User talk:Defiant Elements/Build Collaboration

This space should be used to discuss ways to facilitate build collaboration, including possible "policies." Of course, we can't actually enforce these policies through bans, however, I will try to enforce them as best as possible. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 20:24, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Are all the builds in archives going to be added to this page? If so will there be a better organizational system? Something like the current build section build listings?--Sefre  23:45, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * No, what goes there is anything people want there. As it grows, I will start organizing it more efficiently.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:49, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It is primarily for discussing new builds that people want to post. I will however be adding all of the previously vetted PvE builds to the archive section.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:52, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * My pet peeve is people making stupid votes on builds...which happens WAY too much. Or the fact that if you fix what they said, you can't strike out their vote. So...are we voting on builds or not?Cheese Slaya 11:45, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Since this is on DE's page, he actually can strike their votes, so far as I understand. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   12:17, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's true that he would have complete control as long as there in his users space, its also true it would be very easy to abuse that. I'm not saying that he would but it's a reasonable issue. This is part of the reason that moving builds to user pages wasn't the best idea, now for anyone who tries to create a database for new builds in there user name space they would have complete control over the builds. I honestly think there should of just been a separate name space for the plans the people at NOB/BW are talking about, but thats another issue.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 14:02, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Forgot to say the rest of what I meant to say :/. As for stupid votes, I think there needs to be a rule for future voting of original builds saying that each vote musty be explained throughly unless already mentioned in a previous vote. And any votes that do not correspond with the truth striked out.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 14:07, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Despite the fact that this is my userpage, I would prefer that we, as a community of build collaborators (i.e. the people involved in this) came up with our own unofficial policy rather than me having to dictate everything. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:48, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Anyone interested in coming up with a policy should just leave it here and we can poll everyone involved. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:56, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Speculation
How about this: I'm assuming we would be allowed to create our own category's based on the fact that | Category:GuildWiki humor exists and is comprised of user pages. I know the voting theory isn't much different form the current system but I'm just speculating This is just what came off the top of my head, feel free to edit my list all you want if you disagree but please leave a note.--Sefre  15:25, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2 new category's are created titled something like User Builds, untested and favored, maybe one for unfavored.
 * A separate category will be created for build ideas and stubs.
 * A template for each section will be created like the current build section has
 * Templates added to builds in user pages.
 * On some ones user page there will be a user build center. This should be linked from the main builds page and have links to the category's listed above. As well as a featured Section.
 * A policy is created that all user build submitters and voters must follow: Builds must be voted on and have how ever many votes. A vote must be explained in detail its reasoning for voting unfavored or favored. If the vote is incorrect in any way related to the build the vote is striked out and the voter is notified on their talk page. Votes such as "bad build" or "sucks" or just a sig. will be striked out and user notified. No owner of the build/user page may strike out votes or blank page or their build will be removed and banned from the category(other then strikeing out vote according to above rule).
 * If a voter violates the policy they will be reported to a admin for action for vandalism of a user page.
 * Users who own the sub page would have complete control but if they violate our policy they would not be allowed to have that build in the user build section.
 * you're absolutly right, this is exactly how the build section (and eventually namespace) got started. it filled a need. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:16, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Build Space
Defiant, I suggest that you make something like User: Defiant Elements/Untested User Build and the same thing for favored or unfavored where users can show their builds. If you don't want to I will:)Cheese Slaya 19:31, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Maybe a certain rule should be set for voting on, say, PvP builds, like R3/500+balth faction? Just giving ideas.Cheese Slaya 22:02, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * To be honest, almost any restriction such as that is inheirantly elitist and probably fails to serve its intented purpose anyway. During the first x2 Fame weekend, I got rank 3 in 3 days, yet I wouldn't call myself a master HA player.  I think a better method would be bringing back the requirement that builds *actually be tested*, regardless of how stupid they seem, in order for one to vote on them.  Follow that up with "Votes must be explained", and you have what the original Vetting System was meant to be.  And if somebody makes and obviously "wrong" vote (My example is the person who keeps voting "Meep meep - unfavored because I can"), then DE himself can strike it out, as it's on his user-page. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    22:06, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, what If they say they tested it...Cheese Slaya 22:10, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Based on their comments, it should be fairly obvious. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   22:11, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well... first of all, all of the users who know about this so far are users I personally trust not to lie if they say they tested it. Furthermore, I think simply making them explain their reasoning will reveal whether or not they tested it.  For now though, let's get a little more discussion before we settle on a system.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 22:14, 3 April 2007 (CDT)