GuildWiki talk:No original builds

In Support of Original Builds
Before I start, let me state without bias that I understand the problems maintaining the Build section. It has become a monster, and it's WAY out of control. However, on occasion, out of control monsters are not a bad thing. Honestly, the whole point of a wiki as I understand it is to relinquish control to the users. If voting is causing too many violations of GW:NPA, fine...do away with voting, but I don't see that as a reason to get rid of what is arguably a useful section (1).

There are uses to the build section beyond "I need a good build for my Whammo, so let's go check wiki". For that kind of build searching we can all agree that GuildWiki falls short of many other sites. Honestly, that's not how I use the GuildWiki build section, and neither is that how many of my guildies use it. My favorite use of the build section is as follows: Because of the Build namespace, I can find the builds easily in the list of links. I can open these builds in tabs (or new windows for those of you not running a tabbed browser) and look at them and evaluate them for my own use. I can look at what skills synergize well with that elite, and get a feel for how it could or could not be useful or enjoyable to me. This search capability is something no other site has to offer, and does contribute substantially to documenting the game. Relegating "original builds" to userspace hinders this, because there are a lot of other perfectly valid reasons that users link to elite skills (not the least of which being unlock checklists).
 * 1) While playing I find a boss. "Wow, cool...never seen him before...wonder what his elite is.".
 * 2) I get to a safe spot, tab out, go to Wiki and find out.
 * 3) I search, via the "What Links Here" link in the toolbox, and find builds that use that elite.

Yes, I could do this research in other, more tedious ways, but that's true of almost all documentation. The reason to document something is to reduce the tedium of the next person doing similar research. While the other sites are all wonderful for "I need a build for X/Y", they are all primarily forum based and thus do not offer the broad realm of search options you get with MediaWiki.

To address the reasoning at the top of the page:
 * If it works and is worth it, it's been done already
 * Wow...that's the same argument Congress tried to use when the wanted to close the Patent office...an 1920. This kind of argument leaves no room for innovation.


 * No popular build has ever originated from GuildWiki. Popular builds are formed elsewhere.
 * Rephrased, this says 'we haven't come up with a winner, so let's quit trying'. I don't like that attitude in my children, and I don't like it here.


 * A wiki is best used for documenting
 * A wiki is best used for community collaboration. nuffsaid.


 * Some users want to play with build ideas so it is allowed, but kept in user name space to keep it out of sight for those who don't like it.
 * If the whole point is to "keep it out of sight for those who don't like it", why not move everything in the current Build section to a "Original Build: warning may contain suxage" section, and then create a "Builds we copied off of other, real, players while watching them in Ob mode" section. That way you can safely ignore my section, and I can safely ignore yours.

Am I going to rage quit the wiki over this? No. I can say, however, that this will curb the wiki's usefulness for me. I can say that I will be looking for other ways to do the research, and if I find one it may replace GuildWiki on my list of homepages that load as soon as my browser comes up.

(1) Before telling me that the section is not useful, consider your argument carefully. As I understand it, one of the theories behind a wiki is that those items that are relevant and useful will be kept up to date, while those that are irrelevant or useless will fall by the wayside. The Build section, while not necessarily kept up to date is edited -A LOT-, thus indicating that a large percentage of users are using it. Honestly, if they weren't, it wouldn't be a monster, and we wouldn't be here. Thus, in at least some way, it must be that people find it useful.

ScionOfErixalimar 13:40, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * If you didn't notice, the NOB policy allows original builds in user name space. It also directly states that there will be an easy system to categorise the builds. Iw it will work just like the current build section, but with the exceptions that they must be under a users user name space instead of the build name space and that the user whose name soace it is in has dictatorship over the build. Those dictators may create their own rules for the builds in their user name space, which might actually improve the original build section a bit. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:44, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Where I see that breaking down is that user X has a build in her namespace, and user Y comes up with a variant. User X then deletes the variant because she can't play it or make it work, so Y recreates the page is his namespace to keep his variant.  I could see this happening a lot.  Fracturing the builds like this would, IMO, be very bad.  I'd rather see them in their own namespace without individual autonomous control. ScionOfErixalimar 15:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I understand that, but most of the vocal policy discussors think that it is a bad idea to have a real namespace to promote the GW:NPA violations and the other crud. I am pretty sure that a user name space driven system will concentrate in the namespaces of a few users who form a guideline on how other users may contribute builds to their name space. This also allow everyone to choose whih name space to submit their build so they can select which rules they want to follow. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 16:31, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * How does having a real namespace promote GW:NPA violations? And how does putting it in the User namespace change that?  I really don't understand. ScionOfErixalimar 20:55, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I disagree with the NOB policy; all these "top 100" GVG builds and "well-known" PVE builds were all untested, original builds at some point in time. Without involvement from other new builds, all you're going to encourage is stagnation and elitism, and to make matters worse, you're not going to get rid of OB, you're just going to fragment it and spread it out all over the wiki to grow like mold in a million different varieties. --Eudas 17:01, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * THey were all original builds, no doubt about it. However, they were first presented outside the game before being documented here. That is the basis for the school of thought of NOB, that we let GW take control of its metagame and document it here on the wiki.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 17:12, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It has to take place somewhere -- this is the place where 99.9% of the information about the game is contained... so why not here? --Eudas 17:52, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Because a wiki is used to document something. Encyclopedias aren't used to help develop on-going research, so the wiki won't be used to help develop individual builds. The idea behind this policy is that the "official" Builds section will be for builds that see a lot of use in the game, and are easily documentable. The user space and the tags used to organize the user space builds are used to help develop your "work-in-progress" builds. If a lot of people start running it and it finds its way into the metagame, then yeah, it could end up in the main Builds space. Otherwise, if it's not popular, it won't be in the "official" Builds space. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sounds overly complicated to me... like a lot of these alternate build-space ideas. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)! If you push builds out into userspace, you're going to get an unorganized unstandardized collection of crap. But, I guess since the PVP crowd thinks that's what it is already, the "I care" factor = 0. I'm just pissed because I'm going to be losing a valuable resource soon, and noone thought to come up with a viable plan for reorganization/replacement before they set a date for the wipe. Way to go, guys. --Eudas 12:09, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not the 'PvP crowd', it's a lot of other players too, like me. I'm a total PvE player, nothing to do with PvP at all.
 * And the wipe was decided on so that people would actually get a policy done, as some sort of carrot (or whip). The discussion has been going on for months, but only the wipe really got people to get something done. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 12:34, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

"Anything Works in PvE"
In addition to my comments above, I must say that I excluding PvE players really can't be acceptable. There are those of us who do not PvP, in any form, for any reason. I don't do it becasue when I PvP I tend to forget it's a game and then my physician lectures me over my blood pressure. I know for a fact that I'm not alone (maybe in my reasoning, but not in my policy). I am offended by the callous attitude of "anything works in PvE". While it is true that PvE offers more opportunities for flexibility than PvP, relegating PvE players to second class citizens by stating "anything works" is a bit much. So instead of dealing with the GW:NPA, this policy condemns a whole category of players. I can see that this way is much better.

ScionOfErixalimar 13:40, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The aim should be to get optimised builds. They should fulfil their purpose in the best possible way. Just about anything does work in AB, RA, FA, PvE, WTFBBQ. My arguement is that we should document the game, as that is that what the wiki has always done, and does best. This cuts the development of ideas clean out &mdash; Skuld 13:55, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Why should that be the aim? Why should we document Team FuBar's builds?  If we are in the business of documenting the game, we should dodge the metagame altogether and stay out of thu build business totally.  I could see that pov, and even agree with it to some extent.  However, to say that the PvP players in the top 10 guilds on the guild ladder are the ones who determine what is an optimized build and what's not is documenting the metagame, which by it's very nature is as solid as water. ScionOfErixalimar 14:39, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not saying that, don't put words in my mouth. I want the popular PvE builds on the wiki, but I don't want any development of builds &mdash; Skuld 14:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * No, you didn't say that, and I was not trying to say you did. Apologies.  I was trying to say that this policy implies that.  The only criteria specified in the policy are deemed successful in Observer Mode.  The criteria for PvE running/farming builds are left as an exercise to the reader, and it states specifically that -no- general PvE builds are acceptable.  So, rather than put words in your mouth, I'll ask:  who determines what is an optimized build?  Who determines what is the best possible way?  How do we define the "popular PvE builds" you think do belong?


 * I have another question. If all we're going to do is document "tried and true" builds, which is what this policy states (No Original Builds, right?), what's the point?  We can all agree that if what someone is looking for is a build that works out of the box, they go elsewhere.  There are other sites that do that and do it better.  Is this new policy going to bring the GuildWiki build section to their level?  I seriously doubt it will.  Instead, try to recognize the strengths we -do- have.  If I wanted to develop a build, I'd run it by a few guildies first, the bring it here, because I find the community here much friendlier and open to ideas than the ones on the dedicate build boards.  I find looking through other people's builds as they're being developed to be a boon to my play as well, as it can show me ideas I may not have come up with on my own.  We have a useful, helpful community.  If we take out the status symbol of "vetted" and get rid of the voting process, people won't spend their time "sockpuppetting" to get a build approved or posting the same build 16 times with minor differences trying to sneak one by, because there will be no point.  Instead allow for constructive criticizm that doesn't violate GW:NPA, and if a build falls out of favor, someone will eventually put a delete tag on it.


 * ScionOfErixalimar 15:34, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * actually, i could just watch in observer mode what builds are going on and copy them directly from there. --87.1.196.99 15:40, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm a PvE-only player and still like this policy. In the NOB suggestion the wiki build name space is reserved for anything that is actual documentation of the game and popular builds (this does include a lot of PvE builds) and the user name space is reserved for creating new builds and discussing about them. Nothing is really disallowed, but it is divided differently. If you think about it, it is pretty logical. Popular in game = game content = build name space. Creating something new, trying out stuff = user name space. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:50, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * When the policy specifically says no general PvE builds, I don't see where it can include a lot of PvE builds ;-P. And, last I checked, poupular in game == metagame, not game content.  71.193.185.130 16:46, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Quotes from the policy suggestion:
 *  'Original' builds will be moved to userspace, where the author is in charge of it.
 * Some users will probably create rules how others can contribute build ideas in their user name space, which allows users to concentrate their builds in the name spaces of a few users and gives users the ability to choose which users rules they want to follow.
 * yah, true about the game conent != metagame, don't know what I was thinking there. :D --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:09, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Just want to point out that for PvE, you can "observe" by looking at what's LFG. Minion Masters, Echo Nukers, BP Teams, Bonders and Stance Tanks (RIP Oro Farming :`, DoA teams, etc. are all NOB builds for PvE. Also, The profession guides are a great place to build a good PvE build in once they're up, IMO.--Nog64Talk 17:23, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I think the guides are a better place for 'general PvE' builds. It would be hard to regulate what kind of general PvE builds are accepted and what not, but a guide requires a lot ow work and must actually be based on something unlike a build, so general PvE stuff would do well in guides. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:28, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm a bit late into the discussion, but the title of this section holds true. Here is my rant about why, in case you were interested. It's not an insult to PvE, it's merely game design. -Auron  19:29, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * After reading that I realised what we were missing. I added the following line to the accepted builds section: PvE high level areas: Builds designed for The Fissure of Woe, The Underworld, Urgoz's Warren, The Deep, Domain of Anguish and any similiar high level areas released in the future if deemed popular and succesfull. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 19:32, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Again, I'm not sure I agree with the statement (see bleow). More importantly, the way the statement as phrased is incendiary.  You can feel free to say that PvE has more flexibility than PvP, and thus finding builds that work is easier (I'd agree there).  You can say that PvE gameplay is different than PvP, and builds don't necessarily overlap.  But saying "Anything Works" is more than a bit condescending.


 * I also don't agree with the sentiment behind the incendiary statement. Driving laws are designed to be grokked by any 16 yr old, but that doesn't mean "anything works" on the road, and it doesn't mean that there aren't things that work better than others, even within the law.  Likewise, just because you -CAN- beat Abaddon, or THK, or Vizunah Square with a mending tank doesn't mean it's not worth looking into better builds to do it, so it doesn't mean that a PvE section isn't useful or should be relegated into oblivion. ScionOfErixalimar 20:37, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Correct. Although, it'd be stupid as hell to list *every possible combination of skills in the game* that could beat THK/Abaddon/Viz because the "favored" section would be about sixty pages long. Is it worth it to write up W/Me Energy Surge Sword/Dom builds, even though they work? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * It depends. Is our goal to document, or only to document what we consider worthy of documentation? ScionOfErixalimar 20:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The latter. It would make little sense to document everything that works, for a few reasons; but mostly, GW is a game. Play it. Make your own builds. The people that rely on GWiki for 100% of their builds should be out there making their own and having fun, not cookie-cutting >.< -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 20:56, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Fine. Who decides what's worthy and how?  Please explain that policy? ScionOfErixalimar 20:59, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Admins. Not a fifty five 21:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Meh...I thought the whole reason to relegate this to userspace is so that the admins could wash their hands of it. ScionOfErixalimar 21:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Hardly. That would mean them doing nothing >.> Not a fifty five 21:16, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sarcasm aside, having the admins decide what is a good build is like having librarians decide what is a good book. It doesn't work well. ScionOfErixalimar 21:26, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Exactly. That's where discussion comes into play. If you haven't noticed, pages in the main name space are formed through discussion, not voting or dictatorship, which works really well. Due to the high demands of NOB, discussion is a valid way to agreeon what should be allowed and what not. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 07:38, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Admins should not decide what is a good build!!!!! I can't believe you said that, Not a fifty five!


 * Being an admin does not mean that you are an expert at the game. While there are some admins who are very familiar with PvP or PvE there are others who aren't. The builds wipe has nothing to do with admins having more control over what is classed a good build or what isn't; it's about fixing a system that is broken. Allowing users to have ownership of an article and letting other users vote to decide whether that article should be deleted or not is the source of almost all disputes on the wiki. This could be forgiven if the results of this system were good, but they are not. Terrible builds get favoured and bad builds get deleted. And this causes nothing but bad feelings between the users involved.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:42, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Well admins can make policies at will, and policies decide what system of vetting we have which directly affects what builds get vetted and whatnot. Considering editors need consensus which is impossible to get and admins do not... I'd say admins decide what a good build is indirectly. Ex-admins deleted a bunch of builds, admins made builds wipe, admins admins.. admins own the builds section editors do not, as seen by what power us editors have.  Make policy making easier, then we can get somewhere. Not a fifty five 18:17, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Most of the decisions on build policies in the last year have been headed by Xeeron, as far as I'm aware. He is not an admin.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:25, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * oh? the only policies I've seen take effect anytime at all recently were builds wipe, headed by admins, and PNB, which is "consensus" giving up. Not a fifty five 05:54, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

(resetting indentation) Biro: I'm not discussing the wipe. Agree or not, it's taking place, so I decided to try and help shope the policy going forward. Yes, the voting system is broken. Honestly, I don't think we should be in the business of "vetting" builds at all. I don't see any system for that ever working, because it will always promote violations of NPA.

If what we're saying is going to work is "discussion" (as gem said above), why couldn't that work within our current build namespace? Do away with voting, and let discussion happen. Why relegate a whole category of builds to userspace/oblivion. That's what I don't understand. How does that help promote discussion? The NOB page says "easily verifiable" builds. I don't see how to define that for PvE at all.

If we were to do away with the voting and vetting process, and simply enforce existing policies that are enforced on other pages (such as NPA, YOU, etc), what would be wrong with that? We don't need to compete with Guru or Team IQ or WTFPVP, because that's not what a wiki is about. We don't need to document the FOTW, as that's done elsewhere and done better. This just doesn't make sense. Why have a build section at all if all we have is the builds posted elsewhere and done better?

Why not play to the strengths we have. We are a community. Often we are a community of noobs, newbs, and freeloaders, but we are a community. We are a community that, for the most part, enjoys a game and enjoys helping each other. So...why not allow original builds. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, or don't care to help the author better the build, you don't have to. How does that hurt the wiki? Why should we make it a policy that you -can't- do this in the build space? To protect the buildspace from what, exactly? ScionOfErixalimar 13:53, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * To protect it from uselessness.
 * If it isn't here to document the game, then what's left as the purpose of the Builds section? Why would we be sharing these builds with each other, and discussing on them? To learn from them, it seems logical to me. And there lies the problem.
 * The authors don't learn, because 1) most of the time they don't come here to learn, they come here to teach the others how great their build-making excellence is, and 2) because even if Auron or Skuld or Wings That Heals gives to the author a very wise piece of advice, it'll just get lost in the sea of terrible advice and suggestions that other less-experienced users give (Neither of these two is speculation, both of these I've observed firsthand during my time here on the wiki).
 * The same happens with "voters"/"critics"; they don't comment on a build to learn, they comment on it to be judge and jury (and executor at the same time, with the vetting system). Even if they do want to learn, it won't happen because of the sea of nonsense they need to swim through first.
 * The only way out of that is to get rid of the whole judging worthiness aspect of it. With original builds the author inevitably becomes defensive of his creation (thus taking the role of the accused), and the critics (rightfully) try to find the build's flaws (thus becoming the judge). Even if there is no voting, the defender-attacker aspect will remain there, and that's what causes conflicts and NPA.
 * Original builds are almost always going to turn into that, author defending his build versus the "attacks" of others. With non-original build that issue disappears, you're free to discuss the actual build for what it is.
 * It's also been said before that wikis are terrible as development laboratories, because group-development requires a guiding hand, a leader, someone to point at a direction for everyone to walk towards. And on a wiki there can't be such a person. With documentation on the other hand a leader isn't needed, because the direction in which everyone will go is obvious, documenting what already exists. Hence, less conflicts, less headaches, more constructive discussion. --Dirigible 15:24, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That sounds like an argument for Post No Builds, rather than NOB. As long as what we're documenting is the metagame, there is going to be 'discussion'.  I could even, reluctantly, get behind PNB.  Again, I ask, why should we document the metagame when it is not the game, not static, and it is something other sites do and do better?  What does the wiki gain by that?
 * Also, I need to ask useless defined by whom? I have learned -a lot- from reading comments by the "buildmeisters" you mention, comments by ppl who you'd obviously qualify as "noobs", and other such critics.  Where else is that available?  If it's useless for ppl who have the skillz to get their 1337 builds posted on guru, that doesn't make it useless for the common player.  I've looked at posts on guru for OB's.  They usually have one comment, like "sux", and the thread is closed.  If you post constructive comments to a build and the author gets really defensive, don't bother to respond.  Yes, there will need to be a rash of smackdowns for NPA violations, but once that is settled, and people understand that they need to be civil to each other, I think you'd be amazed on what can come about.
 * Personally, I'd define documenting something that is clearly documented somewhere else, and better documented to boot, as useless, while giving people the opportunity to innovate, and to make mistakes, to be useful and something no other site truly offers. 148.87.1.172 16:14, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm never ever again using the phrase "less experienced users" when talking about a builds-related topic, because everyone seems to get always upset about it.
 * Agree to disagree on the rest. You think that the blind leading the blind is a good idea, I think it isn't. Good luck in life. --Dirigible 16:26, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Man, if you left it at the first statement and part of the second, you'd be in the clear but you always have to add a qualifier to it. Not all the way offtopic but are you practicing to be a partisan politician in the United States? ;) You'd do great as one. Anyone who disagrees with you and then you can imply they are unAmerican for disagreeing and dismiss their argument outright. DK01 was a bit more confrontational about your words but I'll say this: it's your opinion that a group of people are blind. Stating that someone believes the blind leading the blind is a good idea when they probably don't is antagonistic and utterly condescending. I didn't have too much of an issue with this statement though to be honest. Yet, you proceed to go even further and imply that the person fails at life. How close to the line do you need to step towards NPA anyway? Isn't policy one of the reasons you are against the builds section in the first place? People get upset because so far from I've seen, you simply lack non antagonistic discussion methods. You can write off ideas as simply nonsensical but you should probably stop judgment calls about the people themselves. I'm sure you have the social skills to realize such a simple thing or otherwise, GOOD LUCK IN LIFE. :) PlacidBlueAlien 20:32, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I never implied someone fails at life, but I am going to say that you fail at making assumptions. If I'm going to say something that someone won't like, I'll go straight ahead and say it, as you must have noticed by now. "By 'Good luck in life' you imply that the person fails at life"? Get a clue. "Good luck in life" = "Goodbye", it was me leaving this conversation, the exact same thing as I said to DKS01 a couple of hours before I posted the above message, "Cheers, mate". That was me giving up and leaving the discussion because I was getting exasperated at people who would rather find something to take offense at rather than discuss the ideas at hand.
 * Un-American? What do I have to do with America? I'm not one, and I don't live there.
 * If someone who's inexperienced at making builds tries to teach someone who's also not experienced at making builds how to make builds, I call that the blind leading the blind. If you like it, good, if you don't, tough luck.
 * Bottom line is, I'm not Gaile Gray. For me calling things as I see them is more important than keeping everyone happy and cheery. It may make many antagonistic, but hey, big deal. Those that matter are also those that are able to see the truth in blunt truth, instead of getting stuck on the bluntness. Different target audiences, different goals.
 * Leaving this discussion now, because "You said that! No, I said this! But you meant that! No I meant this!" arguments are not productive, go nowhere and are generally a waste of time for all parties involved. So, cheers mate! --Dirigible 23:43, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

I started writing the following earlier, but something came up. I haven't properly read the comments between this one and ScionOfErixalimar. Below is the response that I was going to post.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:05, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * My response above was specifically for Not a fifty five, I didn't attempt to answer your questions, ScionOfErixalimar, but I will try to answer them now.


 * I think Gem's response above is a bit too simple; discussion is undoubtedly better than voting or dictatorship, but voting is not the only reason why builds are contentious. If you were to replace the voting based vetting system with a discussion based vetting system you would have the same problems.


 * One problem with builds is that they have an "author". Nowhere else in the wiki does the originating contributor have such an important role as in the builds section. It is almost as if the build belongs to that person, and many people consider themselves or others to be "build authors".


 * A separate issue to that of ownership of builds is that of providing high quality content to readers. It has always been a priority for those who have made policy throughout the lifespan of the wiki to provide good quality articles. It therefore made sense to implement some kind of vetting system in the builds section, so that readers would be able to click on something and get good builds.


 * ScionOfErixalimar, it is this point that we seem to disagree on. You seem to think that since people go elsewhere there is no need to vet our builds. Personally I think that if we don't make it easy for people to find good builds here then people will go elsewhere. Anyway, I'll continue with my point ;) ...


 * To clarify, at present the builds section has these two 'conditions':


 * Anyone can post their own build idea, i.e. original builds
 * Builds need to be split into good and bad, so that new readers can find good builds


 * These two conditions cannot easily coexist in the same system. You cannot have original builds being vetted. And if you can't vet builds then you can't say "these builds are good, and these aren't". And if you can't do that then you just have a mess of builds that a new reader will have to trudge through to find anything useful.


 * In my opinion the only fair way to deal with this is to remove one of the conditions. I think it is vitally important that, if builds stay, they are separated into good builds and not good builds (I don't want to say bad, since they may still have value, but it is definitely important that the best builds are grouped together). The only sensible option in this instance is to deny original builds.


 * I'm not sure what the criteria for PvP or PvE builds should be, but I do believe that, if builds are going to stay, original builds should be denied.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:05, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

This was touched upon earlier by several people and I've given it a lot of thought but none of my two friends who I bounce my ideas off of (one that doesn't support the wipe and NOB and one that does support both) like it very much for very good reasons. However, people have been pushing at the idea without outright announcing it. I think it's fairly necessary. Mainly, if Guildwiki is supposed to be a documentation site and NOB supports posting builds on the current meta - why not have those "bad" builds posted as well? Maybe it doesn't even need to be in a whole separate section marked as "NUB" or anything to avoid bias. If wammos are popular in some of the PvP/PvE meta, perhaps an archetype page can be built discussing wammos: tactics, why they are used and why they are generally unaccepted by part of the Guild Wars community for PvP (some would argue PvE too but it should be all documented in a general way.) We can even list some of the support for it (whatever that may be and have a pros/cons thing to accurately represent both sides as well as trying to list out how things work mathematically (no matter which side is correct.) This is going far more than simply "tips" on playing a particular class but more of an indepth look into each class and providing people with knowledge as per the guide suggestion and general rule. If this is agreed upon (not too hopeful,) the first archetype just has to be Areanet's "Hamstorm" though I suppose that one is more of a build than a guide. ;)

While I don't support solely a NOB/archetype/guideline policy, I do see the need for a section that is basically set under that policy. I'd even argue that this section should supercede the build section as it is now but also have an original build section in some form that is ruled underneath. For example, we shouldn't clutter the original build or whatever section with variants of archetype popular builds. This actually requires some hard admin or hard wiki user work and quite frankly, they might not be willing so I'm not terribly sure if it will work out as I intend it to. With the PYB policy, this may be a nonissue since it handles things in a totally different way from what I understand but it can still be applied. It would cut redundancy and perhaps "improper" PvP builds and answer some part of a single problem listed by those who oppose an OB section of any sort. This idea also didn't set too well with a friend who supports an OB section of some sort so I'm not sure how this will work especially with a PYB policy. Library policies never work well with restrictions on content in general I believe. With people opposed to an OB section in it's entirety, I'm not sure if there is a way to work out a compromise other than telling them to ignore it as they probably won't accept it in any fashion. Every system will have it's flaws and you can't expect no heated debate to occur in any section. Some are just a bit more grievous and problematic than others and everyone has opinions on which are just that way. If this is all a resounding no from everyone, I'll give up on these ideas at least. PlacidBlueAlien 01:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I agree that library policies hardly ever work, and I'm thus having a serious problem with the PYB policy. I could get behind an NOB section and an OB section, where the OB section was specifically to post a build to get constructive comments with basically no real "vetting" process.  As I've said before, with a strict enforcement of NPA, and the understanding that the builds are there to be commented on rather than there to be elite, I think it could be a useful section.  To push an analogy to the limits here I'm going to compare this to a college library.  Most universities have libraries that contain books written by professionals in their fields, used by students for research.  However, they also have libraries of graduate theses.  Most of these works are derivitaves and lesser versions of the professional level books regurgitated by students learning the field.  Undergraduates and other graduate students often find these papers easier to read and more accessible than the thicker volumes.  They are not held to the same standards as the heavy hitters, and are not useful in the same arenas as those volumes.  However, that does not make the documents any less legitimate, or any less useful.  I think the same would hold true here.  Thoughts?  ScionOfErixalimar 04:08, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Good idea, already covered. People post their builds in the user space, link and organize them via the tags, others can come around and give input. NOB is a misnomer; there will still be original builds on the wiki, but they will exist in user namespaces. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Krowman is correct, but I'd like to be a bit more specific here. It is not as if there will be an original builds section, since the user space may never be linked to from the main namespace. This effectively means that casual readers will have trouble finding original builds.


 * But we can certainly make efforts to organise the user build section. I see no reason why categories and guides couldn't be set up. The most important point is that builds in the user space will be owned by their author, and therefore not open to vetting, and only open to criticism if the author requests it.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:50, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Exactly, and I see this as a great improvement to the old style. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 06:42, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "This effectively means that casual readers will have trouble finding original builds." ... This implies to me that the very people who would find such a section useful are the ones who will have the most trouble finding it. This statement is exactly why I'm against the OB section being in UserSpace. ScionOfErixalimar 14:03, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * LordBiro said "But we can certainly make efforts to organise the user build section. I see no reason why categories and guides couldn't be set up." --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 14:53, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I think you have continued to miss the point several times in order to promote the NOB policy gem. The area of contention is still small in scope but huge in distinction - the people supporting a user build section of some sort do want it somewhat accessible from the main namespace. Simply organizing a space doesn't mean people will find it. Exactly what would it take beyond disclaimers and what was listed above and in other sections and whatever additional protections that are set in place by policy discussions would be enough for everyone to agree to link an original build section from the main namespace or at least the build namespace? There's a handful of issues that people state against user builds (I've tried to come up with at least partial solutions that addresses the issues somewhat), not all of them can be resolved perfectly but you can mitigate some of the problems (even NOB/archetype doesn't solve some of the issues perfectly) without wiping it out entirely by resigning the OBs to the depths of the wiki. @Scion: PYB may not be the best policy for an OB section but it could very well turn into the only policy solution that others will get behind since it's a drastic change in how such a section works and is mostly hands off for admins (who may just see the section as a cancer at the moment) and other users that could care less about/for the section. I still hope some sort of consensus can be reached but it really doesn't look good since some people are just adamant about stuffing user builds in a dark closet or wiped completely. PlacidBlueAlien 20:00, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not misunderstanding, you are. What would prevent us from linking to those categories from the builds section main page? Nothing. The section would not be unfindable. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 20:17, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Look, the wipe is happening. Period. Whine, complain, beg, petition, and it will still go through. Now, knowing this, you can continue to do these things, or you can start to work on a new policy. I think the wiki is better off with a comprehensive Builds section than without one; that's why I'm here, trying to work out the kinks of the policy. Get over this 'user builds in a dark place' complaint. We're not abandoning new users/players, they're the ones who need the help. We want to keep the most popular and effective builds in GW, the best ones out there, clearly displayed in the Builds namespace. Players who need help aren't going to want to know what builds you, Gem or myself run: they want to find the best builds, and run those. That's why user builds will be relegated to the user space. People who want to find them can, people who want to develop them can do that as well, and the wiki's Build section will be full of GW's best builds without the kind of trash that slips through the cracks of the current system. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Umm, why are you telling us to stop complaining about the wipe and tell us to go and form a new policy? That's exactly what we are doing. Try to keep on topic and don't mix things up. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 20:39, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I have no idea what you are going on about Krowman or why you took it the way you did but ok, thanks for your comments and I'll take them under consideration. You didn't answer a single of my questions though and instead disregarded everything I said as whining. If you didn't realize, I didn't even really talk about the wipe and instead the existence of an original build section. It's two separate things (though I am opposed to a wipe at the moment as well.) At the same time, I'm pretty much resigned on the fact that a build wipe will happen no matter what though I'm not sure why they even bothered to have a discussion on it outside of trying to get people to make a new policy.
 * @Gem: Am I misunderstanding? I was fairly sure that NoB excluded having an original build namespace (I don't think the PYB library idea actually conflicts though with NOB which is why I'm halfheartedly supporting it at this time) and only allowed popular builds in the current meta to be documented. I'm all for the idea of separation as it's the only solution to address some of the complaints like you but I'm simply trying to take it a single step farther than NOB afaik - however, reality dictates that this might not happen so you take what you can get in the end and hope it all works out. Thus, I am opposed to NOB and stating as such but currently trying to accept it and see if things can be worked underneath that umbrella. I'm sure many of the other people opposed to NOB because they find it a bit too strict found or are finding themselves in a similar position. If I am misunderstanding, I -sincerely- apologize. If I'm not, then I hope I made myself clearer on my own stance. PlacidBlueAlien 23:09, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry Gem, I should clarify. I meant to say something along the lines of "contribute something constructive to the formation of the policy, quit moaning about the wipe/original builds." PBA, I was mostly talking to you. I'm glad you're taking that maturely, but what you're doing is hardly productive. There are basically two opposing camps here in this debate: those who want to allow original builds, and those who don't. Those who don't have already made a compromise on their position, and want to meet somewhere in the middle by allowing original builds in the userspace, with a categorizing system to advertise and organize them. You don't seem to accept this compromise, and seem to be after an entire space set up just for original builds. This is a pretty immature attitude to me. Basically, you're going to have the same section, similiar organization, but in the user namespaces, yet you reject the compromise and argue for a special section in the main Builds space just for the original builds. Like I said above, NOB is a misnomer; there will still be original builds on the wiki, but they will exist in user namespaces. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:43, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

This is why General PvE builds are bad under this policy: "Anything works in PvE" isn't an exaggeration. The are build that are highly effective at PvE. However for general PvE you can power through the entire thing with anything. I've beaten proph with illusionary weapons, I've beaten chunks of PvE with no skills on my bar and henchmen. The bar is very low and thus people will claim everything works (because to be fair it does.) However, that doesn't mean other people should run it. In addition PvE bars don't tend to be very specific. They ask for a MM and only want a guy with a few minion skills on his bar. When they ask for a a healer they don't care what is on your bar as long as they don't die. Thus General PvE is best excluded from this policy and handled through a seperate policy that creates guides for the most popular PvE roles (like barrage/pet.) It isn't that people want to kick PvE off the wiki, it is that people recognize this isn't going to work for PvE and that PvE builds should be managed in a different manner.-Warskull 10:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

consensus & compromise
Since the quick outlash against the build wipe after being announced, if people actually wanted to reach a consensus and compromise, both view points are going to have to be upheld. However, since both view points automatically void one another out, the only way is to uphold both but keep them seperate. Having both a No Original Builds ('Offical') section and a Original Builds ('Experimentation') section seems to be the only way for people to both have their cake and eat it too. Isis In De Nile 17:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * So are you saying that this is good? Or not? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:56, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * From what I've read, it isn't good. It's upholding the NOB idea but kicking the OB section to the curb. I think there should exist both a NOB and a OB build section. This current NOB policy calls for just a NOB build section with the idea OB builds can be kept in a private userspace. If there exists two distinct, navigatable, areas that are noted as 'NOB' and a 'OB', seperated from one another, and both are easy to reach to, that'll fly. Isis In De Nile 18:08, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * See my comments in the above section. The user name space is the 'new section for original builds'. Categorisation is what makes stuff easily navigabale, not the specific name space that the stuff is in. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 18:11, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The problem I have with that is that it relegates OB to oblivion. We all know what User Space means.  User Space means the powers that be wash their hands of this.  This would imply that the NOB section is sanctioned, while the OB section isn't, and the total OB answer is "we hope someone takes control of it in their own userspace".  Personally, I'm not really satisfied with that answer. ScionOfErixalimar 18:18, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That's the whole point.... --Dirigible 18:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You re allowed to make a policy suggestion of your own based on this one. I'm not going to change a 'No original Builds' policy to actually suggest accepting both original and non-original builds, but I wouldn't oppose a policy like that, atleast not atm. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 18:23, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I disagree. Currently it is quite impossible to make a new builds policy.  Consensus doesn't work because at least 40% ALWAYS will not give something a chance to at least be TRIED OUT even if it may have a few kinks in it.  I can't even make a link to an offsite test forum I'm making to test a new builds format apparently! What harm to the wiki does this incur! If the admins didn't blatantly curb any attempt to help the builds section maybe a policy would be able to occur.  Until then... I wouldn't bother. Not a fifty five 19:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Umm, why wouldn't you be allowed to link to a test site off that resides of the wiki? It is not impossible to create a new suggestion and get people to discuss about it. For example the NOB was almost being deleted, but see what happened when a few users pushed it? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 19:51, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The link has been taken down and now I'm basically forced to write criteria for allowing links to offsite forums if I want to out it back up, get it ratified, i.e. have the link down for about a week and have the forum's current members move on to other things. (Not a fifty five 19:54, 4 April 2007 (CDT))
 * What are you talking about? Please provide me a link to a discussion, history of edits or what ever. I'm totally lost. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 20:02, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Check the talk page of the main builds page, it there.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 20:06, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I like waht Gem added to this page (and what Defiant started) so I expanded the idea a little and formulated it in a way that the builds are linked to the "grid" yet they are not part of Guildwiki, because they are in userspace: Publish_your_build. --Vazze 22:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * This sounds a lot like the site I've talked about above. The difference is just semantics, experienced users are the editors and each one has to "sign" a build before it enters "untested" (library) This is just a talk page so I can provide the link  Not a fifty five 02:30, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * is only one library, and it is off-site. This is on-site and it consists of more libraries: authors/readers have options. --Vazze 12:54, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Did I understand correctly that that suggestion is meant to be used with NOB? Ie NOB says what is allowed in the build name space and the rest of the builds that are in the user name space work according to PYB? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 14:11, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Techically NOB is compatible with PYB: in PYB builds are in user name space (of the author), the links of these builds are organized into various separate libraries in user name space (of the editors), and only the editors are linked to the a build name space on the Build Discussions (/Build Libraries/ Build Workshop) page. (see PYB for details) --Vazze 14:42, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * My opinnion is that NOB should be the main build policy and PYB the policy for those builds that are only allowed in user name space. (although both still need to be refined a bit) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:13, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Well sure the difference is offsite and on-site, but the one library acts as your multiple libraries pretty much, the editor(s) who sign(s) a build is noted on whatever build is passed on. There is one difference in that, after a certain amount of editors join, a build needs more than one.  Not a fifty five 14:50, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I think we are talking about very different concepts: the editors in PYB are NOT cooperating. They are competing for readers and authors! Each editor organizes his/her own library. --Vazze 15:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmm.. Doesn't sound very good to me imo then. If you get say 20 editors one of them is bound to accept your build.  Besides, what criteria is made for an editor?  I can easily see many editors who would accept just about any build.  (Not a fifty five 15:28, 5 April 2007 (CDT))

Fixing Some Things

 * Characters in builds: This does not need to be 8 for GvG, 6 (well now 8) for HA, and 4 for TA. You have to understand that some characters plug and play very well into many builds (say an RC prot or a bull's charge sword), some characters work as tight teams of 2-3 (recall split) and some builds are very specific and require a full 8 (IV spike.)  The characters in the build shouldn't be a set number.  It should be however many required to make it work.  If the hexer plugs into multiple hex builds alone, he can be a single character.  If it is an SB/RI spike you sure as hell better post an RI character with your SB character or your SB/RI spike doesn't work.


 * Requirements: You probably want to clarify that the top 100 for GvG (or at least high ranked guilds) are being used as the criteria or some people will argue that a rank 500 got on obs facing a rank 50 team and that that qualifies them.


 * ABs: I know a lot of people want this, but trust me you do not want to touch this can of worms. How many of you have actually ABed lately?  This is very little semblance of organization and the good AB builds could be ripped directly from GvG split characters.  People don't specifically request anything and the meta is rather subtle.  This would need incredibly heavy moderation.  At the very least I would leave the AB section "temporarily closed" when you re-implement builds.  It will be the new magnet for crap.

-Warskull 10:42, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * For the naming system, suggest using "Elite and highest specced line" as the naming theme if none exists. For example "Cripslash Sword", "LoD Healer", "Powerblock Dom", and "Bsurge Air" would result from that.  It wouldn't be mandatory, but it works out 95% of the time to something that accurately described the build (occassionally you would get something like an E.Prod Healer for a water runner out of that scheme.)


 * A sample quote from the article: "A full team build of 8 players or a working smaller part of a team." Note the 'or a smaller working part of a team'.
 * I wouldn't like ABs in the section myself, but some people requested it.
 * I'll update the naming system. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:01, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Can you point me to them please &mdash; Skuld 16:07, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * GuildWiki talk:No original builds/Archive 2. There wasn't a real consensus if AB should be left there or not, so I decided to leave it as it was at that moment, iw accept AB builds. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 16:38, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * A number of the builds that work for TA will work for AB. AB requires the exact same amount of organization and planning as TA; you just have that random factor of what the other teams will be composed of. That shouldn't matter all that much, as each four-man team should be independent of the others. It would be very easy to demonstrate the kind of builds that work well in AB, just as easy as those in TA. We might as well keep them, and have more information on the wiki. We can still keep the crap out. BTW, Warskull's naming idea is a good one. WTF is a Cupido anyways? - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I can see where the problems about documentation for AB would come up though. It's not that AB requires less organization or planning than TA (I'd even argue that it requires a bit more if you plan on winning consistently) but rather, the number of people playing not so great at PVP in AB is rather significant when compared to TA (and even TA has weird things.) As an example, today in AB, a warrior stated riposte as a counter to wild blow in reference to "tanking" in PVP. Earlier, a sin said expose defenses against blind. The point (in a roundabout way) is you might have some arguments on archetypes that are included and the usefulness about them in AB and it's a bit more difficult to settle against naysayers or supporters than in TA. I do agree that AB can/should be documented to a great extent. There are enough touchers, SF eles, burning arrow rangers etc. as an example that guides could be made for or at least copied over and revised for AB. How would you handle issues that might arise? Let's go ahead with an example. In my opinion, touchers shouldn't be recommended anymore on their own for AB (and you can get a group that handles situations far better than a group of touchers) but others would still swear by them as being awesome judging from chat now and then in local. Let's say for a second that you agree with me (even if you don't.) How would you handle this situation if you weren't going to document all popular builds (even bad ones and provide both sides of the argument even if it ends up slanted) and instead only include what you consider worthy if let's say, half of the people supported touchers as being good and half decided it wasn't all that great when someone created a toucher guide for AB? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by weeding out crap builds? PlacidBlueAlien 01:18, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I might have gotten a little mixed up in the six lines of text in the question you posed, but here's what I would advocate: discussion. Let both sides make their arguments, then evaluate them. WIth the touchy case as an example, I would say that they do work well in AB. They are mobile, self-sustainable, and though they are easily countered by snaring, it is nearly impossible for teams in AB to be co-ordinated enough (i.e. voice chat) to properly counter them. Someone else could make their argument as to why they're bad in AB, some discusion could take place, and if an agreement cannot be reached, someone else could evaluate the debate and help decide it. By keeping the crap out, I mean we won't have anymore of this user posting a crappy build, getting 3 of his buddies to vote on it, and then having it displayed prominently in the wiki's Tested section. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Criticism
You know, we have a reasoned list of the advantages of this policy on the project page. It might be beneficial to the discussion to have a concise list of what's bad about the proposed policy too. I'll get the list started with the criticisms as I understand them; feel free to add more, but plus keep them short and to-the-point. I intend this to be a quick summary of the policy's downsides, not a novelette like those above. Also, this is not the place to discuss the necessity of the Builds wipe; you can do that at the link provided. ;-) - Krowman (talk • contribs)  01:21, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Some users feel that the development of original builds will be kept "out of sight."
 * Some feel that general PvE is being overlooked, at least temporarily.
 * RA/CM builds are not included in the policy because of the random nature of these venues.
 * Some feel that more generic 'role guides' are insufficient for PvE documentation.
 * Some feel that "documenting the game" will include so-called Mending Wammos and other notoriously bad builds, and that this will hurt the wiki.
 * More?

Criteria for Allowed Builds

 * I personally feel this policy is useless without specific instructions on how one can "verify" a build is valuable. &mdash;Tanaric 03:21, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Oh, also, I'd like to see the naming scheme adjusted to remove the slash "/" as it breaks some special pages. A hyphen "-" would work just as well. &mdash;Tanaric 03:22, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmm. Well, some of them should be obvious, like Shock Axes and BoA sins. For others, maybe screenshot verification could be used as evidence. We could add a note along the lines of "If you plan on submitting a build to GuildWiki, you should be prepared to present a screenshot (or two or three?) of the build being used by a highly-ranked Guild." It's kind of tricky to work out criteria for popularity like this, especially one that doesn't involve 'polling' ;-) the communtiy by asking "Is this popular?" The worst part is, some of the more experienced players can tell you what's popular/ what was popular etc, but it is hard to measure and quantify that popularity. I'd appreciate it if someone would help me bounce some ideas around, either here or on my talk page. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Tanaric probably means the system with which users decide whether the build is acceptable or not. I'll add something to the article. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 04:51, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd prefer to just get a few users together to run the section as moderators. We could have some of the more experienced players take responsibility for it; top of my head, I can think of a few users who might be interested. Users could post their contributions in a kind of 'waiting area,' some discussion can occur there (i.e. ideal attribute spread, equipment, rune set ups), and the mods can ultimately yay-or-nay it. With the policy saying 'don't post original builds,' and entrusting more power to responsible, reliable contributors, I don't think this kind of system would be that inefficient. One could say that some nub can still post post his his awful build in the buildspace (thus giving bad advice, making the wiki look bad, etc etc), but that argument is somewhat flawed. If he really wanted to, he could post the build in even the Mainspace, where it would be hastily deleted. With similiar speedy deletion in the new builds secion, I think it could work much better under this policy than the predecessor. I can foresee complaints about this being "unwikilike," but it sure would be effective. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs)  17:41, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll go ahead and make that unwikilike complaint right now. I'd much rather have a bulleted list of criteria that any editor can verify and enforce. &mdash;Tanaric 17:45, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No 'moderators' of any kind should be selected, the process must be open to everyone. A discussion based system however mostly eliminates problems with people who aren't experienced enough and don't know what they are talking about. The admins may always delete/move to user space builds even if there is someone fighting for it if they think that the people who are against it know what they are talking about. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:52, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * In that case, the way the policy is right now, what's so bad about it? GvG/HA builds requiring observation on Obs Mode with possible screenshot/video verification, farming/running builds just have to work (screenie verification could work here too). Hardest one to document would be TA. Screenshot verification would probably be the best bet here as well (even though TA is often devoid of players when I go there). You can start to see why screenie proof would be a hard rule to enforce. What do you take screenies of? Consecutive wins, flawless victories, rank emotes, skills being used, damage scores that a build can pull off? Screenshots are the only hard evidence that we can pull out of GW as proof of the builds being used there, everything else would just be something some user tells you. We need proof, and it's hard to get it. That's why I think the 'unwikilike' suggestion I made above would be our best bet. We want to provide a competitive (or superior) resource to the other GW sites out there, and none of those other sites are wikis. It would not restrict any user's freedom to contribute something to the wiki, but it would be up to the moderators to refine it or decide that it ultimately would not be beneficial to the wiki to post that information. Discussion/collaboration will still take place, except the new builds section would have have a 'quality control' step that it lacked before. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * "In that case, the way the policy is right now, what's so bad about it?" Imho nothing. I allready modified it yesterday a bit after my comment here. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 18:32, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The policy still does not contain specific information on what exactly "proves" a build is allowed. Further, it doesn't state whether the burden of proof is on the original submitter or if it must simply be presented upon request. &mdash;Tanaric 02:22, 9 April 2007 (CDT)