User talk:Defiant Elements

Rate-a-user
Favoured:
 * 1) A keeper. Always helping voting on builds plus other useful edits.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  15:11, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Unfavored. Until this user lets me use some of his userboxes, or at the very least points me in a good direction to get some more, I don't like this user at all. (complying with my demands will result in my moving of this vote to the "Favored" section.) Jioruji Derako 01:55, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * You might consider looking at the UBC - Gem's Userbox Competition. Also may I direct you to my userpage, which has many userboxes. I only ask for a small note of credit in return. Entropy 01:58, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * That will do nicely. Entropy has saved you this time, D.E., but don't count on avoiding my wrath again so easily. *wanders off to Entropy's page to rip off as many ideas as he can carry* Jioruji Derako 13:00, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * P.S. Oh yeah, and D.E. is a great help to the Wiki and all that. Thanks for the help with the Critical Fox build too. Jioruji Derako 13:00, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Just so you know, anyone is welcome to use my user-boxes. Defiant Elements 19:53, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Is it alright if I change my vote to "Very Favored" then? Jioruji Derako 21:15, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * 1) DE is teh Buildman. Most of his builds are great, he tests loads, makes informed comments and gives good reasons for his votes. A big asset to the builds section and the wiki as a whole. -- Hyperion` 20:42, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Above comment. -Misfate 18:06, 29 Januarry 2007 (PST)
 * 3) If I owned a build accadamy, id hire you.--&mdash; Hyprodimus Prime  [[Image:hyprodimusprimewikisig.png||talk]] 22:04, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * 4) Favoured forever. --SBR 23:33, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * 5) stay, wtf has he done wrong?-Lokre
 * 6) nice work on the build section Defiant.--Vazze 13:37, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * 7) How can you not favor him?Cheese Slaya 17:49, 22 February 2007 (CST)
 * 8) It's a tough job, but someone has to do it :) NightAngel 09:59, 23 February 2007 (CST)
 * 9) BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE VOTED FOR YOU :D! And you use constructive critisism :D![[Image:Pogsigv2.jpg]] 18:54, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * 10) Signed my page, so yes favored.- [[Image:Avatar of Lyssa.jpg|19px]] Leader Rat ( Sign ) 06:28, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * 11) Lots of builds. I like em. Good thing he's here! -X H K
 * 12) Have my babies... lol j/k. Seriously, Defiant = Leetsauce. --NYC Elite 20:04, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 13) You're a good user, its good that you rate alot of builds I like that. - Viktor 14:00, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 14) He favors my builds and he joins in my contests. Great guy! --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   11:42, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 15) super --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 00:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 16) Rawr on. -- Friend of Chaos [[Image:Sbgroup.gif|22px|]] 21:48, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 17) Great Build comments/insight --TehSlug
 * 18) All your skeelz are belong to me! XD - -S ora267 [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|19px]] 20:09, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 19) This user totally owns :D Og lo [[Image:Angelic Bond.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 11:14, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 20) Keep up the good work! :) Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 14:48, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Unfavoured:
 * 1) you're rude.  You continually accuse me of things that in my opinion are not true you have a whole section on your page dedicated to talking shit about me --Jagre 21:45, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Needs more cowbell! --8765 21:07, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3) I cna't bleiv yu dno't korrekt baad speilleng! --Zamanee 18:12, 21 February 2007 (CST)
 * 4) I want your build making experience! --InfestedHydralisk 20:01, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * 5) I am predujuce against luxon Grrr. Solus  [[image:Shield_of_Judgment.jpg|19px]] 23:23, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * 6) [[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 11:38, 10 March 2007 (CST) noobish build coments
 * 7) I hate you - wait I voted already! - 69.85.158.163 05:04, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) I hope you get more here.

Delete:
 * 1) I vote your gone-
 * 2) Looks like a thief just waiting to happen. &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 17:48, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Do you even read the builds before voting? 68.121.17.141 01:11, 27 January 2007 (CST)
 * 4) It's a shame but you have to go :-( --Nightslayer 23:21, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 * 5) — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 21:09, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * 6) ^ All apply [[Image:Vow of Strength.jpg|20px]] AmericanVlad 17:03, 19 February 2007 (CST)
 * 7) NO!!!!!!!! GO AWAY!!!!! CRushTurner 21:47, 20 February 2007 (CST)
 * 8) /shoo -- SigmA 12:11, 27 February 2007 (CST)
 * 9) Get out of here! ^ All apply too. -- Nova  [[Image:NovaSmall.PNG]] --  (contribs) 12:31, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 10) You are too reasonable! And your sensibility scares small children! Be gone I say! :D lol Readem 21:02, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Merge:
 * 1) He might possibly have a little something somewhat in common with someone. {Jioruji Derako} 19:11, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Undecided
 * 1) So many choices can't make my mind up. Arrgghhhh! -- [[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings" 08:57, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Example Builds Policy
Here, I'll try to make this as concise as possible:
 * All builds are required to be created in the stubs section.
 * Builds require nominations from X (1? 2? 3?) number of users in order to be moved from stubs to untested.
 * Nominators are responsible to make sure the formatting is correct, that the build is not too similar to an already submitted build (by objective means), and follows the guidelines for build submission etc. (only objective issues, not subjective).
 * Nominators are also responsible to ensure that the submitter is familiar with the vetting policies, and the submitter must agree in writing to relinquish ownership of the build.
 * Set a minimum number of required votes (5? 10?). A build stays in untested for a minimum period of time such as 2 weeks, but can stay there longer if minimum number of votes is not achieved yet.
 * Concise but constructive feedback is required in order to vote.
 * Votes should be tallied based on a percentage of total votes instead of a static number. For example a favoured rating of 70% or 80% could be required in order to be favored.  Builds below that threshold go to unfavored.  This tally could even be displayed on the talk page as part of the RAB, and serve as a "rating".
 * Set a deletion threshold (say below 20% or 30%). Build below this threshold should be deleted instead of unfavoured.
 * Votes can continue to be cast after initial voting, and a build's category can be changed at any time if the percentage no longer meets the appropriate threshold.
 * Now, this is a simple framework for a reasonable and intuitive system, that could easily be improved upon through collaboration and constructive feedback. But unfortunately, the same people who don't know how to collaborate or offer constructive feedback on builds, are the same people who have not been able to collaborate or offer constructive criticism to every proposal offered in the past, and the same thing would happen with this one. -- BrianG 17:10, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Just wanted to say, it looks pretty good. "Concise but constructive feedback" is a very general statement, unfortunately. I just don't know how we should go about deciding what feedback meets that criteria and what doesn't. It'd be nice if there was a way to prove that the user giving the feedback tested the build appropriately, and that they yield no bias. Spen 18:02, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, its true, but even an attempt at constructive feedback is better than what is allowed right now. -- BrianG 18:17, 29 March 2007

(CDT)
 * That new vetting procedure is pretty cool, but what happens if the votes make no sense? You don't know HOW many noobs I've come across.Cheese Slaya 19:02, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Looks good except for the biggest problem... you still have a voting system. That means, you still have people who don't have any idea what they are talking about voting on builds, you have all of the policy violations, etc.  No system that actually requires voting is going to work unless we make some standard for voters like, users can only vote on GvG builds if they in a an X Ranked Guild or have X Champion points, they can only vote on HA builds if they have X rank.  Otherwise, you have too many of the problems associated with the current build section.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Its true, that will always be a problem. But at least in this policy, with more votes required and a higher level of consensus needed, the results should be more representative of a community opinion.  Everytime someone suggests that there be restrictions on who is allowed to vote or submit builds (a suggestion I have made at some point as well), everyone says it is "unwiki-like".  You can't have it both ways.  I would just like to at least try seeing how vetting works with a proper policy in place.  Its really hard to say that vetting will not work at all, when the only experience we have with it is from such a flawed system.  Besides, voting is used to determine consensus on policies.  Whats to stop people from voting on policies without knowing what they're talking about?  Apparently nothing.  Maybe we should implement requirements on who is allowed to vote on policies, and then see if we can design a build policy that is "viable".  ;) -- BrianG 19:44, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Go ahead Brian. Post it as an alternative to GW:VETTING.  I will support it.  I just think that realistically, from what I have heard from the Admins, none of them is going to implement that kind of policy.  I also think that the reasoning Tanaric gave on NightAngel's talk page is pretty sound though.  Well... I am gonna try to stay out of this, I can only work in the hopes I can help to steer this in the right direction.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:24, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I wish they would decide on the policy that GuildWiki will use for the builds... I don't think it would be fair if only certain people were able to vote on the builds, there is no real way of telling if someone knows what he's talking about or if he ever realy tested it. Also, if the selected group is too small, the builds will take ages to get out of the stubs section. But I see your point on the voting of policies though, still, how do you decide who can vote and who can't? Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 05:38, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Monk Guide
My monk guide in the works.Cheese Slaya 19:24, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Thoughts?
I know you had something like this out there so.. + + " Thoughts?  Solus   05:49, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Looks intresting.- Leader Rat [[Image:Rat.jpg|19px]] 06:31, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

I liked em big lol :) Solus   06:32, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And might even work.- Leader Rat [[Image:Rat.jpg|19px]] 06:36, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Well... I posted all of the build ideas I have on my userpage, and, one of them is my Bull's Charge idea, so just take a look at it. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:31, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Help before builds all get pooped on.
what builds are worth putting on my userspace that are the best of the best for Dervish and Ranger builds? Tai of the Bunnies 02:16, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Put whatever you like... Auron has an archive list of builds he among other people archived that includes only the better builds (for the most part) that you could use as reference. Anyways, most likely, only you are going to be looking at this, so, just take whatever you like.  Or, take them all.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:18, 31 March 2007 (CDT)


 * O so i can have my own mini archive???!?!?!?!? Tai of the Bunnies 02:20, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You can archive every build on the wiki if you like. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:23, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

you know u just told a starving child they can eat whatever they want right? Tai of the Bunnies 02:26, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm glad. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:26, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

so i can take all tested, untested stubs and unfavored? right Tai of the Bunnies 02:35, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You can even take all the archived builds as long as they are all under your userspace. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:36, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Apparently the blue colour in your signature has a name, it's called Dodger Blue. According to Wikipedia that name is due to the colour being used for the uniforms of the LA Dodgers. Interesting! :) --Dirigible 02:54, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Alright then. I just picked the color because it showed up well when I was trying out colors.  It was kind of a random choice.  To be honest, I don't even really like my signature all that much.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:56, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

More thoughts?
Thoughts?. Solus  02:38, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Um,
Thanks, but I won't be making anymore builds for a long while :), and I kinda don't understand the page you linked. (t-c) 07:44, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

What you think about...
This? InfestedHydralisk  08:47, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Build Collaboration
I like the idea a lot! Makes it easier to find the people who have builds on their user page by conviently putting the links in one place. I think because this is in your user page, you don't have to write an official policy for the builds or for the favoured/unfavoured votes, you can just decide how you want it to be and add it to the top of the Build Collaboration page. Despite the attempts from various people, the builds section will never die! :P Silver Sunlight 13:22, 31 March 2007 (CDT)