GuildWiki talk:Advertise your build

This will make a huge mess rather quickly. -Auron  06:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I also oppose this policy extra hugely strongly humongously. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 06:36, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think I could disagree with this policy any more fervently. --[[image:Hrothgarsig.jpg]] (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I do not want to see the same Mending Wammo build advertised on every explorable article because "it really does work for me." --Rainith 11:59, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * This is: The. Worst. Suggestion. Ever.  It would spread the build problems to all other articles which is definitely not what we want! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 12:11, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I will personally club 3 extra truckfulls of baby seals if this comes into practise. And I will name them and make a website detailing the process from start to finish. And sell merchandise. &mdash; Skuld 12:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Bad--72.68.105.226 19:01, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Zomg, I don't think the creator of this proposed policy understood the problems with Builds section at all. Even if this was implemented I would be proud to break it! Builds and actual mainspace articles should almost never be mixed together, except in very rare cases such as linking Protective Spirit or Spirit Bond to a 55 monk guide. But still, that is not linking to a build, but rather a historical reference! This policy would create soo many problems and confrontations :( (T/C) 19:10, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I *am* the author of the proposal and I *do* understand the problem. I posted it to illustrate a point.  There is no room in the currently proposed build policies for any system whereby PvE-primary players can search intelligently for interesting PvE builds.  Do I think this is the only possible answer?  No, I don't.  But since no one has offered anything ELSE, much less anything BETTER ... Auntmousie 03:49, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I doubt that you do understand the problem. If you posted it to illustrate a point, then yes, you succeeded there - you managed to remind us all of why the Builds section got deleted in the first place. Too many irrelevant fights, too many complaints to Admins, breaking Wiki policy, bans and vandals, Recent Changes full of nothing but Build chatter, neglect of real GuildWiki articles...there were many users who logged on often, made many edits, and were avid contributors, but only to Builds section. GuildWiki was never intended to be BuildWiki and the Builds wipe was designed to steer away from that once again. Your proposed "solution" to the problem would just make things worse, perhaps even worse than it was at the height of Builds section problems...by adding irrelevant and distracting links to "Builds" (which may be pure crap), so many more potential problems arise. Like Blastedt's example (bluntly) shows below, this proposed solution would be as problematic or even worse than the old vetting one.
 * You say this: "There is no room in the currently proposed build policies for any system whereby PvE-primary players can search intelligently for interesting PvE builds."
 * Again, I'll repeat: GuildWiki is not and never should try to be a BuildWiki. We're here to document the game, provide guidance and information, keep records of chest drops and other stuff. That is what Wiki excells at more than any other Guild Wars site. But it has been shown, time and again, that GuildWiki simply fails when it comes to a good system for Builds of any kind. Even if we stuck to just PvP there would still be huge problems. Ignorance...opinions..."elitists"...etc.
 * Fact: In 95% of PvE situations, any minorly coherent build with 8 skills, max attributes, and full armor will work just fine. Further fact: There are many, many places on the Internet other than GuildWiki for a "PvE-primary player" to "search intelligently for interesting PvE builds". If you were truly homesick you could even go to the new PvX Wiki. But regardless - PvP, PvE, I don't care what - the build system was broken, people dithered for months and ultimately dropped the ball by failing to reach any sort of real consensus, and the Builds Wipe happened. The biggest issue was with the corrupt and fallible Vetting system. The fact that it let complete idiots as well as hardcore gamer geniuses vote with the same amount of clout led not only to rampant Wiki-wide disruption, but also created a warped Builds section, where "Voting is a Joke" came to be the accepted standard when things like a Cupido could get vetted due to a damn guild of Wiki-vandals voting as a bloc. These sorts of stupidities led to the Builds Wipe and the current paucity of answers or solutions.
 * So, let's consider your system. Rather than posting builds all to a namespace and voting on them as we used to do, you would prefer if builds were kept in the namespace, and "Advertisements" were placed among the mainspace articles. Well, here's your first problem: Builds, and links to them, should not exist in the Mainspace, ever. Even back in the Vetting days, it was rare indeed to see links to builds on a mainspace article, except for a few wildly popular or successful builds (e.g. Solo Green Farmer) which actually made the link relevant. However, with no vetting system (which also did weed out some bad builds) to determine the worth and merit of an "Advertised Build", what will end up happening is exactly what Blastedt has shown below...someone will post a link to "Their" build, someone else will disagree, the link gets removed, reinserted, GW:1RV gets broken, namecalling ensues, etc etc. And remember this won't even be about a build anymore: it will be about a link to a build! In the old Vetting system, the worst you could do was mis-tag a build, for example a PvE build going to HA. But that was easily fixed. With this new system, there is nothing to prevent a Mending Wammo link from being posted to the PvP guide, for example. And no one will have a truly valid grounds to remove such a stupid link: According to GW:AYB, a link only has to be "relevant". But that is so vague and subjective a concept that it cripples the entire policy as a whole. Who is to decide what builds can be linked where and what is "Relevant"? The build's poster? They are biased and have an inflated opinion of "Their" build's worth. The admins? They don't want to get involved in Build dilemmas again, and as LordBiro once said, being an Admin doesn't mean you know more about the game than anyone else, so you aren't qualified at all. The "Community"? Well, that was how the Vetting system was supposed to work. But, it failed because of corruption, ignorance, and petty opinion disputes. The thing is, Builds are a dynamic thing. Effective builds change almost on a weekly basis for PvP, what with how the Metagame works. And even in PvE, every new round of Skill Balances throws things into chaos. The game never stays settled for long, and so except for some timeless Builds such as a 55, any sort of system that relies on people's personal opinions and honor system to determine the worth of builds fails as a whole. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:00, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * *blinks* -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 21:04, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Detailed explanation of why this policy is a piece of crap
Besides, the abbreviation would be AYB, which isn't serious enough for a policy. &mdash;Blastedt 15:09, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I concur with all of that. Lord of all tyria 15:12, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Why is this really needed, ive never seen a build get a lack of attetnion--Blade [[Image:smallscout.png]] (talk|contribs) 15:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * You've never seen how build publishing will work. None of us have, to be fair.  But supposing I come up with a build idea tomorrow, and publish it on my namespace as directed ... how is anyone ever going to find it? Auntmousie 03:49, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Have you seen GW:PYB? It is a method of advertising your builds without the need to make a mess in the main name space articles. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 03:52, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm hearing this too much... "YOUR" build... &mdash; Skuld 06:31, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Well I can understand the "your" build thinking a bit, considering I make jewelery, and hypothetically, if I made a design myself and sold it to a big corporation that mass-produced it (Or if I wrote a build and saw everyone else use it..) then it would feel like an accomplishment. I think it's pretty normal to feel ownership over something you author, some people just tend to get rather (to put it nicely) over-defensive about it if it DOESN'T get favored. Continuing the analogy, if I made a piece of jewelery that I thought looked absolutely awesome, but everyone else said it's awful, then I would say it's awful, but it would still be hurtful. It's just some people seem to go into denial mode...Shas&#39;o Kauyon 20:02, 3 May 2007 (CDT)