User talk:NightAngel/Archive 1

Ban Request Discussion
As an admin, I've glanced over this. I'm at work now, so will leave the final decision to another admin who has time to dig further into the history and review the full conversation/debate that took place. The ban request does ask for opinions on the user's talk page, so here are mine. My initial reaction was to simply delete the ban request as unwarranted - the personal attacks were not large. However, the continual condescending attitude during the discussion/debate, the egging-on of another user (ie: Skuld), and the gloating over having done so on another users talk page are all immature and marginally disruptive. Does this disruption warrant a ban? To me, not at this stage - although a warning to NightAngel does seem warranted. But as I said, I'll leave the final call to another admin who has time to dig further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:43, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Oh, I've learned my lesson. Arguing with people who can't or won't argue is just asking for trouble. What really makes me angry is not whether you promote the build to best build ever or delete it. I'm using it and will continue to do so whatever happens in this Wiki. What makes me angry is that Skuld (or Auron, are they the same person?) is quick to dismiss and despise skills, builds, users, etc, even to the point of "Unfavouring" a build that was previously favored because he didn't like it!. I believe this to be a narrow-minded attitude and it makes me incredibly angry. It's a flaw, I'll admit. There are a LOT of ppl out there who "just can't be bothered" with anything new, different or odd. Getting angry at all of them is an exercise in futility that will probably leave me fisting walls. Maybe it's masochism. At any rate, I apologize for PERSONAL offenses, but not for the debate. Debates are healthy. Saying "BS, scrap this" (or similar words) is not healthy. It's not constructive criticism. Do users of this wiki have to be constructive? Hell no. But wouldn't it be nice? That's all. Thank you and sry for offenses - the arguments should pertain only to the build, skills or facts in general. Your capacity to argue or think should be something each user should be able to discern by him or herself. Not my place to judge it, all I can really hope is that it becomes as clear to others as it is to me. If it isn't, then maybe I'm the one who is wrong. As for me, the build section is a resource for great ideas. Some more polished than others. Killing ideas seems like an awful job, but maybe somebody has to do it...NightAngel 14:05, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Although you are accusing Skuld and Auron of sockpuppetry, I'll just ignore iy. It's great that you are willing to discuss, even if it's i na slightly negative manner. Remember that Skuld and the others are using hours and hours each day in the wiki, trying to make it even better all the time. Sometimes mistakes are made and sometimes they are not in the mood to targue with someone for some reason. Still, one or two mistakes are really small compared to what they have done to help the wiki. Making a huge war of a small mistake (I don't know if Skuld or Auron made any mistakes, I didn't really read all of the ocnversations) doesn't serve them right and I can understand why Skuld wnated to stop the discussion shortly. I'm also willing to stop discussion when I get angry, and it's possible better to do so than to get angry and start a meaningless argument. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Edit conflict:


 * I appreciate that you acknowledge that you were wrong to personally insult Skuld.


 * Skuld and Auron are not the same people. I know from experience that Skuld and Auron are not narrow-minded. They do not despise skills/builds/users.


 * While I'm glad you are willing to apologise for your personal attacks I am disappointed that you would use this opportunity to insult Skuld and Auron, and it makes me question the sincerity of your apology.


 * Skuld and Auron had no requirement to justify their votes. Skuld justified his vote to the extent that he did out of courtesy; he could have left his vote at unfavoured and not bothered any further.


 * I don't think this situation requires a ban, but I hope that your behaviour on the wiki in future is more polite.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:15, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Post edit conflict:


 * I don't think that was a serious accusation of sock-puppetry, Gem :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:15, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Maybe they aren't narrow-minded, but that's my opinion. I'm not using an opportunity for insults... Hm. I don't know. If someone has a low IQ on a test, and you say "that person has a low IQ", is that an insult? No, it's a fact. But in this case it just boils down to opinions. I can't PROVE anyone is narrow-minded, can I? Maybe I can say an argument is baseless. Point out flaws on what they do or say, instead of on the person itself? Or maybe I'm not allowed to criticize at all - not being sarcastic, I'm really wondering. NightAngel 15:22, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * It's irrelevant if the stuff you say is fact or opinnion. There are some etiquettes in the internet as there are in real world social relations. You can't say everything you want if you want to keep good realtions. I suggest keeping some opinnions to yourself or saying them in a less negative way. It helps others to take you less negatively. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * I think this has gone way off-topic, to the point that I'm not even bothered by the "shut up" suggestion. SKuld was careful to insult the build and not the builder "bs", "useless", etc. I'll be careful as well. And in the big picture, does anybody really care if a build is good or not? People will still throw out a rit because monks are better, and kick out elementalists who don't have mesmer as second class. Move on and create another group, instead of getting pissed at the guy who kicked you. So, moving on...Oh yeah, and heroes are horrible for farming, farming with heroes is a waste of time because they "steal" all your drops. 'Cause, yeah, sure, random party members will donate greens they get to you just because of your charming personality :) -rolls eyes-. So yeah, convincing ppl to try something they don't know? Lost cause. Totally lost. Just say it's crap and move on :)


 * I'm really sorry if you thought that I just said 'shut up'. That wasn't what I ment. I just tried to say that no one should always say what they think as it might cause negative reactions. Sometimes it is wise to not say everything that you come up with. But you are right, it's time to move on and forget about this. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2006 (CST)
 * On the bright side, have you seen the amount of votes the build has been getting? Goes to show if you build something nice and people GET TO SEE IT (for instance, by having been favored before the .ahmm. "slightly pessimistic people" arrived), it fosters constructive debate and positive reinforcement. On the other hand, if you bury it quick because you don't like it... well. No huge tragedy, this is not a cure for cancer, but it would still be a loss. Right? And I issue a small challenge to the Skuld-defendors. Find me one instance of positive reinforcement. One time he said "hey, cool idea", or "nice thinking, I'll try that out". None? Almost none compared to all the negative ones? Well, that's my point. Is it offensive? Don't think so. Is it completely unrealistic? Probably. People can be pessimistic, it's not against the law or something :)

Hello Gem, Barek, etc. I don't know NightAngel, and agree that negative attitudes and/or personal insults should be discouraged, but I'd like to come to his defense in a way. Its pretty obvious to me that Skuld does actually have a negative attitude, and I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way. I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly, the whole issue with not a fifty five had partially to do with Skuld's 'hit and run' unfavoured votes, usually accompanied by negative, unconstructive comments. I thought part of the outcome of the not a fifty five issue and all the build debates was that the voters should make more of an effort to follow the guideline of providing constructive criticism to avoid these types of conflict. But here is a recent example of the type of vote that Skuld often leaves Build:W/E Rodgort's Knight, saying only "Sucks". He often seems close-minded about new build ideas, and any feedback offered is usually insulting, condescending, or unhelpful. I know you will say that Skuld is a frequent contributor, but thats all the more reason to make sure he leads with a good example, since his name is seen often around here. Its not surprising that confrontations occur with newer users when they experience hostile attitudes from a veteran user. Furthermore, on the topic of personal insults, I don't think anyone pointed out that Auron managed to insult an entire group of guildwiki users by calling R/D Scythe users "retards" in his vote here Build talk:A/D Disciple of Death. Are there certain types of insults that are acceptable and certain types that are not? -- BrianG 23:10, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * In response, not that it particularly matters (seeing as a Build section is a waste of everyone's time anyway) Most of the builds on this wiki suck, and one would be wasting his time (and faction) testing each crappy build. Skuld and I share a similar view on the "Tested Build" section; it represents the wiki. Anything that makes it there is the best we have; so if something is not the best, it will draw Unfavored votes from me (and possibly Skuld). More people should be thankful he puts up with a beaurocratic process for half of these junk builds; I'd just delete them and go on my way (another reason I shouldn't be an admin). If you think Skuld has a condescending attitude, go to GWGuru and post these builds; you'll be singing a different tune quickly (most likely complaining about the abuse you received over at their forums). So before you accuse anyone of narrow-mindedness, look in the mirror; I wouldn't call anyone that leaves 90% of these builds undeleted narrow-minded. Hit-and-run unfavored votes save time; the untested build list would *never* thin out if Skuld wasted time and faction testing each one before voting unfavored. P.S. Yes, I did call all the scythe-using Rangers retards. Guess what? Skuld uses 'em. That was mostly the reason I said that :) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 02:18, 6 December 2006 (CST)


 * As stated earlier, the current policy does not ask to test the builds or to give any reason for your vote. The builds section is getting big and there are a lot of people like Skuld who go through them and cast votes. The reson why Skuld is attacked sometimes is the fact that he is an admin. Attacking a random contributor for a negative vote on your build wont help, but if you attack an admin, you might hit a weak spot and suddenly the whole wiki wants to show you how they think you were mistreated and favour your build. The fact that Skuld hasn't gotten many of these complaints shows that he isn't doing a lot of wrongness. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2006 (CST)


 * Gem, if you follow the whole "You don't have to test a build and don't need to explain your vote", what's to stopping one or more users from systematically voting favored for every single build? Then voting becomes actually more like the real world - where people vote because the candidate has nice hair or uses a catchy phrase instead of his economic policies. Is that a good or bad thing? Heck, I don't know. It's the whole "Democracy is the worse kind of government, except for all the rest". I don't have the time now to vote favored for every single build, but it would be a solution right? If I believe that Skuld is not being fair, I can just cast a vote on the other direction and it evens out. If Auron casts another bad vote. Someone else can just chime in. And on it goes. Is that a problem? Just wondering. I don't have time to do that now :)


 * What... would be the point of voting favored for all those suck builds? All that imaginary user would be doing is hurting the wiki, pushing crap closer to the Tested section. Basically, that user would be reacting in a very childish manner, using a knee-jerk reaction to get at perceived enemies by voting against them, while being quite destructive to the environment and people around them. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 05:45, 6 December 2006 (CST)


 * So what you're saying is that a negative vote can be cast for any reason, without testing and without explaining, but a favorable vote needs to be carefully weighted and considered, Auron? :) Why, the administrators have clearly stated that the vote can be made for any reason. So, maybe the fact that the builds deserve a closer look, or maybe just to be nice to the builder, if it has any merit at all, is enough of a good reason. Or maybe Auron prefers the rules to apply only to others? Edit: by the way, of course voting for every single build is childish. But maybe for every build that has a negative vote AND that deserves at least some merit.... I mean, I saw your comment on the build with 3 signets of capture and 5 optional skills. THAT's childish - obviously there is some criteria to defending a build, doing broad generalizations like that....Second Edit: see, the A/N boon/prot build is a good example. Skuld chimed in, so can I. Is it a knee-jerk reaction? Nope. I actually read the build. Did I actually test it? Nope. Is the build horrendous? Heck, it was favored, and being favored means it's awesome right? By the way, I have a build that was mostly edited by me on favored builds - if that's the criteria for success, I'm feeling pretty good about myself :) NightAngel 06:06, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * Actually, my comment was about the W/Mo build. Speaking of not understanding what I say, you continue on to fallicize (fun word :) and ignore the point of my post (on this page). If someone is voting favored *simply to get back at Skuld or me or anyone because we voted unfavored*, that user is causing harm. You misinterpreted my post and thought I meant that all unfavored votes are okay, and every favored vote should be scrutinized, which couldn't be farther from what I actually said. If you vote favored because it's a good build, good for you; you're doing your job as a build tester. If you're voting favored because Skuld voted unfavored, you're a douche and should quit GWiki period. My bluntness is required here, because my sarcasm and satirical posts are being taken too seriously. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 06:38, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * I dont know how to report all this offensive behavior, but I'm pretty sure calling people retard, douches and such is against the rules. Or maybe you're being satirical? Hard to tell on the Internet. :) At any rate - This is going nowhere. I'm not about to start a similar argument with you that I had with Skuld and led to this whole mess in the first place. I will do whatever I want within the boundaries of Guild Wiki Rules and common sense, and you will do the same. Or not. Ps: "fallicize" is not a word. And by the way, how do you plan on discerning the reason for a vote? Telepathy? :)

Listen guys, I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote unfavored if you think a build is no good. I'm just saying skuld has a way of doing it that is often insulting. And this is not guildwarsguru or any other site so I don't care how things are done there, its no reason to justify behaviour here. Maybe it hasn't caused many problems but it has caused some problems and its blatantly obvious if you follow his comments on build pages. I'm just saying that if skuld put more effort into being less hostile maybe less of these confrontations will occur. I really just don't understand why that type of attitude is acceptable from an admin but when new people (who may not know better) respond to it in an equally hostile manner they are criticized. -- BrianG 08:47, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * P.S. In response to Gem's claim that "The reson why Skuld is attacked sometimes is the fact that he is an admin", do you really believe that? For the record, I had no idea he was an admin, all I knew was that he is a frequent contributor with a negative attitude.  I think the reason these conflicts occur has much more to do with his attitude than it does with the fact that he is an admin, seeing as how I don't even think most new users of the wiki know who is an admin and who isn't.  I know I don't, is there a list somewhere?  Anyway, since he is an admin, thats all the more reason for him to conduct himself more professionally.  If this was my site I would want admins to communicate with a bit more class and set a good example for new users. -- BrianG 10:31, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * GW:ADMIN --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:33, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * Thanks Barek! -- BrianG 11:01, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Appreciate the support Brian, but I went about the wrong way. And really, maybe the best solution is to just chime in with positive reinforcement and constructive criticism on builds and other areas, and just make others look bad for not doing so. Freedom of opinion works both ways... NightAngel 10:41, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * No problem. You're right though, the best way to counter negative attitudes is by responding with a positive attitude and not getting sucked into the negativity.  I try to do the same when providing feedback. -- BrianG 11:01, 6 December 2006 (CST)

My responses to the above discussors: Changing the voting policy is possible, but that should be done on the voting policy page, not here. I wasn't taking part in the forming of the policy so don't blame me for anything. And yes, I sincerely believe that admins get attacked more than regular users for the same mistakes. I can't know which attacks are made with the knowledge that someone is admin and which aren't. However, when a non-admin or non-regular is attacked, no one really cares and there isn't a whole war going on. Maby Skuld is too negative and agressive maby not. If you think that he is, please start discussion on his talk page, maby post links to a lot of his contributions which prove your point and ask people to discuss. And thanks for reacting to this reasonably NightAngel, I appreciate your current way of talking. -- (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * Gem, I'm not sure if its worth my time to go hunting for examples (although I'm certain I could find them), but I will make note of it if I come across more examples in the future. I don't want to start a big dispute, I just wanted to make sure that both sides of this conflict were considered.  It looks like everyone has done a fair job resolving this, thanks! -- BrianG 11:01, 6 December 2006 (CST)


 * This is one of the saddest displays I have seen. As most have noticed, I removed the ban notice yesterday because I reviewed the discussion on the build talk and I have seen much worse conduct from admins themselves. I questioned why Skuld added the ban and came to my own conclusion, but since it was speculative, it's not worth posting. I will try to be careful with my words, but if feel you are offended, I apologize in advance.
 * The builds section on wiki is a joke and most know it. Even Skuld has a babel box stating it is an embarassment. Why don't I contribute to try and make it better you ask? Because I do not want to hinder it or help it. This arguement grew past the builds section, which is why I entered the picture.
 * I also have to ask why users even post builds on GuildWiki when they know their build will most likely be torn apart by the regular build "testers". I place testers in quotations, because, according to policy, they don't actually have to test the build. You know I had a guild leader about a month ago ask me if I knew one of his guildmates. I had no clue who that player was. Curious, I asked why and the GL said he tried to pawn one of my old mesmer builds posted on GWG well over 6 months ago as his own. If that wasn't flattering, the GL and the posts when that build was first created were all compliments and some variations were even stated positively. To be frank, most GuildWiki "testers" lack tact. You can say it's because of all the builds posted on wiki that they have to respond to. As far as I know, they do not have someone making them respond to every build. If you can't stay positive and tactful when "testing" builds and commenting on them, if you wish to do that, then take a step back and go do something else. If all you do is get irritated at every build that comes along, falling prey to arguements, etc, then either you're going to eventually find yourself in trouble of administrative action or go nuts :P (I suspect some already are. lol)
 * In regards to Skuld, not any other, since he is an admin and for that should be an example of how someone on this wiki should act for other users and know that his actions are looked at more than the average contributor. I had to get on him recently regarding an uncalled for comment on a talk page to a user that had no reason to deserve such a response. He apologized and showed he can admit when he is wrong. I try not to interfere with the builds section as I have stated above, so as for Skuld's conduct on there, I rarely pay attention, but from what I've seen for this build's discussion, his words could have been thought about more before he hit the save button and that goes for everyone involved in that discussion. It's not like it is a slip of the tongue. All have ample time to write what you want, read it, change the words if need be, and then save it. It's not hard. Skuld, above others, should remember that. He is not a target because of his adminship, but the words he uses. The only thing in all this that revolves around him being an admin is that he should try to act in according to how an admin should act, with as much maturity, tactfullness, and rational behavior as one can manage in any situation. &mdash; Gares 12:02, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * Gares thanks for responding, I'm glad you see what I was trying to say. I agree with everything you said except for your opinion on the builds section.  Its not perfect and I definitely sympathize with the difficulties encountered in managing such a thing, but I definitely get a lot of use out of it, and so do many others so please don't think of it as an embarassment.  I do agree with what you said about wondering why people submit if its just going to get insulted (I haven't submitted anything yet and am a bit reluctant), but I think people may just be looking for more constructive feedback.  I'm sure we could discuss this in more detail but I don't want to open a new can of worms on NightAngel's talk page.  If you want to you can leave a comment on my talk page about it.  :) -- BrianG 14:32, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Could you...
...make a userpage? You're contributing a fair amount and that red link is starting to irritate me. S'il vous plait, thanks in advance. Entropy 20:13, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I'm lazy so I'll have to leech a bunch of templates and stuff from other ppl :( NightAngel 20:39, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * Don't do it, it's a trick! Or get suckered into the userbox fad! --Xasxas256 20:41, 30 December 2006 (CST)

First I'll put my characters up, as soon as I find someone with a nice page for me to copy. :) NightAngel 20:44, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * I made you a placeholder. :) Entropy 20:46, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * So it starts! What you're after is a

after your userbox ;) --Xasxas256 20:56, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * Arg! Xas, I was gonna catch you on the Unsigned and the Nowiki. But you're too fast for me! ...and, EC, I was gonna say that. :) Entropy 20:57, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Wow. In less than an hour you make a userpage and it looks better than mine. No fair ;( Entropy 21:12, 30 December 2006 (CST)

There we go. It needs some slight improvement, but those are probably my 4 favorite characters atm. I'll put up the other 4 at some later time. and organize those boxes a little. NightAngel 21:54, 30 December 2006 (CST)

A clone!
User:NecroAngel, I need to look twice, very similar names :P &mdash; Skuld 14:02, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Easy
In the section Build talk:N/D Pious Minion Master, you seemed to get very emotional. If there is something you do not like about the build voting process, there are ample places to express your opinion on it's flaws. However, if you just want to lash out at other users because they have the right to vote the way they want to, be it good or bad, then administrative action will be taken. Thanks &mdash; Gares 19:00, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Renewing Mesmer
I love your comments, really help our build page. -- S i  g  m  A   15:16, 8 February 2007 (CST)


 * Good to know :) I'd love to be able to offer a lot of "congratulations, excellent idea". Unfortunately, that would need more excellent ideas. ~I'm sure you can see the logic in that. :) NightAngel 15:39, 8 February 2007 (CST)

Build talk:R/Rt Splinter Weapon Barrager
I've added a merge section to the rate-a-build. and wondered if you would like to move your vote there as you do not appear to disapprove of the actual build itself. --JP 17:10, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Please...
Can you please stop putting irrelevant discussion into your review of a build? It's kind of distracting when people are trying to determine if they want to try something new. I don't really like user:TheDrifter either, but dropping in your opinions about other topics into your votes is pretty annoying. Doom Music 15:45, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Build talk:N/Mo Order of Undeath MM
It is no suprise that you and TheDrifter are at odds with each other. That's fine, just keep it off the wiki. I ask you to discontinue your efforts to goad him at every chance you get and keep your comments constructive and on the discussion at hand. I have asked you once to keep your comments constructive here. Please heed my advice for the future. As this is your second offense of a breach of GW:NPA, a ban will be placed. &mdash; Gares 10:36, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Build Talk:Me/any Echoes of the Lightbringer
Regarding your comments on the possibility of a Me/Rt Channeler with Mantra of Recovery for DoA, I've put forth some ideas about that on a few places, including Build Talk:Me/Rt Hasty AoE, which needs some HEAVY cleanup (trying to strike a balance between energy management and raw damage output, which doesn't show well on that page) but I think our minds are pretty much in concert. If you'd like to actually give that a try sometime, I'd be MORE than happy to join you. I'd like few things better than to get my mesmer through DoA, and the more I look, the more it seems like Me/Rt may be the way to go. Let me know what you think on my talk page, or message me ingame if you prefer (my IGNs are on my user page). Zaq 17:37, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Mallyx
Slacker..... ;) - Skakid9090 20:48, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Editorializing
I will do it here. :) I personnaly don't think they should put chests behind monsters that trigger-spawn. Honestly, I never liked chests... I liked it when drops were better. I'm not sure what the thinking quite was on that, but I think it was farming related. So whoop-de-doo, my gold drops are limited to chests in a zone. But now I have to do quests to get them? It's not a huge deal, but sometimes I don't want to do the quests, I'm just out squishing red dots. I don't have any great care about chest running, one way or another. But I don't care for policies which punish one particular play style verses another. I guess the counter argument is "this isn't punishing for not doing quests, this is rewarding for doing quests", but I feel that if they want to chest-reward, especially in UW/FoW, they should use the keyless chest model that they have already implemented.

Summary- not a big deal. Kind of interesting, kind of unfortunate. But it should be documented. -- Oblio (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Well, there are still chests if you're wandering about, but if you actually do the quests in these elite areas you get more chests. Also, the cost of the key is a gamble - will you get a cool item or waste your money? It's a game inside the game. I exclusively do quests and missions, and open any chests I see along the way, so nothing's changed for me. I'm not even completely sure it IS a change, but if it is, it should be announced, not hidden, yes. as for drops, they should be rare. If everyone has everything, who gives a crap when a req 9 strenght gloom shield drops for you? There should be plenty of cool, rare, unique and extremely costly items, yes. It adds flavor. It adds objectives, goals you strive for. It's part of the game. NightAngel 12:29, 8 March 2007 (CST)


 * This is a new change, and I strongly suspect linked to the Feb14'th change regarding DoA. As a change, I don't like it. Your R9-Gloom was already really rare before. In my 2000+ hours, I've seen exactly 1 drop (not for me). Presumably it will be rarer now, but I don't even care about the rarity of items. You are right, you are buying lotto tickets- I do it because I have gold to burn. But this change says to me "you play too much. Stop.". It's bad policy for a game to tell me to stop playing it (even a mini-game). You are also right that this represents new incentives to do quests. I wish you the best with The Four Horsemen or To the Rescue!. FoW is easy enough that quests don't matter, but other areas are nappy.


 * Anyway, it's like I said, there are already rewards for doing quests. If they wanted to up them, they should just up them. If they want chests, just throw in more unlocked chests. If they want to discourage chest running, they should just remove chests from various area's, or push the chests from untriggered mobs to triggered mobs. I just don't like this "slieght of hand" change which effects people who weren't meant to be effected. (IMO, clearing FoW of red dots should leave all chests available regardless of quests) -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Rt/any Quick Channeler
You voted unfavored until Spirit Rift was added to the main skill bar, so I thought I would tell you that it has been. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Build:Team - 6 Man Deep Team
Regarding your suspected sockpuppet vote, please see User talk:Fyren. &mdash; Gares 11:28, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Ok, well, I don't actually see anything much wrong, theoretically, with the build, but I was worried it would be quickly favored for all the wrong reasons. NightAngel 11:35, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Misc
Didn't know where to put this on your talk page. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the tip re: Unfavored&rarr;Untested. I hadn't been able to find any documentation on it in GuildWiki's pages, so I was at a loss as to what to do, and took a guess. I was wrong, but thanks for letting me know what to do in the future. :) - Threll 18:16, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Build:E/Mo Protection Prodigy
Probably something like:

would be a doable MoM hybrid for PvE. That would give nice party support throught everything.--Nog64Talk 17:06, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

How is that better and simpler than gaining 2 energy per second regardless of what you do? Not to mention you're splitting attributes three ways, which makes you far less effective. NightAngel 17:10, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

I implemented this idea in Build: E/Mo Prot Warder if you wanna check :D.--Nog64Talk 20:33, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

No personal attacks
Comments like most of the ones you've recently left on Skuld's talk page are unnecessary and unhelpful for the wiki. Consider this your administrative warning. &mdash;Tanaric 23:24, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I was just randomly browsing user pages, and this comment really got my goat. Both sides were getting a little edgy, and this random user who had nothing to do with the argument comes and tells you off. Why? Because Skuld's more popular. I thought one of the principles of the wiki was that there was no seniority and everybody was equal. You wouldn't know it sometimes. I know this is old, and all, sorry to comment. I'm just gonna leave now. Yeeeah. Spen 22:52, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Tanaric is not a random user, he's an administrator, and yes, Skuld is vastly more popular :) And I'm not sure what the reason was, but yeah, I didn't think it was deserved. It's old though. NightAngel 01:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Heh, the most I did was say that "he didn't seem to give a crap about how bad some...". And that's enough for a warning!? . Sure thing. In fact, that discussion is very old, it stopped quite a few days ago, and it was a bit intense, because I do care about the whole build-bullying, but it's quite over and done with. And the "vote blindingly to balance things out" was not directed to skuld. In fact I do think he weights before he votes, he just uses the wrong assumptions :) What else is there to violate NPA? And I don't like skuld, he doesn't like me, that was never a secret, but I don't think I've really offended him or anyth lately. Ah well, go figure. Not to mention, if your criteria for NPA is that wide, his comment is a violation too: "Dude, will you stop dragging PvP vs PvE into it, because it is not relevent. You duck behind anything, every comment of yours is laced with "the world is out to get me", it is tiresome. ". Not that it's important, which is my point, the argument is not that serious...I don't think he cares that much about it and neither do I. NightAngel 23:37, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't know you, I can't dislike nor like you. Drop me a line some time ingame and we can do something. &mdash; Skuld 12:55, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Your point seems to be that if you don't NEED to do something, then you shouldn't. And that bothered me before, and it still does. Of course no one NEEDS to use any other class than a monk to protect or heal, and yet, some people still ENJOY doing it. With rits, paragons (before the nerf, of course), or yes, elementalists, why not? So you don't NEED to use a sword with anything else than a warrior, or a scythe with anything other than a dervish. In fact, why use a dervish at all when there are warriors? Forget sins, dervishes, etc. Anyway, that's taking the pt too far, but it's just for illustration. NightAngel 13:54, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

Yeah, obviously chief is a pretty offensive comment. And don't worry, you were very clever disguising your insults, no one will ever catch you, the brilliant mastermind. So brilliant you didn't realize I never asked for your opinion, and yet, here you are. Sigh. Each day I'm more convinced a nuclear war wouldn't be such a bad thing. Start over from scratch. NightAngel 01:18, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, get over yourself already. You're whining in half the talk pages of the wiki about how this place sucks and the GWW sucks. If you hate that much how things work here, then why are you here? It's one thing to look at things with a critic eye, but it's a completely different thing to be in a constant whining mode. Many other contributors hate that the build section is getting wiped, yet you don't see them QQing about it in every comment they make; you'll see them contributing the same as always, or even more, as they try to get the next Builds section to be a more successful one.
 * Bottom line is, this kind of behaviour is highly disruptive. I strongly recommend you to get ahold of yourself, as this is getting ridiculous. --Dirigible 09:57, 30 March 2007 (CDT)


 * GWW does suck, and I have already "left" it, this place doesn't, just a few very specific users. Guild Wiki is obviously a pretty nice achievement, or I wouldnt be here, nor would I care. And I doubt there will be a next Builds section. NightAngel 10:36, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Build:N/D Mystic Blood Bonder
Hey NightAngel, I remember we had discussed how Signet of Pious Light and Vital Boon were less than ideal skills in my build. I just figured I would let you know that after some further playtesting I've found much better replacements for each. Take a look if you have a chance. It can also be found on my userpage as well in preparation for the wipe. -- BrianG 15:24, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it got much better. There are so many ways you can take a good BiP build. Lately I've become a fan of 1 hp bipping because I do a lot of Domain of Anguish. Aggro is very organized there (if you get a good grp, of course), allowing you to skimp on self heal. The problem is that most grps would rather have the BiP take ranger spirits, thus tying your secondary class options. NightAngel 16:12, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

2nd time
You have been banned once before for your actions regarding this. Your continued non-compliance with policy is a disruption to this wiki and to those that wish to create something better. Secondly, I have no quarrel with your recent bashing of my grammar and your assumption of my playstyle or my builds, however the defaming my character found in User talk:NightAngel and Requests_for_adminship/Auron_of_Neon_%282%29 is not tolerated by any means. I turned my cheek for this long because it was me and not another user. However, I cannot rightly let this continue. If you wish to discuss this decision during your cooldown, my contact information can be found here and my IGNs can be found on my userpage or you may contact another admin to review the situation. When you return, please be more constructive and refrain from commenting on an individual or individuals and more on the subject under which you are posting. &mdash; Gares 18:29, 30 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Since somebody's bound to ask me: though I generally prefer a sysop involved with a user to get another sysop involved in banning said user, this is not a hard and fast requirement, and I support Gares's actions 100%. &mdash;Tanaric 20:13, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I know I wasn't involved in this argument, but reading this talk page makes it very hard for me to be silent. Gares resorted to just as many personal attacks as NightAngel did, and allowing him to make a uniliateral ban on a person he disagreed with is questionable at best.  --Zorbonkingofpants 18:38, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Gares was wary about placing the ban. He didn't feel safe banning NightAngel after one or two of the things he said, but after I linked him to the other pages (the rfa, in particular), he changed his mind. Like he said, he didn't ban NightAngel for direct attacks; he banned him for continued poor attitude and defamation of character on separate pages. He definitely didn't do it as a reaction (look at the time of conversation, then look when the ban was placed). He gave it lots of thought before he laid down the hammer. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 07:33, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * As you can tell from Dirigible's response, Tanaric's review of the situation, and Auron's ever-watchful eye, many respected and veteran users have already seen this and have commented. If anyone believes any of my comments could be considered as personal attacks, please provide proof. If proof is presented and it is found beyond a reasonable doubt, contact another admin and ask them to review it. If a judgement is passed, I will not be upset, afraid, nor hold any ill will towards that admin. &mdash; Gares 09:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT)