User talk:Siemens

I believe you moved a build from unfavored back to untested on the grounds that it had not been tested. It had three votes for unfavored, and while voters are encouraged to test they are under no obligation to do so. Please do not move it back into untested for any reason unless the build has undergone some kind of overhaul and a new vote is in order. I am moving it back to unfavored where it belongs. Defiant Elements 23:03, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * Whatever... But both you and I know that a build that has not been commented on, other than remarks that are completely irrelevant to the build, and has not been tested, can hardly be categorized as vetted by the community. This behavior of yours only undermines the already shaggy build section on the Wiki no matter if your intentions are nobel as Christ himself. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siemens (contribs) somewhen.

Build policy
Your concept of changing the build policy is interesting, but I guess it lacks functionality. En plus, there are many different ways to play a class type successfully and there are different demands to meet for PvP and PvE classes. I guess it would work if that concept was broken down into "top3: pvp/pve: class: type;" (like in top3: pvp: monk: protector; or top3: pve: ele: fire;). But even then, many problems persist and that concept stays just one among many others that more or less work... ~ Nilles (msg) 04:12, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * You are right. Nothing will ever be perfect. However, that is no excuse to use a system that is much less than perfect. The functionality is simply to restrict the number of categories to a minimum, and only those categories that describe the game. Then let the voting begin, and let it go on continously. This will asure a working continous feedback loop which is lacking today.--Siemens 12:04, 7 February 2007 (CST)