE, thanks), but as a point of clarification, my understanding of the "top 100" talk was because those games are observable, and therefor verifyable. I don't think Warskull et. al. are being elitist, so much as taking advantage of an interface mechanic (specificly, observation mode). -- Oblio (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * The reason he is being called elitist is because he only thinks the builds that top guilds play are viable and once one stops running it the build sucks again....-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 14:41, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * Sefre, go back to PvE plz. It has been repeatedly stated that the basis for top 100 is that they know what they're doing, and it is an easy way for the masses to check up on i.e. observer mode. Tell us your fabulous solutions for top 500 checking, would you. &mdash; Skuld 14:45, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * Skuld, go back to deleteing pages please. I have as much say as any in this, and if you dont like it you can just ignore my posts. And besides the fact that I dont support the no original builds therefore I dont have a policy for it... Go make your baseless asumtions about experiance elsewhere.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 15:22, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * Pie is nice. &mdash; Skuld 15:42, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * Only apple and Pumpkin. The admins spam on the site now?-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 17:08, 21 December 2006 (CST)

As "build quality" is often a subjective thing, I think that the current build vetting process can stay, but there should be an indication on a build's page if it is used in Top 100 GvG (ie. like a seal of approval thing). -- Dekan 19:43, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Aprently the admins are elitist too. And they act like infants.--TheDrifter 22:10, 21 December 2006 (CST)


 * I'd love to reply, but I'm afraid I'd end up flaming you. But you are missing something... Admins aren't high-and-mighty. They're just users, like you and me. Assigning additional qualities to them would just befuddle your understanding of who they are and what they do, and how they fit into the Wiki. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 04:11, 23 December 2006 (CST)

You are actully wrong. They are regular users that are required to have a high level and maturity and responsibility. Saying "I like pie" dosn't sound very mature.--TheDrifter 23:03, 23 December 2006 (CST)
 * Who said "I like pie?" If you were trying to quote somebody, at least get the quote right. I chuckle to think you are calling admins out while misquoting at the same time. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 22:13, 24 December 2006 (CST)