User talk:NightAngel11476

Cleaned up all the previous talk. If any admin wants to resurrect this just check past versions, but as far as I'm concerned it's over and buried &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by NightAngel (contribs).
 * Hmh, generally you're not supposed to blank a talk page, even your own, just Archive it. Entropy 13:09, 26 December 2006 (CST)
 * If using the unsigned template, be sure to insert "subst:" in front of it. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:21, 26 December 2006 (CST)


 * I archived your talk for you. Hope you don't mind. Entropy 13:25, 26 December 2006 (CST)

N/Mo Order of Undeath vote
I'm curious as to why you would add the tested tag but then say it's a stub. The build needs to be updated, but I haven't really had the time as of late to do a thorough revision. If you have any suggestions to make, please add them to the discussion page! Winter b0rn 12:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Because at the time you were heading in the right direction, and then you decided to just slap a bunch of optionals and leave it at that. Time went by, nothing happened. Eventually something had to be done, and I switched votes as a way to help pressure you. It worked huh? :) I still suggest the same thing I did before - dervish secondary with Mystic Regeneration and Infuse Condition. THat still leaves 2 more slots... conviction? Dark bond. Something else...? Anywya, just finish the build one way or the other and put it on untested again with a new rate-a-build, and it won't take long to be favored. Half of the unfavored votes were basically due to the fact that the build had 4 skills. NightAngel 13:51, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Wow... you really don't care anymore do you? I mean... I was just as involved in the Build Section as you were, and I didn't let the problems with the vetting system sour my entire outlook on GuildWiki... hope you can get over this because you are a valuable contributor. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 01:48, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, but I really was involved in the builds section. I mean, I'll still use the wiki as a valuable resource, and I'll help whenever I search for an article and find it lacking, or find a mistake, I'll keep my profile here, etc, but it will be very minimal. As my main beef with Auron, Skuld and others was about the builds section, I don't see why fight them anymore. I mean, the only thing that they can do once build section is gone is ban me for no reason, and I don't think it has really gotten to that. NightAngel 09:19, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I feel similar to NightAngel. This builds wipe is just going to end up turning into NOB, which means the death of the most useful site for PVE build makers.  The negative, elitist attitudes of some of the popular contributors/PvP players here are not only the cause of much of the friction in the build sections (their lack of constructive feedback and condescending attitude often cause new submitters to fly off the handle), but are also the reason why we have never been able to come up with an improved vetting policy by just saying no to every suggestion.  And Tanaric is convinced that places like gamecompendium and gwshack are better for builds than the wiki.  There is no way to convince them to change course at this point.  In fact, by the time I found out about the build wipe, the course was already decided upon.  So whats the point in making an effort anymore?  I'm preferring to spend my time playing the game now. -- BrianG 12:48, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I agree that it is a bad situation, however, it is not only the "elitest attitudes" of individuals with the lack of constructive advice and uncontrollable egos, but it is also those that are so connected with their builds that they cannot control their emotions should their build be unfavored or deleted. I won't say I haven't used a few of the popular builds posted, but most of mine are original, to the best of my knowledge. All you have to do is study the skills, your opponents, either other players or mobs, and use your imagination. Your not going to create a winner everytime, but that's what makes finding the right combination to make an effective build all the more satisfying.
 * As to NightAngel's response that he is going to GWW, I would like to point out that we do not allow builds to be posted in the mainspace over there. You can post them in your userspace, but as of now, all builds posted in the mainspace will be deleted. There are some new faces over there though, but you will see most of the same people over there as you will here. Giving you a heads up in case you have not visited GWW yet or know the new policies. &mdash; Gares 13:19, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * What is odd about this NOB idea is that the people who are demolishing the build section never tried to contribute or really help. They are destroying something they never really helped. Tanaric, for instance, is one guy I've never seen participate in the build section. They go to delete, trash and demolish, but to actually make something? Try to create? Nah. Why would they? It's a shame. Apparently the official wiki is horribly incomplete, so I'll still use Guild Wiki as my resource for information, but it's sad to see the build section being thrown out the window by people who never gave a crap about it. And yes, gares, I know that. My point was, if this wiki doesn't allow the creation and debate of builds, it ceases to have a significant advantage or attractive point, then it doesn't matter staying here or moving to the official wiki. And Gares claims he has created all of his builds, which are original and imaginative, and yet, I don't see him contributing to the wiki. isn't this supposed to be a place where you share and debate ideas? Apparently not. That sounded very condencending, as if your ideas are just too good for the crappy noobs who frequent this Wiki, or maybe I just lack imagination to figure out things on my own. Yeah, screw collaboration! To each his own, right? The noobs will only criticize your brilliant ideas, what do they know? Or hell, they'll just steal all your ideas and then what? I'm just glad that most people don't think like that, or we'd all be at the stone age rubbing sticks together, since there is no satisfaction in sharing or debating ideas. The real pleasure comes when you accomplish something alone, all by yourself. Maybe we should all make our own wikis, and be site owners, administrators and sole editors! NightAngel 13:24, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I tried to be supportive and nice and it seems that there is no reasoning with you regarding this. Please read my post carefully and try not to twist my words on your next response. I said I have used a few popular builds found on nearly every site as well as my own, personal builds. There is no rule to where I have to share my builds with the public. This isn't kindergarten where I have to share my cookies. I share my builds with my guildmates, my alliance, and those that play with me can see my builds. I discuss ideas about builds with those in which I trust their opinions. I do not need hundreds of users to help me create a good build, nor would I care for unconstructive and egotistical comments. Rarely do I contribute to the build discussions here because 1) I don't have to and 2) I don't like the unconstructive comments and petty arguements that seems to escalate on every page. Enjoy. &mdash; Gares 14:55, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * THanks for stating what is pretty obvious - you don't have to share. "I share my builds with..." - "... in which I trust their opinions" (which, by the way, is pretty bad English - the correct sentence would be "with those whose opinions I trust"). Basically, you don't trust the opinions of the editors in the wiki you're an administrator in. That is my point. And the problem is, you assume we WANT your cookies, lol. No, Gares, this isn't kindergarden. But it could be a place similar to an academic environment, where you can debate and exchange ideas and achieve something. But you're not interested in that, because you believe the editors are beneath you. You're basically offending everyone here who is not on your guild or alliance. Ps: Also, it should read "there is no rule according to which I have to...". NightAngel 15:34, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Thanks for the english lesson, chief. My forte is math, which is probably why I can create my own builds without leeching off of others. &mdash; Gares 17:36, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

If that was supposed to sound impressive, it failed miserably. Funny how Gares resorts to personal attacks in the end. I guess that veneer of civility is easily scrubbed off eh? :) I have achieved much in my personal life, and am pretty confident on my abilities, in mathematics too, considering I have a degree in economics. I ENJOY exchanging ideas and building things in collaboration, I never said I needed it, capisce? NightAngel 21:01, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * First, the word chief is not an attack. That would be the same as me saying your capisce is a threat. Other than that, I explained a little about myself, as it seems you are creating an image of my playstyle that is just not true. I'm afraid, as you have been doing since my first post, have been twisting my words. I pity you and I don't think anyone would argue pitying as a personal attack. :D &mdash; Gares 23:36, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, obviously chief is a pretty offensive comment. And don't worry, you were very clever disguising your insults, no one will ever catch you, the brilliant mastermind. So brilliant you didn't realize I never asked for your opinion, and yet, here you are. Sigh. Each day I'm more convinced a nuclear war wouldn't be such a bad thing. Start over from scratch. NightAngel 01:18, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Hey
Remember that telling people that what they're doing with the builds is a waste of time is even more of a waste of time as its unproductive (then what the hell am I doing :P). Peace! &mdash; Skuld 15:52, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

it's a bloody protest, dam it. Its only possible productive outcome would be to have the policy reverted and the builds section actually improved and not scrapped. Which is obviously ludicrous, since the "powers that be" (just like a "Charmed" episode) have decreed it to be deleted. They never really tried, they never really cared. Why? because they're imaginative and creative like Gares, who can come up with brilliant ideas with the help of the smart and trusted people of his alliance. Who gives a crap about those noobs at the wiki? NightAngel 15:56, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

(edit conflict) That's not really fair NightAngel. There is about a years worth of archives of people suggesting new policies to improve the build section. People did try. If you are going to protest, at least try not to be an ignorant protester. The whole reason behind the build wipe is that consensus failed when it came to the build section. By which I mean that the Admins hoped that the consensus/community system would work, but no one ever agreed on anything. Only as a last resort, when the community had failed to reach a consensus did Tanaric decide to implement the build wipe. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 16:00, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * NightAngel is ignoring (or not acknowledging) the part where said admins waited for months on end for the people that cared to come up with a solution. They didn't just wake up one morning and say "Hey, let's nuke it!" They waited until it had spiraled into an unrepairable mess before laying down the hammer. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 16:02, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Sigh. Wouldn't be the first time people failed to achieve something because they couldn't communicate, I guess. And no, I didn't see the 1 year of archives, I learned about it very recently. NightAngel 16:06, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * They tried to communicate. They failed.  The community failed.  Thus the build wipe.  As I said before, protesting is one thing, but protesting when your platform is uninformed is quite another.  Also, by adding those inane votes (which I understand are your way of protesting) not only are you being entirely nonconstructive, you are actually hurting the authors who took the time to share their builds.  Your criticize Gares because he wouldn't share his builds with the community, why then are you protesting on pages created by authors who DID decide to share their builds?  You may not be breaking any policies, but you are breaking the spirit of those policies by being disruptive to the Wiki and detracting from the community.  You seriously need to evaluate your current actions and see whether that is how you would like people to see you.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 16:10, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

So they will know what is going on and get angry too. Maybe they can get angry at the right people, maybe they'll stay angry at me. It's a risk. And I don't criticize Gares for not sharing his builds. For all I know, they're crappy as hell. I criticize him for assuming people here have nothing valuable to add. NightAngel 16:11, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Auron, I don't see why its any more unrepairable now then it was before. In fact I think the categories that were added made things a lot more organized. The main reason policy revisions failed before was because there was a vocal minority of naysayers who didn't want the section at all, or found some reason to oppose every suggestion. Now the admins have stepped in, and instead of coming up with a solution (which they easily could have done), have decided to let the naysayers who have prevented policy revisions in the past have their way. Doesn't exactly seem like a fair decision. -- BrianG 16:13, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think this is a debate that is ever going to be resolved. If there was ever a cleavage issue on GuildWiki, this is it.  It's like Conservatives and Liberals, no matter how much each side argues, there are certain issues no one is going to change their mind about.  Something had to be done.  I don't think this is a decision that was made lightly, to be honest though, to be fair, no ever said the system was fair.  In fact, no one said this was a democracy either.  It has been pretty expressly stated that in some ways, this is a dictatorship mixed with anarchy.  I don't think we can fault anyone for doing what they think is best.  We may not like it, but that is what proposing new policies is for.  Anyways, I don't think this debate actually gets us anywhere.  it is stagnant and better left alone unless an actual breakthrough can be realistically reached.  Besides, the focus now should be working with what we have left to make this as good a system as possible (eg. I am working on the Profession Guide policy).  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 16:25, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And, we also have to look at it from the other perspective (i.e. people who want to get rid of the build section), the community is split, but just as many people want the build removal as want the builds to stay. So, while we argue that consensus was never reached in getting rid of the builds, they can argue that consensus was never reached in keeping the build section.  While we argue it was a unilateral decision, we only do so because it wasn't a unilateral decision in our favor.  If the decision was to just keep the build section, all the dissenters would be here complaining.  That is why I said that something needed to be done.  We may not like what was done, but something had to be done.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 16:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Votes moved to favored. If it doesn't matter, let's put them all in tested right? One last joy before dying. NightAngel 16:16, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Look, all I am saying is that if you don't like the system, you are criticizing it from the wrong platform. You could just as easily tell people what was going on if you wanted people to be informed.  I am not saying either side is in the right in this instance, just that the way you are going about your protest is all wrong.  Logic is going to win over a lot more people than blind anger.  Anyways, and this is both for Brian and for you, if you have a better policy, please, go right ahead and suggest it.  I would endorse a good policy if it worked.  But, all of this attacking the system without proposing a new idea is not constructive.  People have been proposing ideas for a long time.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 16:19, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Defiant, its easy to come up with a better vetting system. I have made or been involved with proposals before (I'll leave you an example on your talk page).  The problem is that because of naysayers, they will never be accepted, no matter what.  There is a concept that says that sometimes a benevolent dictatorship can accomplish more good for a community than a democracy, so I think the admins made a smart move in stepping in due to a lack of consensus.  Unfortunately, they forgot the "benevolent" part, and instead sided with the destroyers/naysayers. -- BrianG 16:38, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I am still not arguing with you. I happen to agree with you, however, I don't think revisiting the initial issue is going to get us anywhere.  We need to come up with more creative solutions.  I still like the idea of simply removing the vetting system and just documenting builds... which is kind of the purpose of the userspace.  That's why I'm working on a policy that will a) Get the builds in the userspace organized b) Allow for greater documentation c) Doesn't have the flaws the current system has.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 19:12, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Actually, there's something I hadn't thought about... Guild Wars is over. THey are working on guild wars two. Sure, there will be an "expansion" with a few extra skills, but nothing really significant. So really, what's the point of arguing in favor of a forum for debating new ideas on a game that is all over and done? THis should indeed keep strictly to documenting, because that's all there is left to do. And to Defiant: How about putting a warning on the top of the build page? I think it's pretty fair to warn everybody who visits the section that it will be burned to the ground. NightAngel 17:00, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Come on NightAngel, that would be too logical. If they let the general public (meaning people who read but don't edit or post) know about the build wipe, they might actually have a chance to complain about it! ;) -- BrianG 17:29, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

"On April 2, 2007, a notice (via Template:builds wipe) will be added to Main Page, Build:Main Page, GuildWiki:Builds, and GuildWiki:Community Portal linking back to this article and summarizing this decision. Editors are free to include this template at the top of any article to be deleted by this decision, to help spread awareness of this policy change.". On the build wipe policy page. So there you have it, April 2nd the word will "get out". NightAngel 17:33, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Now imagine what would happen in the real world if people "deleted" things whenever they failed to reach a consensus. NightAngel 17:37, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm sorry you're upset, NightAngel. I doubt you'll believe me, but I'm upset too. I'm upset that a community of intelligent, passionate, and downright skilled individuals have been continually unable to disregard the status quo and invent a new builds system. Every build proposal that's gotten anywhere in the last year has been pretty much the same as the current one, with additional administrative burden. Despite our (my?) current actions, we administrators, in general, hate to dictate. We like the idea that the community should be deciding where we go and how we get there. That means that any solution that involves "verifiability" or other external resources that essentially require an administrator to say "Yup, that's allowed" is bound to fail here. We don't want that role, and we only exercise our authority in that sense when we're forced to. This is why I hate NOB; it's bound to increase drama, not lessen it. "My guild runs this build all the time, WTF do you mean it's 'original'?!"


 * On the other hand, we could have simply written what we deemed to be a functional builds policy. I'm rather partial to the "guides over builds" mentality, and, instead of doing a wipe, I could have simply replaced our current policy with something advocating guides in general. There are a couple problems with this. First of all, I hate the idea of administrators dictating wiki policy. While the builds wipe involves me dictating a small interim post-no-builds policy, I've written everything I can stating that I don't wish for that policy to stand longer than a day or so. Were I to dictate instead an entire builds system, it would likely stand for the ages, which is something I'm against. Secondly, any policy any administrator would decide upon would essentially require wiping the builds section anyway.


 * It seems to me that the best way to solve both these problems is just to wipe the builds. You guys are then forced to come up with your own policy. Further, you're freed from the shackles of the status quo -- your policy doesn't have to take old builds or old votes into account. Finally, because of the nature of our community and wiki software, none of the builds we wipe are really gone forever. Thus, when a new policy does take effect, the old builds can be used to create new ones in accordance with the new policy.


 * While I understand our current course of action seems harsh, I'm doing my best to show that it really isn't. As long as the editors work together and come up with some policies, our builds section will be quite a bit better in just two months than it ever has been before.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 20:06, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Build talk:N/D Order of Undeath MM revisited
About you comments on the build...care to explain why the Unfavored votes are "stupid" or "ignorant"? I value the imput of experienced players and I'd like to know where I erred in my judgment of the build. (T/C) 18:52, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Huh? I never said it was stupid or ignorant, Entropy. Are u kidding me? And give the admins a nice excuse to ban me for a long time? ~I can argue the merits of a MM build with dervish secondary and Order of Undeath if you like, somewhere else cause my talk page is humongous. But I never used those terms, in fact, I didn't even come CLOSE to it. NightAngel 21:03, 29 March 2007 (CDT)