GuildWiki talk:Post no builds

Discussion
Someone had to post it, and I got tired of waiting. Let the flame wars discussion start. --Rainith 21:29, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Do we even need this anymore? I mean, it might have made some sense when the Untested section was at like... 400+, but now it doesn't really matter. We have more testers now anyways. Plus, I doubt there will be much of an influx of builds until we get to the next campaign, but with as many testers we have now, I doubt it's going to have as significant of an impact that NF was. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:45, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Should I go through the Tested section and pick out all the ones that suck? That's always a fun task, but it takes awhile.
 * On a side note, this is what I suggested ages ago, and for mostly the same reasons. Since then, however, options like Build Split -> NOB surfaced, and they seem like more of a solution than a "ditch this project entirely, or at least move it off the Wiki." -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:48, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * This, this and this imply to me that it is. Add to that the 'drama' of things like Skuld's recent purges and the issues that they bring up about administrative abuse and I think that this is needed.  --Rainith 21:53, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah, after all that wiki-drama, NOB looks pretty good right now anyways. Just wondering what will happen when neww campaigns surface... every build would be "original" in a sense. Meh. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:51, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I'm weakly in favor of this. The current policy is broken for several reasons. The build split proposal achieves nothing; the proposal itself simply creates two namespaces and the discussion didn't lead to any supported steps beyond that. The no original builds proposal is in the right direction, removing subjectiveness a wiki is poor at and replacing it with factual reporting, but only for PvP builds. Despite people saying "PvE builds are easier, they do what they say or not," it's exactly the same. --Fyren 00:33, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Build split is specifically designed to achieve nothing in terms of policy at this point. It's meant to be a simple foundation to the development of policies for PvP and PvE builds, whatever those policies will be. For example, after split NOB could easily be applied to PvP and not PvE, or vice versa - the flexibility will be there. Look around - anything which includes even a shred of policy is discussed to death before a stalemate is reached and nothing achieved. I made Split as simple as possible so it could be done, and once done be of use to people developing policies after it. Better to take it one step at a time and start walking than go for a sprint and fall flat on your face. --NieA7 08:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I'm partially in favor of this...things like the W/E Starburst Warrior just give me headaches now. However, I'm seeing another potential disadvantage: for folks who actually and truly want some scrutiny of their builds, they would have no way to advertise. If something's stuck in your namespace, it gets a whole lot less traffic than something in Builds...and the chance of a random user finding and commenting on it are much more slim. If you've got a theoretical build idea and want feedback on it, how do you go about doing that, other than posting to all potential testers' talk pages. That's my main concern with this policy...Entropy 00:40, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * We could make a category like "build feedback requested" (or multiple, more specific ones). --Fyren 00:42, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Edit conflit - I'd suggest that people who want feedback on their builds go to forums dedicated to builds, places like The Campfire and The Gladiator's Arena on GWG. I'm sure that GWonline has something similar in their forums, and there are other places too.  They're better set up to handle this sort of thing.  It is obvious that the Wiki system is not.  --Rainith 00:46, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * But I've heard that all the flaming and general elitism is even worse on places like that. Moreover, I'm not willing to make an account at Guru or such just to get one or two builds feedback. I'd rather just get some imput from fellow Wikians. I like the idea of a "feedback requested" section. It changes the feeling of it...you're not Favoring or Unfavoring a build, only commenting on how it could be better. That way you can't "compare" it to "superior" builds, since there's no Favored section to be embarrassed about and such. Entropy 00:51, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I wouldn't be opposed to Fyren's suggestion, but I think you would get the same sort of comments you get now: Yore a  using ?!?!? U phail!  But as long as it is on a talk page in your userspace, you can edit out those comments all you want.  --Rainith 00:56, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah, the Starburst Warrior is enough to convince me that the builds section doesn't work. Not just because of the policies but because of the people. If the majority of the major contributors just want to amuse themselves and feel superior, there's no point in keeping this around anymore. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * It is sad that the actions of just a small number of people have brought us to this point where we may abandon rather than fix the builds section... 3 or 4 people, really, and I'm sure the main names jump readily to mind. But hey, they're superior players, right? They know what's best for us all. Obviously, I don't support this proposed policy. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 01:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * Are you saying that a superior player is defined as being pretentious, elitist, snobbish, impudent, insensitive, and/or reckless? I beg to differ; and I must argue that none of the already-proposed fixes (so far) would actually fix the builds section. Entropy 01:30, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * HL was using the term sarcasticly. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * >< It's so hard to tell nowadays anymore. Sorry. :S Entropy 01:34, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * Heh, yeah, I should have put it in sarcasm-quotes. "Superior". Adding to my opinion above, I think there's too much value in the builds section for GW players to remove it, even if not everything is good. Looking at, and reading the talk about, bad builds has made me a better player just as much as as the good ones. Not saying we WANT bad builds, but we should want the discussion about professions and skills that can only occur in a builds section, even if it does push the bounds of usual wiki content and editing policies. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 01:38, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * You bring up a very good point and I agree wholeheartedly. Even when a bad build gets shot down it's a learning experience for the rest of us. I've certainly learned a lot about skill usefulness and synergy from watching opinions fly on builds. Like Cripple - never knew it was so great until I saw all PvP builds had one. Things like that you learn from players, not from reading Hamstring or such. That's a definite good part about the Builds section. I wish we could have the best of both worlds, though, and get rid of all the...junk...and flame wars. Those aren't learning experiences. Entropy 01:51, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Definitely not in favour of this. I don't have time to go through a million and one Guild Wars sites, signing up for accounts, getting into discussions and looking for builds, and I imagine that applies to a lot of people. I don't see why guild wiki shouldn't aim to be a complete reference for the game, and such a reference undoubtedly requires builds. How we go about doing builds does need to change, as with only a couple of exceptions it seems like everyone is dissatisfied with the current situation. However, that dissatisfaction doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up in the air and tell people to bog off to some other site. When the page hit counters were still in place it was pretty clear that the build pages were some of the most popular on the whole site - that's a good thing. It's a bad thing that some PvP players regard our builds as useless, but that means they need to be improved, not removed. --NieA7 08:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * It's like a part of life. Certain children are being bad playing with a toy, they are going to ruin it for everyone else and that toy is going to be taken away. That's what is happening here. The "children" are undeniably rude on most occasions, break builds policy and in some instances broke main policy, and offer little to none positive feedback, if there is feedback and not just a /signed or a straight out deletion. I have never thought this decision revolved around some people posting their opinions on another site. Guild Wiki is better than that and it's more experienced contributors should be as well, though it's hard to see an air of maturity, helpfulness, and sometimes calmness, in most of the comments posted on builds.


 * I don't deny Entropy's claim that watching bad builds is a learning experience, but does that little bit of knowledge you gain from that build worth that author being mocked for his/her idea or variation of an idea? With your sentence regarding not knowing snaring (crippling) was so good in PvP, you don't need hundreds of builds to tell you that kind of information. Players kite (strafe) and the AI tries to as well, though players have been doing so since the game was introduced. What do you do when you can't catch something? In this case by slowing it down with the use of techinques, such as cripple and knockdown. Any widely used information such as that usually ends up on the skill page itself under notes or its own quick reference, see Crippling Shot, Crippling Slash, Frozen Burst, or Movement speed quick reference.


 * Basically the builds section has been attempted, abused, and now it on the verge of being removed. &mdash; Gares 12:54, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I don't think it's anywhere near the verge of being removed as far as a general consensus goes - there's just a cadre of high profile/very vocal users and admins who keep on pushing and pushing for it, and who are showing very little signs of quitting. Question is whether this cadre will outtalk everyone else. --NieA7 14:55, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Um... Agree?
Well, I support this also --FireFox  21:31, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * /agree. The minimal benefits are vastly outweighed by the drama of the glory-seekers, and the flaws in the Vetting system. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:41, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * I also support this. Auron put it very well. There are far too many flaws with having the build section here to deserve it staying. It belongs somewhere else. I will agree that having a place where you can easily create a builds page using template and get other people to see it is a good thing, it just does not belong on a wiki. Someone should host it separately using some similar technology. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 09:01, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Disagree
Again, the strength of a wiki is the input from the public. An organic think-tank and creation site of builds is not a bad thing. Will a 'bad' build get vetted? Sure, I guess it can happen. Taking into account that the build is universally, outright, bad as opposed to ones one purely personal taste. But that's a small downside for a large possibility for creativity and documentation from the community. No one is going to be able to produce a purely perfect system. If anything, you need to find a balance that allows input from the community while allowing vetting to take place. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Not favored. Isis In De Nile 00:17, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * While I do agree that this is quite extreme, I disagree with some of your points. We know what's "bad" and "good", and the Builds section, while intentionally "not a bad thing", has caused quite a lot of conflict. While it is one of our most popular sections, it's been pretty much the most troublesome. But I certainly disagree with wiping out the builds. It's just about finding that right balance. GW:NOB I think is the closest, but maybe not on the button just yet. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]]

(talk|contribs) 00:26, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * I find it a little ego-centered that you are so sure of what is 'bad' and 'good.' You may think something is bad, and you are open to your opinion. If other players find it good, then they find it good, and they are also open to their opinion. They will use it and enjoy it and win with it. You won't, because you think it is bad. The conflict seems to be arising from people doing their best to force the Wiki to their vision at the cost of other people around them, by disrespecting them. Again, this seems to be a question of ego. Consensus requires the input of a wide range of people who are all involved in a system, not just a few particular people while excluding others.Isis In De Nile 21:14, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * I believe your idea of a "popular" is not exactly the correct term to use for the builds section. I think it's great for people to express their ideas, but when a thousand people express their ideas by creating build articles, certain users circling the builds section start in on the immature comments and then an arguement usually ensues, that's not really popular. Nothing has brought out this kind of childishness on the wiki as the builds section, which is why this policy was proposed. &mdash; Gares 15:24, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Then ban the certain users from interacting with the Build Section if just a few troublemakers are out there. If that is it, just do it. The end. I don't see what is so hard about this. Isis In De Nile 21:17, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * There's a full ban or no ban, there is no partial ban. As for a partial solution, look at No personal attacks. I suggest taking a step back if you feel so strongly about this. This is an all or nothing proposal and in my opinion will probably not be implemented unless it's absolutely necessary. &mdash; Gares 22:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * I think we're all forgetting that the vast majority of visitors here never even bother to look at the talk pages - all they see is a useful (otherwise they wouldn't be there) section with several good ideas to try out. The arguments and suchlike are only problems for the people who take part in them, which I doubt totals more than a hundred souls or so. --NieA7 03:56, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Nuke It!
The more I try to use it, the more I'm convinced that the fundamental idea of a build section is misguided. Too many bad experiments and trivial variants. What you really want are good guides telling how to think about stuff rather than build articles telling you what to staple to your skill bar. "This is how you manage adrenaline." "This is how you manage minions." "This is how you do Tombs." That kind of thing. Right now, we've got some good builds, a lot of bad builds, and a bunch of really weak guides. Which is why it seems like a lot of people posting builds and commenting on them don't seem to get stuff like how to manage adrenaline in the first place.

Moreover, the culture of builds on the wiki just doesn't work. It's polluted with self-righteousness and disrespect, with more penis-wagging and posturing than actual collaboration. Keep shouting "It's just a minority of users ruining it for everyone!" as much as you want, but it's still ruined.

Time to burn it with fire. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Is that gonna happen anytime soon? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:31, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * No, but it should. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ain't gonna happen, far too many people want to keep it. Me included to be honest, it's by far and away one of the most popular sections on the wiki if the old page views were anything to go by. --NieA7 04:27, 17 January 2007 (CST)
 * Suprisingly, not many have been vocal for or against this proposal, so to say "too many people want to keep it" is an opinion at the moment. As I mentioned above in another section, "As for a partial solution, look at No personal attacks. This is an all or nothing proposal and in my opinion will probably not be implemented unless it's absolutely necessary."
 * To keep saying it is one of the most popular sections is only because it is the most forum-like sections. Anyone can post a build, edit a build, and anyone can comment on that build. This freedom of opinion allows people to spam the builds section more so than any other areas of the wiki, since the rest of the site is fact, besides user/user talk pages.
 * Lastly, there are more that have commented on this proposal for it, than against it. In those regards, it could be implemented anytime, so to say "Ain't gonna happen" is wishful thinking. But as I said, this proposal is a seemingly last resort if the builds section cannot be fixed and the behavior does not improve. &mdash; Gares 10:44, 17 January 2007 (CST)
 * People haven't been vocal as this crawled out last of a whole raft of build section proposals - by the time it arrived most all of us were utterly sick of the whole thing. I'm saying it's popular based on page views (before they were removed) rather than page edits, there's an important difference as only a fraction of traffic to the wiki actually bothers with editing things (which is partly why this whole builds debate is a storm in a teacup, Joe Punter neither knows nor cares about our agonising over vetting procedure, nor the dramas enacted on build talk pages). Based on the viewing traffic I feel confident in saying that the average user regularly visits the build section, and that if they knew that there was a danger of it being removed they would be quite vocal against it. It's only regular contributors like you and me who bother with things like this, it's in no way representative of visitors.
 * Now that page views have been disabled it would be very interesting to know how much traffic our tested builds get per day, as compared to other high profile pages on this site. Are the figures recorded anywhere? --NieA7 11:31, 17 January 2007 (CST)