User talk:Gares Redstorm

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive 5

Real World Guild Wars Class
Taking the quiz brought to my attention by Phoenix on Fun page created by Gem.

My results for the Prophecies quiz:

Mesmer 75% Warrior	75% Necromancer 50% Elementalist 40% Ranger 35% Monk 20%

Even had a tiebreaker question between Mesmer and Warrior, it was that close. --Gares Redstorm 09:52, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

My results for the Factions edition quiz:

Warrior	94% Assassin 81% Mesmer 75% Ritualist 69% Elementalist 63% Ranger 63% Monk 44% Necromancer 44%

No tiebreaker here, but I guess even with my charm ;), I still have a fighter mentality. -Gares Redstorm 12:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Elitemaster
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build_talk:A/any_Deadly_Dancing_Leaf#Discussion


 * Your defenitly new to this wiki, there used to be a time when we al lived in peace, didn't had these crappy builds and we just explained why builds were weak/bad/good. But then we had about 400 untested builds, and everyone started voting with no reason just because the builds were crap, just as this one. Do you get the point now why your builds are unfavoured? Just accept it or don't post builds. Or read the lines under save page:
 * Well for the above comment yes i m new to this community, but is this what i get treatment for posting the build just cause they dont like it and others are favoring it.
 * I really want you to tell me seriously Gares, do you want me to leave this community or am I an Idiot investing my time on posting the builds??
 * I just need a straight to the point answer i will accept whatever it is. Just "Yes" or "No". Post your view at my user talk page. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elitemaster (contribs).


 * Sigma has been warned before and his actions on that build talk page and the other one listed prompted me to ban him for a short duration.


 * As to whether I want users to leave or stay, I can't decide that for any user, but myself. That's a decision that you, and you only, have to decide. I will offer some advice though. If you choose to stay, review our policies, try not to let anything get to you, be a positive influence on the community, and most importantly have fun. &mdash; Gares 13:06, 1 March 2007 (CST)

Sigma
This decidedly unhappy individual is spreading joy in the build section through his intelligent, carefully thought and sensible votes. Cough. But that's to be expected and not much can be done about it, I guess. But... as if that weren't enough, he's also insulting other people who disagree with him: "Some idiots unfavored it.. IT REALLY WORKS!!" on his user page. I'm sure I can find other examples, but this one sounded pretty straightforward. Check the recent history - Curiously enough, he just deleted a gigantic section of his page which included this comment. Ah yes, definitely the behavior of a guiltless person with a clear conscience :)) NightAngel 14:16, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * grown up* -- SigmA 14:19, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Don't insult people, wich you think that are insulting, especially people with more experience. I know what I am doing (okay I am not, but whatever) -- SigmA 14:21, 20 February 2007 (CST)

You were the one who insulted, first the voters on your build, then me. I called you unhappy, I don't really think that's quite on the same level, but if you do, I'm sorry, i'm sure you're actually a happy and cheerful individual. :) You were the one who insulted, first the voters on your build, then me. I called you unhappy, I don't really think that's quite on the same level, but if you do, I'm sorry, i'm sure you're actually a happy and cheerful individual. :) At any rate, I've already learned the lesson of "make one remark and leave it at that, don't pursue endless arguments, etc", so I won't answer your "grow up" and "I'm more experienced than you" comments, even though I'm itching to point out some things. Control yourself! Happy Bunnies! Happy Bunnies! There, I'm better now :) Sigma, you fluffy bunny, talk to Gares, not to me ok? NightAngel 14:24, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Someone is even looking at my userpage ?:| wow, you must be the first one. -- SigmA 14:26, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * Anytime I vote against someone, I tend to check out their userpage...and whenever I see those big, bold numbers in Recent Changes -1004 then that makes me curious. But on to the topic. NightAngel, I can share some of your concerns, because I also disagree with some votes Sigm@ has made. However, remember the vetting policy - you dun have to have any reason to vote, and you can't say that Sigm@ leaves behind incoherent or patently false reasons (unlike some do...) As to Sigm@, I think that it is a bit unfair for NightAngel to single you out, because you are not an especially bad voter nor a really notorious one; also considering the fact this is brought up on Gares' page and not Sigm@'s where it belongs. A user's right to vote can't be bound and so logically there is no reason for others to criticize what are probably good faith votes. But I would ask you to please consider builds a bit more thoroughly before voting, because sometimes it does seem you jump to conclusions before actually thinking of a build. Anyway that's my two cents. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:34, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Quick note: I was afraid of this. "not much can be done about it, I guess". I acknowledge his right to vote anyway he pleases according to current rules. The "idiots", "grow up" comments are the real issue here. Just wanted to make that clear! This is not a discussion on the vetting procedure. NightAngel 14:40, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Grow up? -- SigmA 14:41, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * Uhm. Sigm@ said "grown up", not Grow Up. That is in reference to him cleaning out the offending part of the userpage (I assume). As to the "Idiots" note, I don't think you can criticize someone for what they put on their userpage...there are far worse ones out there, and even in the Builds section itself, lots of ugly mudslinging often goes unpunished. Above this thread you linked to Build talk:Rt/any Wielders Weapon. Now, that is what I would call a problem - a user clearly insulting another, insults thrown back and forth, profanity, dicksize arguments, etc etc. I don't see Sigm@ doing any of that. He doesn't even single out any particular users. And I would even tend to agree with him, to some extent - some of the votes on the Decapitate build were "idiotic" (mine not included ofcourse :P), at least from a standpoint of someone who supported the build. It's not a whole lot of an offense if you ask me. Heck, I have gotten away with worse and noone complains... -.- I'd say it's a nonissue but I guess it's up to Gares to decide. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:48, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Oh, I got banned after a warning given for saying "Jeezes, are you all friggin' insane?" (which, btw, doesn't mean I think they are literally crazy, it's just an expression of amazement, I believe. Not a native speaker of English but I do try to keep up with popular expressions and idioms for my work). So yeah, "Idiots" should qualify too. And yes, I'm a bitter person. The bunnies can bite me. (that should be painful) NightAngel 14:52, 20 February 2007 (CST)

WTB Humor. -- SigmA 14:55, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Response to Gares: Winterborn complained that the argument was disrupting his build, so I was obliging him. And yes, of course I think arguing with TheDrifter was wrong. And that doesn't mean I think the ban was warranted, no. After all, people make mistakes like calling people retards and idiots, and nothing happens to them, so it can't be always worth a ban can it? Or even a warning? I think that stealing is wrong, but I don't suggest cutting people's head off for it (or for anything else, for that matter). So what is it? Is it ok to insult on your user page? Is it ok to insult just once? Is it ok to insult if you're a certain age? Is it ok to insult if it's someone you know, and not ok if it's a stranger? You might just lose your patience (if you still have any :) ) and say that it's ok to insult whenever you say it is, and that's it, and maybe that is your right (surprisingly, that's not irony or sarcasm, I really wonder if you can do that. Maybe you can, in which case I'll probably be perma-banned anytime soon now :) Goodbye cruel world? NightAngel 18:19, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * First off, NightAngel received a 1 day ban for trading insults with TheDrifter. He did not disregard TheDrifter's comments, but decided to attack in response, both disrupting a user's build talk page in which the user had no recourse but to inform someone. This incident not only continued on the build talk page, but on a user's talk page as well.


 * I am not sure if he and SigmA have crossed paths in the past, but seeing as how he seems to want some action against SigmA and does not seem to want to wait for a response suggests that he does have something against SigmA. The correct action in this situation would have been to go to SigmA's talk page and ask him to remove the text. If he refused or acted inappriorately, then I would see a reason to contact an admin. There is an inital options section in GW:NPA, to give users a basis on which to follow and also states to not let yourself become confrontational or hostile.


 * After NightAngel's initial response on this talk page, SigmA removed the potentially offensive material and stated that he had grown up. NightAngel's recourse was that SigmA had insulted him somehow. NightAngel also insinuated that SigmA's deletion of said offensive material was an admission of guilt, when NightAngel did the same thing with the material for which he believes he was wrongly banned for.


 * Reviewing the text found in this thread and on Entropy's talk page has lead me to believe that NightAngel is using SigmA has a martyr for something he feels very emotional about and accusing other users of personal attacks is not something that should be taken lightly, especially when the accused did not defend his content and instead removed it. Even after the removal and accusation that removing the content was an admission of guilt, SigmA did not respond in kind.


 * In summary, SigmA seemed to not see the potentially offensive material as offensive and once he was aware that someone(NightAngel) did find it offensive, he promptly removed it. SigmA was in fault and corrected it after he was made aware of it. I don't believe administrative action is called for in this instance. If anyone feels differently on this decision, please contact LordBiro or another admin to review this discussion. &mdash; Gares 19:37, 20 February 2007 (CST)

So... lemme get this straight. When someone makes a complaint about me on something, I can just remove it quickly if I'm online, and then nothing bad will happen to me, as long as I myself don't think it was offensive? Ok. Got it. And if that person has some reason for disliking me, than it doesn't even count for much. Understood, thank you. Oh right, and I should also receive a request from that person who is complaining, to give me the option of correcting my actions. He shouldn't go straight to an administrator before even saying a word to me. No problem. Ps: obviously, I misunderstood his comment on grown up. I got the message loud and clear on how much more experienced he is, and on how my sense of humor pales in comparison though. Yeah, because this is all obviously extremely funny right? Sigh. NightAngel 21:01, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * Your sarcastic tones have not gone unnoticed. If my decision has been unsatisfactory for you, please take it up with another admin, nothing is set in stone. A policy, however detailed, remains black and white and it is for an admin to judge the gray. It is preferred that users try to handle it between each other, it is not mandatory. A user can inform an admin about another user's action at any time, but it does not mean that the requesting user will automatically get his/her way. &mdash; Gares 21:56, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Above post was not sarcastic in fact, I was summing up your arguments so I know where I stand. And as far as I can tell, it is thus: a small violation can be corrected immediately without further reprisals, a larger one will be immediately punished. And never make any personal comment on anyone else, like the drifter. I still think that rule is a bit confusing though, considering the huge amount of personal comments I see running around. Apparently it's ok to make small remarks, as long as your foe doesn't respond in kind? or if he does, then you do nothing? I'm sorry but it still seems like "people who have been around and know other people can get away with stuff", others are immediately warned on stuff like "jeezes you're insane". That warning, gares, really gets to me. It smacked of bullying for somethign that was quite inoffensive. And, of course, it laid the ground for the later banning. Because I see people doing much worse than that and absolutely nothing happens to them. In fact, to my recollection no one complained directly about that remark, you just saw it yourself right? Ps: I think there are few sentences more likely to provoke an opposite reacion than "easy, calm down, you're too emotional". Sounded condescending. And I know what the answer will be... "take it up to another admin if you don't like it". Right. :( Given the amount of stress i've had here with other users and the way the admins are friends, I seriously doubt any of them would see things my way, and I don't blame them. NightAngel 22:12, 20 February 2007 (CST)

/yawn.. what are you whining about exactly? -- SigmA 05:45, 21 February 2007 (CST)

I'm tired. Sigma doesn't matter, he can call anyone he wants anything he wants. The bored, seen-it-all 16 year old. It would be funny, if I had any sense of humor. THe builds don't matter, most people just want to throw away the entire section. Gares doesn't matter, he's doing what he thinks is right and fair and will probably be very pleased with himself regardless of what anyone else says. And in the end, Guild Wars doesn't really matter that much, or shouldn't. Over and out. I'll stop giving a rat's behind about what other people say or do, except when it targets me directly, in which case I'll just ignore them. I have no idea why I gave a crap, I plead temporary insanity and my short temper NightAngel 06:44, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * Don't be a wimp, NightAngel. You give up too easily. Waxing defeatist doesn't mix well with your contribution history. Where is the fiery defender of Necromancers that I once knew? Where is the level-headed voter who helped keep the Builds section running? What has...aw, screw it, you wanna leave noone's stopping you. "Okthxbye", come back in a few days with new resolve and you'll be surprised that none of this really ever mattered. Just like you say. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:00, 21 February 2007 (CST)

I'm not leaving, I'm just stopping this argument :) NightAngel 07:01, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Well you didn't do a very good job of it... >< (T/C) 07:04, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Appreciate the support. I just realized how silly this all was. Who am I kiddin', I love guild wars. And I love arguing, unfortunately. It might sound odd, but I do believe that arguing is productive sometimes. I even on occasion defend vigorously points of view that aren't even mine. If I'm unable to convince anyone else of what I think after trying my best, I'll usually just switch sides and adopt their point of view, and then go on defend it against others. And sometimes I'll partially adopt some new concept and see if it works with my own. It's a really weird process. Ps: and then, of course, there is stuff like TheDrifter. I stood to learn nothing there, which is why I shoud have stopped. I did enjoy arguing with others though. Heck, I use Wastrel's Worry now after my endless discussions with .. Rapta or Auron, can't remember which, on a mesmer's talk page. Here is a little philosophical background for one of my favorite activities :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic NightAngel 07:01, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * I dun like edit conflicts! Well, /highfive then, you can join my new guild, We Love To Debate On Internet [LMAO] . ;) On serious side though...we all have bad days...heck I do wiki at the after midnight hours very often, I know what wikistress feels like. I think the Wiki atmosphere encourages arguing, because of the degree of anonymity, the user protections (GW:NPA), and the way every user is counted as equally valuable (GW:YOU). However as good as it is, and like you say it's conductive, sometimes arguments go bad and they don't stay "sivilised" like Huck Finn says. On those times, even for those arguing the "right" side, we all look stupid...and we lose face...and hence we switch sides or decide to shut out mouthes. :) But not always fast enough...which is why Gares does what he does... etc etc.
 * As to TheDrifter...I dun say anything there, "no comment" as they say for PC/PR. WW? You might have discussed it with me, I have told plenty folks the usefulness of WW. Lastly, that gives me bad memories of an stupid English assignment "Dialectic Journals", but I will check it out anyways. >< Any way I am rambling, again, I seem to do that alot at 4:14 AM. Good to see you have come around. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:16, 21 February 2007 (CST)
 * PS...Gares, sorry for hijacking your talkpage! But you both did it to mine so it is only fair. :) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:16, 21 February 2007 (CST)
 * NP, Entropy. Happens all the time ;)


 * At NightAngel, I am sorry you feel or felt the way you did. I do not take pleasure in what I do in these situations and it takes more than posting what comes to my mind when making decisions such as these. I have to think long and hard, review everything I can think of, and then make a choice. The reason you believed "He doesn't dignify people with an answer, because he clearly thinks they are all beneath his vast experience and knowledge," is due to the fact I was reviewing information in-between doing my job. I volunteer at wiki, but my real life comes first. I needed a haircut yesterday after work and I decided not to rush home to answer but take care of real life, as it is my job and looking sharp that pays my bills.


 * There is a difference between arguing and debating, but you should never give up defending your point of views. However, I believe a change in the way you do it would still get your point across and would not stress you so much. Going back again about me being pleased with my decision, I have learned being mods for forums and real life scenarios like working as a bouncer for a number of years, is that you should never take anything personally. I can't tell you to become detached from your feelings in these situations, but that is what I do. Suprisingly and some other wikians know I am a very different person off-wiki.


 * Any decision I make or an any admin makes is a hard one and will not please everyone involved. I know there are users out there watching my actions right now in hopes I break the GW:NPA, so they can come after me. I said and it's a promise that if I break policy I expect to be banned. I don't even need a warning, because if I say something to violate it, then I know I deserve punishment. But that is my point of view and not others. I hope the dust can settle around this discussion and everyone can get back to working to make Wiki a positive place to contribute. But don't think you can't ever come to me nor feel you should back down from defending your point of view. &mdash; Gares 08:00, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * Uhm, small Freudian slip Gares, that comment you quoted was directed at Sigm@ and not you. Don't take things personally. ;) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:03, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * Me? Take things personally? *gasps* I am shocked and dismayed at your accusation. :D I struck it out. Everything else still seems relevant. This is what happens when an old man (25) doesn't get enough sleep watching Adult Swim all night. &mdash; Gares 08:11, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * Dam, she's quicker than me. Yeah, I was referring to the many unanswered protests (including mine) to Sigma's votes. And I'm not at all ashamed to change my mind. I even got some flak from TheDrifter for it, because I originally despised Order of Undeath (and thus unfavored his build), and now it's the only MM elite I use. Some core beliefs are obviously not quite open to argument, but the peripheric ones (and anything related to an online game certainly qualifies) are certainly quite flexible. NightAngel 08:13, 21 February 2007 (CST)

What's the problem exaclty? -- SigmA 08:20, 21 February 2007 (CST)

With people who don't change their minds? (I'm pretty sure that's not what you asked for, but irony is tough to detect in the Internet) THey have locked ways of thinking, unable to adapt, learn and change with their environment. It is dangerous as heck, especially in the hands of powerful people like politicians, capable of getting entire countries into horrible messes that then become unsolvable. Changing your mind, you see, is seen as a sign of weakness. NightAngel 08:24, 21 February 2007 (CST)

...? -- SigmA 08:34, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * @SigmA: Please read today's posts. Not sure what you are confused about, but everthing is in there. If you still have any questions, please reword them to where other users know what part of the discussion you are having trouble with. &mdash; Gares 08:44, 21 February 2007 (CST)

What was the problem Nightangel began about? -- SigmA 09:49, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Lemme see if I can imitate the style :) "Began?" . Seriously, sigma, I changed subject so many times I haven't a clue which problem you're referring to. If you really want to know, ask me in my talk page, but please be more specific NightAngel 10:02, 21 February 2007 (CST)

I'd also like to chime in and raise a complaint against Sigma's behavior on the wiki. I wondered why he voted unfavor upon my builds, I cannot figure out why. I wish he'd leave a comment. To get a better idea, I looked at his contributions list. It seems the vast majority of his behavior is like this. It also seems he just decided to rapid-fire downvote my builds one after the other.


 * 18:34, 27 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Build talk:A/Me Fever Outbreak (→Rate-a-build)
 * 18:33, 27 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Build talk:D/Mo Imbue Health AoM Dervish (→Rate-a-Build)
 * 18:32, 27 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Build talk:N/any IV Transfusion (→Rate-a-Build) (top)

Can we get this guy undercontrol? Isis In De Nile 00:53, 28 February 2007 (CST)


 * FYI Isis:
 * 15:06, 27 February 2007 Gares Redstorm (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Sigm@ (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (see talk and respective pages for violations)
 * --Rainith 01:05, 28 February 2007 (CST)
 * Just to point out - the ban appears to be related to violations of GW:YAV and GW:NPA, not the voting patterns themselves. On the build voting, the current procedures don't require comments or reasons to be provided, although it is preferred. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:12, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Red link of death!!
the Gares Redstorm header on your userpage is like the ultimate red link ever... no matter how hard I click it won't go away!!! I swear I'm going to start having nightmares soon... --Jamie  13:37, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * The color red is associated with death actually. Sweet dreams. Bwah, ha, ha, ha. ;) &mdash; Gares 15:01, 21 February 2007 (CST)


 * Canthans consider red links to be good luck. -- Dashface [[Image:Dashface.png]] 00:41, 22 February 2007 (CST)


 * Yeah, red also is associated with love, passion, fire, and intensity, but I wanted to add to Jamie's nightmares. :D &mdash; Gares 08:15, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Anon Vandal
If you could take a look at this. Also, different user, but the anon who was changing the hsr seems to have created an account so I copied your msgs from the IP talk page to the user talk page. Lojiin 12:41, 23 February 2007 (CST)
 * I noticed that the green stat changing anon registered as Mr Damage, but I was hungry and it was lunch time. I'll look back into it now. Thanks for the heads up. &mdash; Gares 13:11, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Damn, you got to the Nightfall vandal first. I wanted to block him with the reason, "mathieu is cool mathieu is hip mathieu is blocked!!!" :P --Rainith 13:20, 23 February 2007 (CST)
 * Sorry, they gave me a soft taco when I said hard for lunch, so I felt the need to ban someone and quick. lol. You can have the next one. &mdash; Gares 13:30, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Deletion
Those pages I marked as you advised have not been deleted yet. Why>? Jupsto 10:51, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Prehaps he has more important stuff to do? Don't be so rude. &mdash; Skuld 10:52, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Doesn't sound rude to me, but sorry anyways.

They are deletimafied hooray! Jupsto 19:40, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

GW:1RV dispute on Meleemancer
Can you review Talk:Meleemancer? I had initially blocked the user; but removed the block as I feel it's more appropriate to have another admin review it, as I'm directly involved in the dispute - I feel it's more appropriate for another admin to determine if a block is warranted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:26, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I reviewed it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

GW:PNB and GW:NOB
Quick procedural question, if I were to theoretically copy every single build onto my user space, could I protect them from being deleted when PNB or NOB come into effect? Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)


 * Yes. There is no way, short of total annihilation of any sort of build on every wiki namespace, to allow someone to remove builds from your userspace. &mdash; Gares 19:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Alright, because I have already copied every Vetted PvP builds to my userspace. [].  Build Wiki Lives! Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Now if there was a consensus to remove builds from userspaces, your screwed :P &mdash; Gares 19:51, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Nope, then I move them to another website :). Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Now I just need to copy the 214 vetted PvE builds, the archived builds, and all of the Unfavored Builds (oy ve), should have that done well before the nuke is implemented though. Take that GW:PNB! Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

One other thing, after the build namespace is annihilated, could I then simply add a redirect to my page which has all the builds? Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
 * You'll have to elaborate more on the redirect question. Where will these redirects, or a single redirect, be created that point to your page? Does it fall into accordance with GW:REDIRECT? I'll be able to help you out more if I know more of your redirect idea. &mdash; Gares 21:31, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I will re-review GW:REDIRECT and get back to you. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

If the build space is nuked, and it is determined that the name-space will not be restarted and simply left blank, would I be allowed to create a namespace that redirected to my user-page? If you look at my user-page, you will see that I have already got a good start in archiving all of the builds currently on wiki (I have all of the vetted builds archived so far). So, for all those newer players who still want access to builds and type "Builds" into the GuildWiki search engine, I would like them to be redirected to my userpage. I re-read GW:REDIRECT and it wasn't clear on whether this instance of redirecting would be allowable or not, so, would it? Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Nvm. The whole above discussion has become moot. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Unbanning
Hi, I noticed your name in the recent changes and I hope you're still browsing. How do I unblock someone? I just couldn't find a way and I don't have time to search now. -- (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Special:Ipblocklist IIRC, tell me if unblock links show up for you &mdash; Skuld 07:54, 22 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Ah, the unblock link is after the comment. Thanks Skuld. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, suprisingly I was commenting on your running section. :P &mdash; Gares 08:12, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

User:Wings That Heal
Would it be possible for you to take a look at this, please? (Ticker at the top of the talk page and the two last sections being the relevant ones). Thanks. --Dirigible 08:39, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I was already reading about it. &mdash; Gares 08:40, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * So many users acting disturbingly today. I've also had a lot of other problems since I woke up. Seems like there is something wrong with the whole world today. :/ --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Is it full moon or something? Or are people just stressed out over all the fuss the GW:EN and GW2 announcements are causing? Btw, I can't belive you missed that blatant breach of GW:GARES there, Gares. :p--84-175 (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * (Edit Conflict)It's an unfortunate part of interacting in a community setting over the internet. I've seen a lot of things over my time moderating on various forums. It's apart of internet life. *shrugs*
 * A breach of GW:GARES!? *grabs his executioner's axe* :p I'm tired and must've missed it.
 * Even I was a little caught off guard from what I read about GW2. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the new direction ANet is taking. Once I know more, I plan to write a untested review based on the facts from what is known. So far, the negatives outweigh the positives, but there is still not much to go on. &mdash; Gares 09:09, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, the GW2 news is affecting a lot of people, mostly negatively. I'm also writing some of my views on GW:EN and GW2 when I get the time. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I like GW:EN and it seems most I've spoken with or see comments regarding do to. I'm just making predictions on the storyline. I made, as one friend said, a "spooky" prediction about Gwen located over on GWW. Looks like I got everything down, except I said she was trained in one of the new professions and seems as though there will be none. I have some ideas on who the Great Destroyer is, but I need to go through certain parts of the game again to study him somemore. I don't run(Gem's Running Rangers) when I'm bored, I study lore. ;) &mdash; Gares 09:35, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It is sad that the RR business takes so much time. Otherwise I would be studying lore too. My greatest passion in any RPG (computer or table) has been the lore, but in GW I have had way too much other stuff to do. Maby when I've completed all games wiht more characters and jessica has all of the reasonable titles and ... --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Leik omg!
I'm editing the Wiki from class! Bwahaha! Psych is boring anyway. -Auron  11:12, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Lol. Just remember Pavlov played with dogs and you'll be just fine. :p &mdash; Gares 11:29, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

PVE Builds
Hey, NightAngel's talkpage was getting a bit antagonistic/sarcastic, so I thought I'd share my thoughts here instead, hope you don't mind.
 * Fair enough that build collaboration is not something you enjoy doing on the wiki, thats your choice. But the problem is that there are many of us who do enjoy it, and our perspective has not really been considered here. You are right that the elitist attitudes are not the only cause of the problems. New users who are too attached to their builds are also a big problem, and I certainly don't condone the immature ways in which they respond. I definitely enjoyed the builds section when it had a higher ratio of mature posters. But lets try to look at it from their perspective and realize why they react this way. Many of these people are posting a build for the first time, and after spending some time learning to edit and doing the work to create the build page, the build is often unfavored within minutes, along with condescending attitudes, and no constructive criticism. It ends up in the garbage can before anyone even gets to see it and before anyone has a chance to help to improve it. On top of that, they are also dealing with the frustration of trying to understand unintuitive vetting policies. If these posters were greeted with courtesy and constructive feedback, despite the build being unfavored, and still reacted this way, I would blame them completely. But they rarely are. Don't you recognize the irony here? Its the same people whose negative attitudes create these situations who then want to get rid of the builds section due to these problems, and whose negative attitudes have prevented others from revising the policies in a more intuitive way (because that would mean they might have to start leaving constructive criticism with their vote?).
 * You're right that it isn't that hard to look at the skills and create your own builds, and like you, most of the builds I use are my own creations or variants of other builds. But the main problem with doing this in the PVE environment, is that the game doesn't provide enough feedback to individual players as to how effective their build is in comparison to other builds. The game doesn't tell you how much damage other teammates are doing, or any other way you could compare yourself, aside from how many times you die. When you are in a team of 8 people, its very easy for beginners to not notice that their build sucks. When I was at that stage, the wiki build discussions were crucial for me to gain an understanding of what a good build is. The loss of the PVE builds section just means that more people are not going to gain that understanding. Everyone always says "anything works in PVE", as a way of arguing that the build section is not needed, but in fact this is the exact reason why it is needed, because I don't want to party with people running "anything". -- BrianG 15:51, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't mind at all and I guess I can't use the "anything works in PvE" excuse with you. :p I'll give my stance on the potential of the builds section first. I don't think it is/was a bad idea and I do think it helps players, however the way it was created (vetting procedure, stubbing) killed the idea of a builds section before there every was one. Add the unhelpfulness, unconstructive criticism, the ever-growing egos, and, to be honest, a lot of builds that just were not thought out at all, and the section turned into a failure and a joke. There still is potential, but it is masked by all the negativity and egotism found throughout the builds namespace.
 * You say new builds basically get mauled as soon as they are posted and I will agree. In turn that does bring out animosity of new users to the ones that hover over the builds section. However, there are builds that are posted with no thought behind them, no synergy of skills, no purpose, and in some instances not even tested by the poster him/herself. Yes, there are good builds that are shot down and there are bad builds that are accepted. I blame that on the wiki setting and at the very least the voting aspect of the policy. All the animosity, flaming, and immaturity shown on the build talk pages has created a new policy, as well as turned admins, myself for one, into a hated individual as I cannot stand that sort of behavior. Everything a user posts reflects on that user. Not just as a user on a wiki site, but as a person. With some less than respectable users, I feel bad for the people they have to interact with in real life, but I can't do anything about that. I can try my best to keep them from bringing that behavior and attitude here however. Believe me when I say it is not something I enjoy, but I do not back away from it. That is the most determintal part of the builds section in my opinion and I know in a lot of others.
 * On a different not in regards to PvE, I play it a lot. However, I believe your main concern is playing with less than perfect PuGs. I've learned a long time ago that there is a heirarchy regarding teams in basic areas and this is pre-heroes. Guildmates -> Henchmen -> PuGs. Even with a solid builds section, you will still run into bad PuGs. That's because not everyone cares to learn about skills, builds, rune placement, the right equipment to use, etc. There are some that cannot understand the game no matter how hard they try or how much help they recieve. Then there are others that could care less what they are running and hope they picked the right group to carry them through the mission. You can expand your mind and gain knowledge of the game through the continuation of a builds section, but other than yourself, your friends, and possibly your guildmates, that's as far as it goes. &mdash; Gares 17:32, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well I definitely agree with you about users who can't maintain respectable behaviour online. I've contributed to many build or policy conversations I felt strongly about but have always stayed calm, I don't think its very difficult.  Personally I think that part of the problem here is that many of the more established users got off easy when the negative attitudes began to take a turn for the worse.  And they were the ones posting most often and serving as an example to new users.  Of course there are always going to be people who just have bad attitudes no matter what, but I don't see why that can't be dealt with on an individual basis.  I do disagree with you though that the concept of vetting builds is flawed to begin with.  I think its too hard to say that when we have no experience with a properly designed vetting system.  The frustration to me is that the only reason a better policy was never implemented was a failure to reach consensus, and too many hands in the pie.  I didn't have a problem with the admins stepping in once consensus failed, I just think the decision they made went in the wrong direction.
 * I understand what you're saying about PuGs. Now that heroes are around I definitely PuG very rarely.  But thats besides the point.  It seems to sound like you're saying that because you don't have to play with the average player, you don't care about whether they know what they are doing, and I think thats opposite to the purpose of a site like this.  Not all of us are in a guild like you and totally isolated from players who don't know what they're doing.  I like being in a casual guild with my friends.  Luckily for me, I find build creation pretty intuitive, but for some people it doesn't come naturally.  Or for others, they don't want to bother spending the time to figure out the minor details and just want to play.  Its hard for you to tell your friends how to improve their builds without sounding like a know-it-all.  From their perspective, why should they value your opinion more than their own?  Especially for something subtle like why a superior and major rune is too much health loss?  For these people, its a lot easier to send them to a webpage that shows a community consensus about what is good and bad, along with a discussion about why.  At least this way, they will either start reading and understanding (if they are just slow learners), or else they will just copy the build (if they are the just want to play kind of people).  Without this resource it will require more patience and effort from people like me to convince less skilled players to listen to us.  Or I could be like you and isolate myself from these types of players.  Anyway, I'm hoping some kind of compromise can be reached so there are still some kind of build guides to help people learn.  I'm not sure if you've seen Profession guides, but maybe that might work. -- BrianG 18:47, 29 March 2007 (CDT)