GuildWiki talk:Builds/Archive2

I Archived the current discussion. Since some of it was quite recent, you can go and return the relevant text to continue the discussion, or just restart it. -- Ifer (t/c) 14:02, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

Three To One
The three to one process is not very accepted, but I feel it works well within this policy. Discuss it's usage in this policy here. If we decide not to use this, a note should be added to relevant pages that requests build authors to vote on other builds as well, with three to one as a basic guideline.

personally, I think this is great and I believe it can be used effectively here. -- Ifer (t/c) 13:28, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * It seems most people liked the idea but the main opposition was in regards to how to implement it. You ''made a good suggestion about how to implement this idea but nobody really responded.  Does anyone have any opposition to the 3 to 1 policy if it is implemented in the way Ifer suggested? (Before a build is moved from stubs to untested, the author of a build is required to provide links to his 3 votes in order to prove that he has fulfilled his obligation). -- BrianG 18:08, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I see no problem with suggesting or providing encouragement for new contributors to vote; but I see no practical way to enforce it - as a result I'm against making it part of the policy. The suggestion to provide links is equally impractical - you're still stuck with figuring a way to enforce that the user doesn't repeat their links on multiple builds. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, basically you're right, but most of the wiki seems to operate on trusting other users. The rule wouldn't have to be strictly enforced, but at least it gets a point across to new users, once they submit one build and understand that they have to help out by voting on other builds, they will get the idea.  Even if it wouldn't work perfectly it would at least make a positive difference in comparison to the way builds are currently entered.  Even if the requirement was only for a user's first build submission it would still be better. -- BrianG 23:36, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * For the reasons stated here I disagree with the proposal regardless of the way it would be implemented. Having new contributors vote on untested builds is not going to raise neither quality nor quantity of new builds. Instead, it's gonna scare off contributors who are not willing to further invest into the guildwiki. Comparing that to the status quo I'd rather spite an author instead of a losing good build. My personal favorite from the discussion was moving the whole build section to a new site with special GW build contribution software. ~ Nilles (chat) 06:10, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * You have a problem with the three to one rule, that it might scare off contributors that are not willing to do anything else, apart from sharing their build with the rest of us. Do we even want that? such people will not check if a similar build exists, and if they lack the expertise to test a build, then what makes their build a good contribution to the wiki? I think any user that is able to post a build article is able to vote on other builds. He can choose build that he is somewhat aquainted with if his GW experience is limited. The requirement does not necesserily have to be followed and checked up on constantly, think of it as a strong suggestion. However, the three to one rule can be removed from the overall policy, as I've indicated with the asterixes. --  Ifer (t/c) 09:06, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Foremost, I have a problem with bureaucracy. An author has enough to think and care about and so do reviewers. Correct me if I'm wrong but that additional criteria does nothing but multiplying our work. Do you have any idea what it takes to test completely new builds? Not a fifty five and Azroth already put that very well. You can't force people to submit quality work and you can't force testers to submit quality criticism, no matter how strict the policy. The great difference between the writing workshop (where the idea stems from) and GW builds is that GW builds are not that easy to judge. That's not because builds would be that more complex than written text, but whoever writes has very likely 10-20 years experience with text. The old timers among us have two years at maximum - including beta! ~ Nilles (chat) 09:39, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * As I said earlier, I have no problem with it being a suggestion that a user review other builds; but I am strongly against making it policy. You ask if we even want user who would be scared off by the extra work; I believe they wouldn't be scared off - more of an annoyance at our beaurocratic bs that makes them take their builds elsewhere.  I also question if we even want to require users who may be working their first build ever after playing the game for two weeks making votes that would impact if a build is favored or not?  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:51, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Can a contributor who has only played the game for two weeks add a valid build? I rest my case, and leave it to a vote. -- Ifer (t/c) 10:13, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Three problems here. First, votes should only be used as a last resort in establishing policy, consensus through discussion is preferred.  Second, three way votes are inherently flawed.  While one option may get more than the other two, it may still be less than 50% making it a non-majority decision.  Third, we already had this vote last week.  Are you going to forever call new votes whenever it gets voted down?
 * For now I've removed the vote. Please justify why it should be re-voted on after only a week before calling a new one.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:28, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Note: If it can be justified, I have no problem with restoring the vote. But thus far, I see nothing in the discussion to suggest this is significantly changed from the prior vote. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:34, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Why a new vote? Because the policy suggestion has dealt with some of the problems that were used as counterarguments in the last vote/discussion. This vote was on ThreeToOne as it is used in this policy suggestion. The reason I made a three-way vote is because everybody who votes for the first option is for the second option as well- the second is a watered down version of the first option. The third option will probably not get much support, but to offer a complete array of options I had to add it. If any of the three options would get a convincing amount of votes, that's the one that should be used. If not, the second option is chosen, because there is a majority that favors mentioning it(even though part of that majority would rather have the more drastic approach) -- Ifer (t/c) 11:42, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The prior vote to which I linked specifically states that it's about the three-to-one mechanism, and not about the policy as a whole. The only difference I see between that vote and this one is that vote also included the 30-word minimum clause, which is omitted here.  However, that clause really didn't receive much comment in the prior vote, so I see no reason to suspect that it would result in a difference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:52, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Barek, this vote is essentially different. Referring to the old vote: If this is to be policy, it's going to be in a copy-paste template. Therefore, your own first point is moot. The second will not happen, as the rule is not actively enforced- if someone bothers to count all the builds you made and all the votes you cast, then YES, he can put it back into the stubs because you double-linked some of your votes. But any contributor who would link to the same vote twice would know that he's cheating the system. Your last argument is a question that has been answered in the policy. Lordbiro's point still stands, but Kitty refers to the discussion above, where all criticism goes to implementing and controlling issues. Unless you believe most users are dishonest, none of those arguments are still valid. -- Ifer (t/c) 18:50, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I still don't see a significant change. But, as no one else is stating one way or another thus far, go ahead and repost the vote.  I would however recommend some changes.  Make it two distinct votes.  First, should three-to-one be used, yes/no.  Then the second vote being that, assuming it is selected to be used, should it be part of policy or set as a highly encouraged guideline.  Also, be sure to add the  . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:05, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Votes
First of all: Do we like the three to one idea?

Agree Disagree
 * 1)  Ifer (t/c) 03:05, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) add your name here
 * 1) To much of a hassle for doubtful profit: Forced reviews could be low quality. --Xeeron 05:01, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) ~ Nilles (chat)  07:43, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:48, 4 October 2006 (CDT) - for the reasons above.
 * 4) Forcing people to review is like encouraging drive-by shootings. Kessel 09:31, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 5) --[[Image:Kitty1.jpg|24px|]] (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) [[Image:Soft2.jpg|24px|]] 11:05, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 6)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:24, 6 October 2006 (CDT) I'm sick of voting. MAKE THE VOTING STOP, ARGH!

If so, do we want it as a policy, or as a guideline?

Policy Guideline
 * 1)  Ifer (t/c) 03:05, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) add your name here
 * 1) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:48, 4 October 2006 (CDT) If the "Agree" from first vote wins, then guideline at most.  Too much of a hassle to enforce, and an unenforced policy should not be a policy.
 * 2) --I like the idea but feel it would have consequences due to human nature and I cant see any posible way of implimenting it, but using it as a suggestion and keeping it voluntary might be nice and get some benefit out of it.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 20:47, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) add your name here

Discuss
What's the close date? One week or two from Oct 4th? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:37, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * One week is fine I think. I mentioned that in my previous poll, but forgot to add it here.. -- Ifer (t/c) 16:06, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Oh, I never responded to xeerons vote.. The votes can't be of low quality - not noticable anyway. Please, read and think before saying that, because I've implemented a safecatch for that. I am insulted by the way people assume this 3 to 1 incarnation is identical to the one previously voted upon. If you think the safecatch won't work, then that's a good reason, but this is nonsense. -- Ifer (t/c) 14:43, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
 * What's that "safecatch" you're talking about? I really tried reading everything, but the sheer amount of posts everywhere makes it quite hard to track so forgive me if I missed something. Could you rephrase that here or link to it on my talk page? ~ Nilles (chat) 21:36, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Third item Builds. -- Ifer (t/c) 04:15, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry, but your "safecatch" (apart from being horrible democratic practise), does nothing to prevent forced reviews from being bad. It tried to prevent them from having an influence, but nothing prevents the authors from writing bad ones. --Xeeron 05:40, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Nothing prevents anyone from adding bad things to the wiki. However, the obligated build reviews have to be of some quality, because if it's not good it's not going to count for the nomination process anyway.. -- Ifer (t/c) 11:16, 8 October 2006 (CDT) I am sure I signed this...
 * That "safecatch" is infeasible. You're trying to get a system based on review and audition going. The problem is, that we don't want to judge subjective entries. Since we are trying to proceed in consent, even judging builds itself is highly contradictory to this. I don't like the idea to review reviews at all and I don't think anyone else does. In the end, the proposed procedure will not simplify nor speed up the testing of controversial builds, it will in fact complicate matters due to the increased bureaucratic complexity. ~ Nilles (chat) 10:03, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree, we do not want to judge the work of others- it's very unwiki. But in the build section, we have little choice in the matter I'm afraid. I believe the proposed procedure will slightly decrease the influx of new builds, and it will greatly increase the number of voters on other builds. You see, if a nominator checks up on the validity of a vote, he's halfway to voting himself :) This system will increase the speed at which builds are rated, and it will help chop down the great big pile of untested builds. However, it looks like it's not going to be implemented, because I'm the only 3 to 1 fan still here.. --  Ifer (t/c) 11:16, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

I am ending this vote prematurely - the counterarguments are pathetic, and since everyone who voted was against it, I'm removing it from the policy. -- Ifer (t/c) 16:45, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Ifer since it seems like we have given up on this idea, can we archive this section along with the vote to clean up this page a bit? -- BrianG 10:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Catergory Names
I have currently named the catergories I use Stubs, Untested, Favored, Neutral and Unfavored. The fourth has met some resistance, and I have an alternative: Favored, Neutral and Unfavored can be changed to Favored, Unfavored and Unfavored (impending Archive notice). In this case, a week should be enough time to correct the build or to sway the vote - if not, the page is archived.

Discuss.

I personally don't care, I think either will work. -- Ifer (t/c) 13:40, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * It seems to me that there are 2 main kinds of people who use the builds section. Those who want to document the most commonly used builds, and those who enjoy creating or brainstorming on new build ideas.  This is okay, because different people are allowed to enjoy the game in different ways.  Personally, my favorite part of the game is coming up with my own build, so I don't really have that much interest in reading documentation of the most popular builds (aside from helping me learn what I might be up against).


 * The first group of people seem opposed to the concept of having a separate section for neutral or closely disputed builds to go to rather than unfavored, while the second group (including myself) seems to like this idea. I think this is because we may enjoy browsing through other people's ideas to help with our own creativity, or we like the challenge of taking a concept that is almost working and see if we can get it the rest of the way.  And it would also allow the untested section to be used more efficiently by both groups.


 * The nice thing about categories is that if certain people have no interest in the content of that category, they can choose not to click on it, and the people who do have an interest in that category, can use it without interfering with other people's purposes. If some people would have use for a category but others would not, what is the harm in having that category?  Wouldn't that be the best solution to satisfy both of these groups of people? -- BrianG 18:03, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, I have changed it to unfavored and unfavored (archive notice), because deletion is too un-wiki. This way reasonably good but unfavored builds stay, but the real bad unfavored builds are put away. -- Ifer (t/c) 11:49, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Ifer I think you missed what I was saying. I don't care what happens to votes that get unfavored, deletion or archive is fine. I was talking about your "Neutral" category, thats the way I think it should be done. A build should not be "unfavored" unless concensus is reached. For close votes or heavily debated builds, I suggested they should go to a category called "Build Ideas", where they could continue to be modified and debated (if there was interest), without cluttering up the untested category. This is basically the same thing as your "Neutral" category. But it seems like there is opposition to that concept, and I don't understand why. It seems like it would satisfy everyone. The untested section would be cleaner, those of us who enjoy creative builds could have an area to debate and improve things. -- BrianG 19:59, 3 October 2006 (CDT


 * That post was not really in response to you. I just changed it as an afterthought to the policy as a whole. I am all for the neutral category, but in the archived discussion there was some resistance. -- Ifer (t/c) 02:53, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * What makes a good build? How does one go about testing builds? Perhapse we could have some basic pointers to help people who would like to help test builds maybe a general checklist.
 * I personally feel a major drawback of the current system is there is no way of showing the really excellent builds, the good builds and the "does the job but nothing special" builds - hence my suggestion for giving marks out of 10 in the previous discussion.--JP 08:08, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I never read that marks suggestion :o Anyway, I have incluided some criteria on which to base votes. I guess the truely excellent builds can be added to the list of featured builds or something like that.. -- Ifer (t/c) 08:59, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Yea it was there. See 6.3.1.1 on the archive... it was waving it's arms to try to get everyones attention but was hidden by all the edits, heading and text ;o). --JP 14:13, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I like that idea too JP, but I don't see any realistic implementation. The Wiki software can't average marks/calculate ranks. (not to mention how unwiki that would be.) --Vazze 15:13, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah yes! The devil is always in the detail. :o( I don't see how it would be more "unwiki" than an arbitary good build / bad build. Still, that's a moot point given how hard it would be to maintain. ;o) I do have a decidely unwiki idea I may implement in my name space.... but I've been meaning to do alot with my namespace for a while! --JP 16:43, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Current build procedure
In the absence of a working policy, I wrote down how stuff is usually done with regard to builds at the moment: User:Xeeron/Current build procedure. --Xeeron 08:13, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Better way of voting on builds?
I find that if I look into the builds section for 'untested' or 'stubs' there's a TON in there and I feel overwhelmed. I have no idea how old some builds are or where to start really. I guess it would be nice to visit a new/old builds page of some sort. Let me exlain further though. I would love it if I could see a list of any new builds added to the 'untested' or 'stubs' sections (new meaning within last 5-7 days maybe) and have a list of those scheduled for deletion, as well as a list that is in between those, etc. That way, when I log in to wiki I can see what the new build status changes are and review it (maybe just a link from the 'builds' page?). As it is now I can only find new builds by scanning line by line through the recent changes pages to my knowledge and that takes waaay too long. If a build changes status (from 'stub' to 'untested' or from 'untested' to 'vetted' or from 'untested' to 'deleting soon', etc.) it would be good to see as well as have the list described what is needed (votes, changes, etc). As I see it though, this is a large undertaking and I doubt it is doable to make it automated wherein it then would require someone to do this manually every day and that isn't reasonable. Any suggestions or did I miss something that already exists?  Vallen Frostweaver  10:21, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * At least the list of those scheduled for deletion exists: . No list of new builds in untested though. --Xeeron 10:58, 6 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I've suggested a solution for this. A new category should be created ("Build Ideas"?).  This would be used for builds whose votes do not reach consensus one way or another (favored or unfavored) within a certain time period (such as 1 month).  This would ensure that the untested section features newer builds that should be undergoing current testing, but also creates a place for people who want to surf around for ideas or continue to debate builds.  I wish people would provide feedback on this idea (negative or positive) because so far I have gotten little response. -- BrianG 12:55, 7 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh, I've kinded dropped from the conversation on builds policies cause of all the indecision, but I'll note here unrefined builds already has this incorporated into it. I even called it "continued debate" for the place you call for people to "continue to debate" lol. (Not a fifty five 00:22, 8 October 2006 (CDT))


 * In this suggested policy, everything that is not edited for two weeks is concidered abandoned, and will thus leave the category. We will probably lose a lot of old rubbish that way. Not reaching a consensus is not a problem either in this policy- I have not decided on a name yet, but builds that have been voted upon enough are leave the untested category, even if people are undecided. In the end, newly created builds will be in Stubs, if they are ready for judgement they will be in Untested, and they will leave that status either as abandoned or as voted upon, both in a reasonable amount of time.. What I'm saying is that the untested category should be the new builds list you want. -- Ifer (t/c) 11:28, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes it seems at least the three of us are in agreement with this concept (and you are who I had in mind when discussing people who want this), but who is opposed to this idea and why? I don't understand why there is opposition to this as it seems like it would satisfy everyone.  Why not create a vote on this concept and this concept only (without it being mixed in with an entire build policy)?  Perhaps it will clarify things and maybe we can get this category created!  Even if it is added to the current build policy it could only help. -- BrianG 14:03, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Eh well people mainly aren't responding cause they just don't care anymore lol. The main debate of nomination vs unrefined vs two category which showed three proposals that went into the utmost detail of how to deal with all of the builds "problems" ended in a three way tie and nothing happened.  I'm only skimming what people are writing now, which are good ideas, but lack the depth the three big proposals had.  Perhaps if we called a revote?  It was silly that the "two category" system was not included in the proposals to be voted on and that probably caused the indecision.  Xeeron was right that 3 proposals would not allow for a concensus, but I think by now people would settle for a simple majority so long as SOMETHING happens.  Hell I'm just going to up and put a revote in.  Letting the three proposals all die when 80% of people said at elast one of them should be implemented is simply stupid lol(Not a fifty five 14:24, 8 October 2006 (CDT))


 * I think the problem is that you guys are trying to build consensus on a "full build process", but everyone is disagreeing because they dislike one aspect of a proposal, or they don't understand it. Consensus should be built on one idea at a time, and the policy should morph accordingly.  For example, me, you, and Ifer all seem to agree that an extra category needs to be added, but I'm not sure if I entirely agree with (or maybe I don't understand) your "Unrefined Double Screened" procedure.  I tried to read about it in the archived discussion but it talked about a "Nominated" category instead of a "continued debate", and there were other aspects I was uncertain about.  So I probably would not vote on it, and that basically just wastes the consensus that you and I might build on.  You are never going to get everyone to agree on an entire policy at once, especially with many different suggested policies, so I think a re-vote like you've added below is just going to end up the same as before.  Instead, start building consensus on one idea at a time and let the policy grow itself.  I think instead of the vote below, you should simplify it to a vote on "Adding a Category" (Yes/No).  Leave the category name "To Be Decided", and the purpose of the category would be for builds to be moved from out of untested if consensus is not reached by a certain time frame.  Its simple, clear, and does not require anyone to trudge through the archived discussion to determine what you're talking about.  See if you can get consensus on that, and then go from there.  I would add this vote myself, but I don't want to erase your vote and I don't want to start an additional one.  What do you think? -- BrianG 17:43, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Seems logical. If everyone had a hand in building a policy from the ground up instead of voting on someone elses idea there might be a much better chance for a consensus.  But maybe this shouldn't be started right away, especially with Nightfall set to be released in less than 3 weeks.  What if we let the dust settle and then picked this up again in say a month or so?  As it stands it seems like most people could use a break fom this and a chance to clear their heads anyway.  But people would need to at least try to operate under the current system until a new policy could be built.  As it stands the Untested section just keeps growing and people aren't testing builds.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  21:06, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree it seems like everyone is getting sick of talking about it. But personally I think making an easy change like this would at least help deal with the influx of new builds that will be submitted with nightfall's release.  Having some kind of timed move to another place to keep the pressure off the untested section would be really useful and allow people to try it out and see what further changes are needed. But perhaps people have lost interest anyway and there will not be enough response, so it might have to wait. Expecially since we all might be distracted in 3 weeks. :) -- BrianG 22:03, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Revote! Settling this matter once and for all :)
Only two of the proposals up for vote were included in the last voting on proposals, I'm including every single one this time. A simple majority (whoever gets the most votes) will decide this time which category gets implemented. Please look in the archives to find the details of each proposal. Only a single one will be implemented so keep in mind which one solves the most problems fully. We can discuss merging proposals that weren't the best but had good ideas later.


 * Admin note: this vote will do nothing of the sort. It is both non-binding, as all GuildWiki votes are, and frivolous, since all policies were very recently abandoned without anything approaching consensus. &mdash;Tanaric 07:41, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

Updated build voting (read more)


 * 1) (your vote)

Marks out of 10 (read more)


 * 1) (your vote)

Featured builds (read more)


 * 1) (your vote)

Unrefined double screening (read more)


 * 1) (Not a fifty five 14:35, 8 October 2006 (CDT))
 * 2) ~ Nilles (chat)  17:25, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) &mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 20:49, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) (your vote)

"removals" from guildwiki (read more)


 * 1) ~ Nilles (chat)  17:25, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) (your vote)

Two category system (read more)


 * 1) ~ Nilles (chat)  17:25, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) Greven 15:04, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Discussion
lol! 55, you just posted that most people (including me I might add) are tired of this problem and thats why they aren't posting. But then you put up a new vote and tell them all that if they even want to know what it is that they would be voting on they have to go back and read the archived section. The section itself is huge, and most of it is about these proposals, so your telling them to do a lot of reading if they dont remember what each one said. So, if lazyness is the new problem, how many people do you think will go back and read the archive just to cast a vote on a subject that they're already sick of? :P Could you or someone go back and take the details of these proposals and post them here in the hope that we can get more votes (I would but I'm suffering from an extreme case of debilitating lazyness :P). Thanks a lot.&mdash; Azroth    16:11, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Can we please not vote ourself to dead here? I think the past month (even more than a month) has shown that there currently is no consensus. Doing vote after vote will only result in further making people stop reading this page. Give the issue some rest and we can bring it up in a bit of time, when people are in a fresh mind about it again. --Xeeron 16:35, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't even know what my current policy suggestion is, and I have kept reading most of the discussion.... -- Ifer (t/c) 16:43, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree that going back to the archived section to try to sort out this different complicated proposals is not worthwhile. Please read my comments in the next section up, proposing a simple, easy vote to get things moving in the right direction, and provide feedback. -- BrianG 20:08, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Eh alright. Just fuck it the whole builds section. I'll just start my own site. I'm calling a very simple vote to correct a stupid mistake and you're just shoving it down. Fine! fuck you!(Not a fifty five 20:16, 8 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Please, Please read this> Request assistance. While you debate policy here the section is dieing.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  20:17, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

No seriously fuck it. Everyone spends weeks thinking up good proposals that most believe all of them are good, and you dildos can't take 2 extra seconds to vote? do you just like talking or something? Screw this shit(Not a fifty five 20:20, 8 October 2006 (CDT))


 * ????? Where did this come from? Your new vote has been up for what 6 hours?!  Why are you so mad?  All the information on each one is here, with liks to the original posts back on the archive thanks to Nilles and people are still talking on this page so people still care.  So why suddenly just say "fuck it"?  This doesn't seem like you at all.  Please bring back the nice 55 :)&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  20:27, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry 55, I want to vote but I honestly think it is too complicated. I tried to read about unrefined in the archived discussion but there are even two versions of it and I'm not sure which I'm voting on, or if I understand them right/agree with them fully.  Plus there are some ideas from the other proposals that are good too.  At least consider my suggestion for a simpler vote, I really hoped you might agree. -- BrianG 00:35, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Lol read the discussion so far azroth. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by not a fifty five (contribs) 03:28, 9 October 2006 CET.
 * I have been, just not commenting up till now.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 21:08, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * This is not about the time to cast your vote, it's about evaluation. It's about quality. Brian had a good idea up there and would help us starting over from a single fixed point again. It took me two hours to completely figure out what has been discussed here and I'm still not sure if I got everything right. I'd say, we pick either of the two, voting on a new category, archiving this whole discussion and start over or simply give it some time to rest so we're in good shape to start over. In either case, we should consider our discussion failed and archive what's on this page and the builds talk page. ~ Nilles (chat) 20:49, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * So...what, leave things as they are for now, work with the builds under the current policy for now, and then come back to this in say a month and try again? Brian's idea seems a lot like what Xeeron said as well.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  20:58, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Major change of directions
I had wanted to wait a bit to give everyone a time out from all the discussion, but given the current situation, I feel it is more urgent to do it right now:

The article currently shows another build policy proposal. You can see that I removed all details of the actual procedure used for vetting. I have done so for 3 major reasons:


 * 1) All ideas were lacking consensus and it does not look like there will be a consensus in the near future. So the builds section continues to have neither a policy, nor an agreement of which procedure to use, leaving a big grey area prone to produce misunderstandings and conflicts.
 * 2) I have become convinced that the procedure should not be part of the policy. Policies should be mainly about how users deal with other users in their affairs in the wiki and not about detailed procedural specifics of certain aspects of the wiki.
 * 3) Even if there was a consensus on one procedure, I would hesitate to make it policy now. The discussion here has shown me how big the forces for the status quo are in policy discussions, so I fear that if any procedure ever was written into a policy article, it might never be changed again, even if it becomes outdated.

Therefore, the current policy article only describes the way users should deal with builds in general terms. The actual procedure currently used is relegated to another article Build vetting procedure, linked at the bottom. This article is not to be policy. It should be a normal, build related article, thus being much easier to change and adapt to new circumstances.

I hope I can convince everyone that this split will help us finally get done with this decision and adopt a procedure and policy for builds. --Xeeron 06:43, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It's probably a step in the right direction, but how do we continue with the vetting process? Do you want to declare it a no-no topic for a week or two? ~ Nilles (chat) 08:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

My Policy suggestion
I had a good suggestion, and nobody was against it as a whole. I put the two minor issues open for debate, and the three to one has been discarded. Now, who was against the policy? I didn't hear anyone.

Then Not a Fifty Five came round and decided to put all former suggestions up for a vote again - voting is not the way to decide things, reaching discussion from consensus is. The first responses were opposed to all this policy necromancy, and 55 got mad. Now the undisputed policy suggestion I had on the page we're talking about has been removed.. WHY?

Policy is important, and because Xeeron the Disillusioned, some monk boss, came round to smite it all and bring up his own ideas, we are supposed to live without it. Seriously, we need a policy if we want new members to be able to catch on, and we want a policy to fall back on if problems arise. If my policy suggestion is bad, say so on the talk page; when I give up someone else can come to try again. Just deleting it all because the discussion has gone on too long for some people who feel disillusioned about this is not right.

I am not saying the build vetting procedure page is bad - in fact, some things are right. However, it looks like a regular policy to me. If you want to discuss policy, write it up and do it here, after coming up with a reason to dismiss the previous work. -- Ifer (t/c) 09:49, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * As I read the thread, there was enough contra to anything concerning the 3:1 concept so could you please step down from your dead horse and listen what other people have to say about the wiki? All voting and everything that you call "work" is not going to get us anywhere without sacrificing parts of the community to a makeshift decision. ~ Nilles (chat) 10:16, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Eehm.. the three to one part has been removed from the policy a couple of days ago.
 * This is the version I'm referring to. -- Ifer (t/c) 10:32, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I see. That's not so different from what we already have. I don't think there is anything on that page that can't rest for a couple of days, without being discussed. ~ Nilles (chat) 11:15, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Errr, yes, of course you would never do such a thing as removing some else's policy proposal . But that is not the point. Your policy is not deleted, it is still in the history, like all the other policy proposals which failed to get a consensus. Please read what I posted before ranting. I only split the article into a policy part and a non-policy part. It is not like your proposal was crushed by a wave of approval and I deleted it a second before it was made policy. --Xeeron 13:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, the difference is that you had said you had given up. Both on your talk page, and on the policy portal page. My policy was not discussed at all. That's what bothers me. There was no consensus because nobody discussed it. -- Ifer (t/c) 15:57, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * As I said, that is not the point. This page is read by quite a lot of people, if you got no positive comments, you can be sure that people didnt like it. Most likely, they just didnt bother to comment on builds policy for the 2000th time (like me). --Xeeron 17:26, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

I still believe the whole thing should be a policy, and that has not been discussed. I do know most of it is still there in a new form, but still I feel insulted that all this is done without first discussing the policy. -- Ifer (t/c) 16:01, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Well its kinda cause nobody cared anymore after the big vote failed. Perhaps you have good ideas, but you know whats common about all the new people discussing builds policies now? I looked up all their contributions and they've voted/commented on no more than 2 builds. Whereas xeeron, skuld, and I have commented on more than 50, maybe 100. (Not a fifty five 17:11, 9 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Hey, I resent that.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 00:18, 10 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, the fact you have voted on more builds is entirely out of discussion. Please see GW:YOU which clearly states that your amount of contributions or time on the wiki doesn't make your votes or contributions matter more than one who just had his first visit. &mdash; Galil  07:24, 11 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh, taken with a grain of salt, you wouldn't discuss abstract algebra with 5 year olds. I'm simply saying everyone who actually experienced people voting without testing or even thinking first hand just doesn't care anymore because months of discussion went down the drain. (Not a fifty five 14:47, 11 October 2006 (CDT))

Adding in topics that had no opposition
Almost everything we've talked about was up for debate, but so far two things I can find had absolutely no objection whatsoever: the featured build for the untested category, which would bring up builds that someone thinks should be reconsidered, and Karlos' builds graveyard as opposed to deletion of abondoned, and both have positive effects. The first allows builds that were questionably put in untested to be put to light and the second filters out a lot of the untested builds and unfavored builds that are just clogging the place up. So I'm just putting them in. You can just revert it if you strongly disagree. Oh and this is Not a fifty five, for some reason my account just won't allow edits lol (71.134.246.153 16:25, 13 October 2006 (CDT))
 * Yeah, its looks like the site has been glitching. I had major issues earlier, but logging in, logging out, then logging back in again fixed all my problems.  See if it works for you.  As for this topic, both ideas are interesting, but it looks like most people have abandoned this section, lol.  Well, lets see if you can get this debate going again.  I wish you the best of luck, but I wouldn't be surprised if people have just given up on this issue for now.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  16:32, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmmm.. hehe if its been abandoned, must mean its free game eh? :) Oh and admins out there, can I make a "sockpuppet" I think they're called since my account seems to be busted?  I'll try the login/logout thing the red message suggests but it didnt work for me last time.
 * Scratch that lol, it worked (Not a fifty five 16:38, 13 October 2006 (CDT))
 * I missed the build graveyard suggestion - but would be against it. Why keep abandoned builds that no one cared to either complete or vote on?  Delete them and be done with the pile of useless articles.  If they stay in abandoned too long, then they seem quite good candidates for deletion to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:52, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * A) for historical builds and B)certain crappy build ideas keep coming up that are the same as other ideas. If we keep these then we can say "hey this is similar to an already unfavored build, lets delete it".  It also lets non admins move it, cause admins sometimes take a long time to delete articles, and it also allows the author time to plead his case or try and resubmit it.  Sometimes abandoned builds are abondoned because there's 400000 untersted builds and nobody even notices it. (Not a fifty five 18:58, 13 October 2006 (CDT))
 * heh - admins take a while to delete build articles because there are very few admins that will acknowledge that they exist in the first place, let alone delete them. I know a few times admins were jumped on by the community for prematurely deleting build articles - even though the articles were marked for deletion and had been for several days.  Made some admins a bit gun-shy about pulling the trigger on builds.
 * But, back to topic ... I see your point about long waits for votes; but builds where even the author has abanodned them, leaving them in stub-like status for a month or more should be flat out eliminated. If the author didn't care about them, why should the wiki?  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:07, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Well I've never seen an author bump his build if you know what I mean. They all wait for a comment.  Probably rightly so, the recent changes would be full of bumps otherwise. (Not a fifty five 19:15, 13 October 2006 (CDT))
 * I didnt see the proposal as well (Karlos graveyard idea was something very different, if I remember correctly) and furthermore, I dont see the point in having a graveyard when we already have and  AND . About abandoned builds getting deleted, as I have said before: Getting rid of the abandoned tag is very simple. Make a comment on the talk page and remove it. If anyone cares about the build, it will not get deleted. --Xeeron 04:31, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

"How about this idea... (And please forgive me if it has been introduced earlier in some other format.) How about we add a new category: Category:Builds graveyard or Category:Build fossils. Any build that is unable to escape the "untested" status in more than a month gets moved there. This category is still listed in the "Builds" portal page but with the clear notion that these are builds no one cared to test, try at your own risk. If the build gathers enough votes in time, it is salvaged from the graveyard, if it does not, it languishes there. I would also recommend that the Builds admin (Xeeron in my mind, but he can delegate the delete flagging to others) be given the authority to delete builds in the graveyard he deems to be abolute crap and that he scans new additions to the graveyard once a week or so to make sure the wiki is not gathering junk. It just seems obvious to me that there are builds that will languish in the untested category forever. i.e. Builds that seem to work, but no one cares about them. Think about it build people. "

^^ quote from Karlos (Not a fifty five 14:18, 14 October 2006 (CDT))

The issue of the unfavoured section
Hi. I have been spending most of my wiki time in the Builds section recently, not submitting new ones but shifting categories, fixing spelling and trying to clean it up. I know a lot of people on the wiki would disagree, but fundamentally I believe that the potential utility generated for the wiki by the Builds section is greater than the potential negative impact. I am fully aware that part of the decision over what makes a good build is subjective, and I am opposed to wikivoting for builds.

Now that I've got that out of the way, may I make so bold as to ask: why do we keep an unfavoured builds section? As I see it the reasons for follow:
 * Diamond in the rough - let people look through the section to find inspiration for better builds;
 * Prevention of resubmit - people will be discouraged from submitting a crap build if one of its ilk is already rotting in the uf section.

To me both these reasons are bunk. I submit that in the case of the former, inspiration for better builds is better found in the tested section or by editing and contributing to builds in the untested section. Very many builds enter the unfavoured section due to fundamentally weak energy management, ludicrous concepts and random skill slotting, and it is highly unlikely that a fundamentally weak-in-energy, conceptually poor and random-skills-from-an-attribute build can be improved to function at an equal level or past anything we have in the tested section. In the case of the latter, I submit that a significant majority of our build submitters, and especially the rabid ones who submit build after build after build, do not browse through the unfavoured section before submitting a build. This is not helped by the wild proliferation of build names which are not descriptive and tend to go for the "catchy" factor over playworthy pragmatism.

By adding this to the debate, I am not intending to start a vote or fuel the fire. I would just like to seek opinions and a decent discussion. Thank you. Kessel 08:13, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I do agree that builds which dont work at all due to impossible energy management, insane skill selection, or any other reason that could cause them not to function should be deleted. As I see it there is no reason to keep a build around that cannot work.  However, I feel the unfavored section is necesary for builds that do work, but just not as well as the favored builds.  There are decent builds in unfavored.  Its just that there are far more builds which dont work.  If we could get rid of the broken builds while still keeping the ok ones then the unfavored section might have a bit more use to it.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  13:06, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd have to disagree with your second point. You're right that a lot of submitters don't bother to look through the unfavored section, but when something similar to an unfavored build is posted, it gives a very clear cut reason to delete that build with minimal discussion. Basically it's a repository for bad ideas that people can reference to avoid having to talk about the same things over and over. Just by saying "A very similar build has already been posted, discussed, and voted unfavored.", you have avoided a great deal of nonsense and repeated discussion. BigAstro 13:45, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I feel similar to Azroth. I definitely think that if a consensus is reached that a build is useless, it should be unfavored and/or deleted.  But at the same time, unfavored is the current destination for builds that are closely voted and may hold some "diamond in the rough" value.  I see what you're saying about the Favored section being the best place to look for inspiration, and I do check there first, but sometimes you can't find something specific there.  While for some people, they want to play the best possible build in PvP and anything even 1% less optimal is worthless, for other people they may want to attempt to create a specific type of character or a more creative build.  For example I wanted to find an interesting build for a W/E, using some Water magic.  But out of the 4 W/Es in the tested section, 3 use only Shock, and the 4th is a farming build.  I ended up finding some ideas from W/E Cyclonic Burster, which I think is a fairly decent build, although I think Water is more useful (snaring/slowing, armor) than Fire (check my talk page to see my version if you like).  Warrior's Endurance really does work well with Cyclone Axe for energy management and allows you to pull off a few Elementalist skills without a problem.  W/E Cyclonic Burster is now scheduled for deletion, when I think something like this is more useful as inspiration (Xeeron even commented that it was the first use of Warrior's Endurance he had seen on the wiki).
 * My suggestions is to simply add a timer to the untested section, and if a build does not reach consensus by the time limit (either to be favored or deleted) it should go to a "Build Ideas" section (if you are going to simply delete things that are useless, then you could just rename Unfavored to Build Ideas). This way the untested section will stay clean, the users who take builds seriously still get their "favored" section being only the best of the best, and the people who enjoy trolling around for ideas and using more creative or interesting builds get a section too.  And since it is in a different category, the people who find no use for this category can easily avoid it.  No harm done!  I hope that you get what I'm saying and understand that the builds category can satisfy the needs of more than one type of user. -- BrianG 18:52, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh right briang why I haven't commented on build ideas. Its the same as the unrefined part of that.  The reason you're confused about it, I think, is that the unrefined we're talking about is NOT version 2.  Nobody even talked about version 2 which has nomination and crap, I'm not sure who put it in or why.  (Not a fifty five 19:42, 14 October 2006 (CDT))


 * 55, I went back and re-read the "unrefined" description now that you clarified the right one. It seems different than what I've suggested.  It includes 2 votes, the first being a quick screening and the second being a tested vote.  I don't think 2 votes are necessary.  I like Karlos' idea that you pasted above, that seems almost exactly like what I proposed.  Although, since this new category will not only contain builds that did not get voted on, but also builds that had a fairly even vote without consensus in either direction, I think something like "Build Ideas" would be more accurate than "Build Graveyard".  Honestly, why don't we just write a new, simple, policy suggestion based around this idea, and try to get everyone behind this simple change?  You keep pushing unrefined saying its the same as this idea but I think thats just throwing people off.

Here is my simple proposal:

1. Build Submitted to Stubs - Moved to Untested once checked for proper formatting and nominated

2. Build stays in Untested until consensus is reached to favor it or delete it, or until the time limit is reached.

3. If consensus is not reached by time limit, build is moved to "Build Ideas" (if the build is changed or improved it can be moved back to untested for a second vote where appropriate).

(Note: As long as people are okay with deleting builds where consensus is reached that it is not useful, you do not need the unfavored section anymore.  Then no extra section is required for this policy, just a renaming.) -- BrianG 14:52, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Taking charge ahar!!!!!!!!!
Alright its liek 2 weeks till nightfall. If you've looked at a few namespaces we're going to have a huge advent of builds coming in :) like 100 in a single day. So we need a good policy, and I am simply ging to put in unrefined screening.  Feel free to revert my edits if you care enough, but from what I'm hearing most people have given up on the debates. (Not a fifty five 19:50, 14 October 2006 (CDT))
 * Please dont, the vote clearly showed that there is no consensus for that proposal at the moment. --Xeeron 05:59, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I issued a cease order on his talk page. Now, we've just got to get him to revert his six hours of tagging. :) &mdash;Tanaric 06:06, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Lol, I panicked when I read the first paragraph here. Short-term block was probably the best option, good catch!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:28, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Just a minor side note: I fully agree that it was good to react fast, however I would be more happy if you had tried a message on his user talk page first. Even when doing such crusades, people tend to note the yellow box saying "you have a new message". 10 minutes is no big harm done, but at least try to simply convince him to stop with a short note on the talk page before blocking. --Xeeron 07:49, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I see your point. On the other hand, he would have continued making a mess of things while I was typing on his talk page had I not blocked him, which means that poor Skuld would have had more reversions to do. &mdash;Tanaric 07:55, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * As I said, it is not a big deal. I just dont want a precedent of admins blocking users to get their attention instead of messaging them. --Xeeron 08:05, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * It's something I'll only do in situations that are uncomfortably close to the User:Ollj fiasco. &mdash;Tanaric 08:17, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Plus, he knows better. He is closely involved with the process. No reason to go Leroy on the build pages like that. --Karlos 08:34, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Yeah I don't rly care about the block, it was just an attention getter. I do think the vote on the policy is considered abandoned in my eyes tho, so it'd be free game. It was left open that concensus believed A policy should be inserted, and over 50% voted on each policy (possible because of the "I dont care which one" vote category allowing 2 effective votes). Nobody decided which one. So I am simply adding my policy in till the next vote. There's no reason either two category or unrefined should not be added in currently. (Not a fifty five 13:41, 15 October 2006 (CDT))


 * The lack of a consensus does not mean anyone is welcome to implement what they will. In fact, in means the exact opposite&mdash;significantly more discussion and consideration must take place before any policy is implemented. Neither of your categories are supported by policy, de facto or otherwise, so they must be removed. &mdash;Tanaric 23:09, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh, read the policy for which has been discussed about 1% the amount unrefeind and 2 category has been and no vote and LOTS of resistance.  If thats allowed to continue, I will continue my policy, and kindly ask no reverts ask place this time.  You'll find like 3 admins supporting the abandoned category, despite the major resistence and no vote at all (23:24, 15 October 2006 (CDT))


 * You'll have to get used to the fact that wikis are not a democracy. And if admins can agree on it, why bother? They know what they want to make out of this and they are more than you or me and have been around longer than both of us. I'd trust their judgement. ~ Nilles (chat) 01:04, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Pfffft skulds 15. I've "been around" longer than him :P No offense, but the admins are just a bunch of teens and 20 year olds like me, and I don't trust their judgment.  Having administers like that is a joke lol, except someone has to hold power on a site with over 10,000 editors, so I don't mind it.  I just don't hold their opinion above mine is all.  They're quite free to stop me on this one.  But if they don't stop category:abandoned as well, I'm pointing out that they'd be acting incredibly stupid.(Not a fifty five 01:20, 16 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Actually at least two of us (Karlos and myself) are thirty somethings. (Not weighing in on the builds fiasco, if I had my way we'd nuke them all, just setting records straight.)  --Rainith 01:24, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * ... at least three of us then ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:28, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * My apologies Barek. So all the Greater Seattle Area Admins are thirty-somethings.  --Rainith 17:38, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Eh, 30s are still kids :P you have to be 40s to be president and look at what we get there? haha (Not a fifty five 01:27, 16 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Besides it is a democracy, who elected the admins, the lady of the lake? Power is given from a mandate of the masses not some farsical aquatic ceremony!  I mean, if I claimed to hold  supreme executive power  just cause some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd lock me away!(Not a fifty five 01:46, 16 October 2006 (CDT))


 * This is not a democracy. This is not an anarchy, either. It is enlighted despotism. Every admin has wielded this power appropriately. &mdash;Tanaric 01:54, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * And xeeron the vote clearly shows there  IS  Consensus That people would not mind this proposal. There is also consensus that people would not mind two category.  There is also consensus that the current policy is NOT better than either of the proposals.  Hell we're all finger pointing, lets point the figure at all of you who disagree, for allowing the current policy, which has no consensus, to remain (Not a fifty five 13:56, 16 October 2006 (CDT))


 * *begins randomly pointing at different people* Crap, now who am I supposed to be blaming now? *falls down dizzy and confused*  Oh and what does "Ahar!" Mean?  So confused.  @_@&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  14:06, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * -.- its an inside joke. for now just consider it "ARR!!!" I'll tell you the short story on my talk page if you're rly interested (Not a fifty five 14:11, 16 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Help! Help! I'm being repressed!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:21, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Bloody Peasant! (Not a fifty five 14:23, 16 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Ok, now thats Monty Python and the Holy Grail.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 14:26, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * No it isn't --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:41, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Orly? (Not a fifty five 15:27, 16 October 2006 (CDT))
 * LOL - was expecting your link would be in someone's reply, but with the "What's that then" from my link - had hoped to keep Azroth spinning a bit more ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * While we're on the subject, I've often wondered if Bishop's name has anything to do with the Bishop. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:35, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * lol, if you had hope to confuse me for even one second you missed your chance. I was watching the movie last night so I know where that line is from.  Sorry :P&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] <font color=#408090>Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  17:30, 16 October 2006 (CDT)