User talk:Sefre/Build Wipe Petition

ugh
There has been a discussion. It's been discussed for months. It didn't get resolved. As such, wipe. –Ichigo724 10:59, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Seems an odd way to go about it. Basically, the wipe is being done because the current system isn't perfect and you want to make a better one. Well, my current job isn't perfect either, but I'm not gonna quit and give this one up until I FIND a better one, why should this be different? If a better method is found, THEN wipe, but don't remove all the time and effort a HUGE number of people have put into the current section UNTIL then. That seems infinitely more rational. DKS01 22:18, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * So your saying that for example a building needs a electric system replaced. And owners argue about what kind and the costs, other issues. So the best answer is to demolish it and rebuild? That seems to be the answer with build wipe--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 17:31, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Except, to follow your analogy, it would be like a building that hasn't been renovated in 150 years, has mold everywhere, exposed asbestos, crumbling supports, etc.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 19:36, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Is not the build section functioning at this moment? It has flaws but no crumbling supports, it works in a non perfect state at the moment but that can be remedied by ways other then restarting...... Either way, this belongs on the build wipe page.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 20:09, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Is the build section functioning now? No. It's failing now, and it has been failing for quite a while. When it started failing, Tanaric made the build: namespace, so when it got to an intolerable level of failure, he/they could simply remove it. People got the wrong idea, started making stuff up like "omg the build section exists bcos its so popular!11!" and missed the entire point of the section. Now that we're carrying the original plan out, people are reacting poorly because they never understood the original plan. Now, whining about it is just a waste of time, and is definitely not helping anything. If you want the build section, you're going to have to work for it; help create the new policy (effective, working policy) and you'll have a build section. If people just whine... it'll never get done. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 21:26, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Talk of other ways have been in discussion for months. Every single attempt has fizzled out.  Even the currently discussed alternate build section methodologies (GW:NOB and GW:PNB) were first proposed back in December, and those languished with no progress until the build wipe was announced.   While a build wipe can be considered rather draconian, it seems to have been the only thing that has managed to result in progress on any changes to the hopelessly flawed system in place now.  Actions such as this page do more to delay progress on those alternatives and preserve the status quo rather than actually fixing anything.  Ideally, I would like to see some method in place before the wipe - but the fact is that with the current method in place, none of the proposed fixes have made any progress.  The threat of removal has finally accomplished what has been otherwise impossible to achieve; namely: progress on defining a new builds documentation process.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

It's Over
While I personally might not have made the decision to wipe the builds had I the power to do so, the fact is that continuing discussion isn't going to help us at this point. When you have a hung jury (i.e. no decision can be reached and you have reached an unsolvable impasse), you declare a mistrial. Of course, the case can be tried a second time, but, you wipe the slate clean (i.e. you expunge the first trial). Same thing with the build section. The wiki community has voted, and the jury has returned. The verdict is hung jury. As unlikely as it seems, the Builds wipe is actually the only way we are ever going to get new, hopefully better policies to preside over the build section.

Regardless though, while, as I said, I might not have chosen to wipe the build section, the fact is that it is coming. If I thought that this petition could actually accomplish something constructive, I would whole-heartedly support it, but, the fact is that at a certain point, something has to be done, and, at a certain point, when the jury (i.e. the community) can't reach a verdict, the judge (Tanaric) declares the mistrial. It's done. To continue with the legal analogies, this is like asking for a stay of execution for the death row inmate even though everyone knows his Habeus Corpus Appeal isn't going to succeed. The focus should be on rehabilitation (i.e. working on making policies for the new build section work), not trying to save the condemned build section which is so obviously "guilty."

I have said it too many times at this point. I love builds. I love the build section. But this isn't helping anyone. The decision was made. Regardless of how you feel about it, the logic is sound. We may not like it, but we should be proactive, we shouldn't just be whining about it. I have yet to here a suggestion by anyone here as to a viable plan for the build section. What is worth keeping is being saved in archives, and what is worth putting back on will be (except original builds). If the system works, don't change it. Unfortunately, our system doesn't work. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  22:27, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I support the fact that you are getting involved, but, at this point, this is the wrong policy debate to be involved in. I seriously doubt that postponing the wipe would result in anyone changing their opinions, and, it just delays our attempts to improve the build section via new policies. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  22:32, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, you all are talking about new policies, and how it would mess up the wiki if they were implemented while current builds were in the name space. But I have never seen evidence that the theory is anything but pure utter speculation. But no, you can't very well stop me and I have seen quite a few of people who agree with me. I know this was too damn overdue but I have got to try to advertise this crisis and give the rest of the user base to get involved with the build section discussion, and rebuilding the build section will just lead to the same problems a year from now, after you have a bunch of pissed off users who lost their favorite section and can 1)use the sloppy name space system or 2) leave and reduce the user base. You can either continue discussions(hopefully with more users involved) and get a solution in time or start over and waste a bunch of time getting to the same situation we are in now. --Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 22:42, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Please note that I am not trying to stop you. I am just stating an opinion which is as valid as your own.  Regardless, a dozen new users involved isn't going to change what a years worth of discussion produced, and, delaying isn't doing much.  [[Image:DE-S3.jpg]] *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The only possible chance you have of actually effecting the process is to actually propose a different plan. More discussion isn't what we need, we need action of some sort.  Discussion also isn't going to influence the core of voters who are pro-build wipe.  The only that would would be some kind of miracle policy proposal.  [[Image:DE-S3.jpg]] *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:47, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I intend to work on new changes to the section that wotn require the build. I can not do it myself and do not have the time to work and advertise this at the same time. I very well intend to try to fix the build section. But I nor anyone else can once its been demolished and the major wiki players are all crowding around one "new and better" policy or the other.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 22:55, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I strongly support this page
...with the exception of the capitalization. Unfortunately, it would be inappropriate to case-crusade a user page. :)

In all seriousness, I'm glad the community is going out of its way to express their feelings, even if those feelings are against my actions. It's important that, even if we all can't agree, we're at least open about how we feel.

&mdash;Tanaric 00:59, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You're sounding like Oprah now. --Dirigible 01:03, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * ...yeah. :) &mdash;Tanaric 01:16, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

as users of guildwiki..lets retailate and mass make builds into that section after the wipe lol - Chrisworld 00:56, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * If people tried the admins could just ban them and/or lock the section so that nothing could be added. DKS01 01:32, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * As an admin, I'd like to officially state that this would not be a good idea. &mdash;Tanaric 17:47, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, if it was coordinated enough, large enough, and well planned, it could probably cause quite a bit of havoc for quite a while. On the other hand, it is underhanded, spiteful, and would result in quite a few people being banned... but, on the other hand, havoc is nice... ;) [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  23:40, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


 * For the record, I am completely willing to preemptively ban anybody who states they intend to do this. :) &mdash;Tanaric 14:49, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not in favor of wiping the builds section. I definitely would not like to see havoc on GuildWiki.&mdash;  Ali ( talk )  14:59, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Then I'll make sure not to state my intentions before I carry out my ultra-secret plan for wiki domination! ;)  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  17:58, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * This Poll is completely and utterly biased...if you want to keep the Build Section, this is not the way to do it. Readem (talk *contribs ) 18:00, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * This is a petition against it. Not a poll. Look up petition &mdash; Skuld 18:01, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Here if you cba. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 18:03, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Gah, this will never end will it? Readem (talk *contribs ) 18:05, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Maybe not, but it should significantly slow down around May 2nd. &mdash;Tanaric 18:54, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That will be the date a large number of contributors will switch to the official wiki I take it? Cause from that point forward, there's really no reason to support this wiki over that one, as the one real advantage this one has will be gone. Such a shame, too. DKS01 00:58, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * My job is to attempt to make this wiki the best it possibly can be. If making it better, from a technical standpoint, makes it less popular, that's not my concern. I really don't care which wiki somebody uses; I'm a bureaucrat at both. &mdash;Tanaric 03:07, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If your job was to make this wiki the best it possibly can be you would not be removing one of the most useful sections on here. DKS01 03:43, 14 April 2007 (CDT)