GuildWiki talk:Post no builds

Discussion
Someone had to post it, and I got tired of waiting. Let the flame wars discussion start. --Rainith 21:29, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Do we even need this anymore? I mean, it might have made some sense when the Untested section was at like... 400+, but now it doesn't really matter. We have more testers now anyways. Plus, I doubt there will be much of an influx of builds until we get to the next campaign, but with as many testers we have now, I doubt it's going to have as significant of an impact that NF was. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:45, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Should I go through the Tested section and pick out all the ones that suck? That's always a fun task, but it takes awhile.
 * On a side note, this is what I suggested ages ago, and for mostly the same reasons. Since then, however, options like Build Split -> NOB surfaced, and they seem like more of a solution than a "ditch this project entirely, or at least move it off the Wiki." -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:48, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * This, this and this imply to me that it is. Add to that the 'drama' of things like Skuld's recent purges and the issues that they bring up about administrative abuse and I think that this is needed.  --Rainith 21:53, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah, after all that wiki-drama, NOB looks pretty good right now anyways. Just wondering what will happen when neww campaigns surface... every build would be "original" in a sense. Meh. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:51, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I'm weakly in favor of this. The current policy is broken for several reasons. The build split proposal achieves nothing; the proposal itself simply creates two namespaces and the discussion didn't lead to any supported steps beyond that. The no original builds proposal is in the right direction, removing subjectiveness a wiki is poor at and replacing it with factual reporting, but only for PvP builds. Despite people saying "PvE builds are easier, they do what they say or not," it's exactly the same. --Fyren 00:33, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Build split is specifically designed to achieve nothing in terms of policy at this point. It's meant to be a simple foundation to the development of policies for PvP and PvE builds, whatever those policies will be. For example, after split NOB could easily be applied to PvP and not PvE, or vice versa - the flexibility will be there. Look around - anything which includes even a shred of policy is discussed to death before a stalemate is reached and nothing achieved. I made Split as simple as possible so it could be done, and once done be of use to people developing policies after it. Better to take it one step at a time and start walking than go for a sprint and fall flat on your face. --NieA7 08:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I'm partially in favor of this...things like the W/E Starburst Warrior just give me headaches now. However, I'm seeing another potential disadvantage: for folks who actually and truly want some scrutiny of their builds, they would have no way to advertise. If something's stuck in your namespace, it gets a whole lot less traffic than something in Builds...and the chance of a random user finding and commenting on it are much more slim. If you've got a theoretical build idea and want feedback on it, how do you go about doing that, other than posting to all potential testers' talk pages. That's my main concern with this policy...Entropy 00:40, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * We could make a category like "build feedback requested" (or multiple, more specific ones). --Fyren 00:42, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Edit conflit - I'd suggest that people who want feedback on their builds go to forums dedicated to builds, places like The Campfire and The Gladiator's Arena on GWG. I'm sure that GWonline has something similar in their forums, and there are other places too.  They're better set up to handle this sort of thing.  It is obvious that the Wiki system is not.  --Rainith 00:46, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * But I've heard that all the flaming and general elitism is even worse on places like that. Moreover, I'm not willing to make an account at Guru or such just to get one or two builds feedback. I'd rather just get some imput from fellow Wikians. I like the idea of a "feedback requested" section. It changes the feeling of it...you're not Favoring or Unfavoring a build, only commenting on how it could be better. That way you can't "compare" it to "superior" builds, since there's no Favored section to be embarrassed about and such. Entropy 00:51, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I wouldn't be opposed to Fyren's suggestion, but I think you would get the same sort of comments you get now: Yore a  using ?!?!? U phail!  But as long as it is on a talk page in your userspace, you can edit out those comments all you want.  --Rainith 00:56, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah, the Starburst Warrior is enough to convince me that the builds section doesn't work. Not just because of the policies but because of the people. If the majority of the major contributors just want to amuse themselves and feel superior, there's no point in keeping this around anymore. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * It is sad that the actions of just a small number of people have brought us to this point where we may abandon rather than fix the builds section... 3 or 4 people, really, and I'm sure the main names jump readily to mind. But hey, they're superior players, right? They know what's best for us all. Obviously, I don't support this proposed policy. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 01:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * Are you saying that a superior player is defined as being pretentious, elitist, snobbish, impudent, insensitive, and/or reckless? I beg to differ; and I must argue that none of the already-proposed fixes (so far) would actually fix the builds section. Entropy 01:30, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * HL was using the term sarcasticly. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * >< It's so hard to tell nowadays anymore. Sorry. :S Entropy 01:34, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * Heh, yeah, I should have put it in sarcasm-quotes. "Superior". Adding to my opinion above, I think there's too much value in the builds section for GW players to remove it, even if not everything is good. Looking at, and reading the talk about, bad builds has made me a better player just as much as as the good ones. Not saying we WANT bad builds, but we should want the discussion about professions and skills that can only occur in a builds section, even if it does push the bounds of usual wiki content and editing policies. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 01:38, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * You bring up a very good point and I agree wholeheartedly. Even when a bad build gets shot down it's a learning experience for the rest of us. I've certainly learned a lot about skill usefulness and synergy from watching opinions fly on builds. Like Cripple - never knew it was so great until I saw all PvP builds had one. Things like that you learn from players, not from reading Hamstring or such. That's a definite good part about the Builds section. I wish we could have the best of both worlds, though, and get rid of all the...junk...and flame wars. Those aren't learning experiences. Entropy 01:51, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Definitely not in favour of this. I don't have time to go through a million and one Guild Wars sites, signing up for accounts, getting into discussions and looking for builds, and I imagine that applies to a lot of people. I don't see why guild wiki shouldn't aim to be a complete reference for the game, and such a reference undoubtedly requires builds. How we go about doing builds does need to change, as with only a couple of exceptions it seems like everyone is dissatisfied with the current situation. However, that dissatisfaction doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up in the air and tell people to bog off to some other site. When the page hit counters were still in place it was pretty clear that the build pages were some of the most popular on the whole site - that's a good thing. It's a bad thing that some PvP players regard our builds as useless, but that means they need to be improved, not removed. --NieA7 08:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * It's like a part of life. Certain children are being bad playing with a toy, they are going to ruin it for everyone else and that toy is going to be taken away. That's what is happening here. The "children" are undeniably rude on most occasions, break builds policy and in some instances broke main policy, and offer little to none positive feedback, if there is feedback and not just a /signed or a straight out deletion. I have never thought this decision revolved around some people posting their opinions on another site. Guild Wiki is better than that and it's more experienced contributors should be as well, though it's hard to see an air of maturity, helpfulness, and sometimes calmness, in most of the comments posted on builds.


 * I don't deny Entropy's claim that watching bad builds is a learning experience, but does that little bit of knowledge you gain from that build worth that author being mocked for his/her idea or variation of an idea? With your sentence regarding not knowing snaring (crippling) was so good in PvP, you don't need hundreds of builds to tell you that kind of information. Players kite (strafe) and the AI tries to as well, though players have been doing so since the game was introduced. What do you do when you can't catch something? In this case by slowing it down with the use of techinques, such as cripple and knockdown. Any widely used information such as that usually ends up on the skill page itself under notes or its own quick reference, see Crippling Shot, Crippling Slash, Frozen Burst, or Movement speed quick reference.


 * Basically the builds section has been attempted, abused, and now it on the verge of being removed. &mdash; Gares 12:54, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I don't think it's anywhere near the verge of being removed as far as a general consensus goes - there's just a cadre of high profile/very vocal users and admins who keep on pushing and pushing for it, and who are showing very little signs of quitting. Question is whether this cadre will outtalk everyone else. --NieA7 14:55, 31 December 2006 (CST)

I'm going to put all the builds in a section of my user dingy. Will put a link to it on my user page when I'm finished with it. Feel free to help. Shall start tonight. Bug 11:26, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Um... Agree?
Well, I support this also --FireFox  21:31, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * /agree. The minimal benefits are vastly outweighed by the drama of the glory-seekers, and the flaws in the Vetting system. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:41, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * I also support this. Auron put it very well. There are far too many flaws with having the build section here to deserve it staying. It belongs somewhere else. I will agree that having a place where you can easily create a builds page using template and get other people to see it is a good thing, it just does not belong on a wiki. Someone should host it separately using some similar technology. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 09:01, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * Agreed. A new, fair, PROPER, uncorrupted build vetting system over this, but yeah, builds FTL. Napalm Flame 11:02, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I agree too. The builds section is just a collection of opinions with a lot of angry people. Nuke it --Lania Elderfire 20:21, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * I, too, agree. The build section is one big mess, and the vetting system is badly flawed. To much subjectivity, too much ego involved, too much e-drama. Lots of people want to post "their" build, but are not willing or able to give a thorough, fair and unbiased assessment of other people's builds. Having a website with builds is a good thing, but a wiki in general isn't a good website type for this, for sure not GuildWiki. GuildWiki should go back to what is used to be and what it's good at: An encyclopedia, a documentary of facts, information and knowledge, not opinion. The build section should be split from GuildWiki. Move it to a separate wiki (on the gamewikis network or somewhere else) or simply nuke it. Personally, I'd recommend gwShack for builds. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:03, 5 February 2007 (CST)

I 100% agree with this suggestion. the only thing that seems to stand in the way of it being implemented are the philisophical Wiki arguments that it might be unwiki-like perhaps. essentially GuildWiki is trying to do something that is A) too cumbersome to accomplish and filter down to usable format (the current open contribution--vetting charade) B) Not what a Wiki is for (See No Original Builds -- I agree witht is suggestion also)  People shouldn't be coming here for builds, and GuildWiki shouldn't be contributing it's resources to the endeavor, but it's not my dime! Singed: a once disgruntled contributor.--Rafe Alexander 22:13, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Disagree
Again, the strength of a wiki is the input from the public. An organic think-tank and creation site of builds is not a bad thing. Will a 'bad' build get vetted? Sure, I guess it can happen. Taking into account that the build is universally, outright, bad as opposed to ones one purely personal taste. But that's a small downside for a large possibility for creativity and documentation from the community. No one is going to be able to produce a purely perfect system. If anything, you need to find a balance that allows input from the community while allowing vetting to take place. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Not favored. Isis In De Nile 00:17, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * While I do agree that this is quite extreme, I disagree with some of your points. We know what's "bad" and "good", and the Builds section, while intentionally "not a bad thing", has caused quite a lot of conflict. While it is one of our most popular sections, it's been pretty much the most troublesome. But I certainly disagree with wiping out the builds. It's just about finding that right balance. GW:NOB I think is the closest, but maybe not on the button just yet. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]]

(talk|contribs) 00:26, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * I find it a little ego-centered that you are so sure of what is 'bad' and 'good.' You may think something is bad, and you are open to your opinion. If other players find it good, then they find it good, and they are also open to their opinion. They will use it and enjoy it and win with it. You won't, because you think it is bad. The conflict seems to be arising from people doing their best to force the Wiki to their vision at the cost of other people around them, by disrespecting them. Again, this seems to be a question of ego. Consensus requires the input of a wide range of people who are all involved in a system, not just a few particular people while excluding others.Isis In De Nile 21:14, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * I believe your idea of a "popular" is not exactly the correct term to use for the builds section. I think it's great for people to express their ideas, but when a thousand people express their ideas by creating build articles, certain users circling the builds section start in on the immature comments and then an arguement usually ensues, that's not really popular. Nothing has brought out this kind of childishness on the wiki as the builds section, which is why this policy was proposed. &mdash; Gares 15:24, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Then ban the certain users from interacting with the Build Section if just a few troublemakers are out there. If that is it, just do it. The end. I don't see what is so hard about this. Isis In De Nile 21:17, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * There's a full ban or no ban, there is no partial ban. As for a partial solution, look at No personal attacks. I suggest taking a step back if you feel so strongly about this. This is an all or nothing proposal and in my opinion will probably not be implemented unless it's absolutely necessary. &mdash; Gares 22:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * I think we're all forgetting that the vast majority of visitors here never even bother to look at the talk pages - all they see is a useful (otherwise they wouldn't be there) section with several good ideas to try out. The arguments and suchlike are only problems for the people who take part in them, which I doubt totals more than a hundred souls or so. --NieA7 03:56, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Nuke It!
The more I try to use it, the more I'm convinced that the fundamental idea of a build section is misguided. Too many bad experiments and trivial variants. What you really want are good guides telling how to think about stuff rather than build articles telling you what to staple to your skill bar. "This is how you manage adrenaline." "This is how you manage minions." "This is how you do Tombs." That kind of thing. Right now, we've got some good builds, a lot of bad builds, and a bunch of really weak guides. Which is why it seems like a lot of people posting builds and commenting on them don't seem to get stuff like how to manage adrenaline in the first place.

Moreover, the culture of builds on the wiki just doesn't work. It's polluted with self-righteousness and disrespect, with more penis-wagging and posturing than actual collaboration. Keep shouting "It's just a minority of users ruining it for everyone!" as much as you want, but it's still ruined.

Time to burn it with fire. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Is that gonna happen anytime soon? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:31, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * No, but it should. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ain't gonna happen, far too many people want to keep it. Me included to be honest, it's by far and away one of the most popular sections on the wiki if the old page views were anything to go by. --NieA7 04:27, 17 January 2007 (CST)
 * Suprisingly, not many have been vocal for or against this proposal, so to say "too many people want to keep it" is an opinion at the moment. As I mentioned above in another section, "As for a partial solution, look at No personal attacks. This is an all or nothing proposal and in my opinion will probably not be implemented unless it's absolutely necessary."
 * To keep saying it is one of the most popular sections is only because it is the most forum-like sections. Anyone can post a build, edit a build, and anyone can comment on that build. This freedom of opinion allows people to spam the builds section more so than any other areas of the wiki, since the rest of the site is fact, besides user/user talk pages.
 * Lastly, there are more that have commented on this proposal for it, than against it. In those regards, it could be implemented anytime, so to say "Ain't gonna happen" is wishful thinking. But as I said, this proposal is a seemingly last resort if the builds section cannot be fixed and the behavior does not improve. &mdash; Gares 10:44, 17 January 2007 (CST)
 * People haven't been vocal as this crawled out last of a whole raft of build section proposals - by the time it arrived most all of us were utterly sick of the whole thing. I'm saying it's popular based on page views (before they were removed) rather than page edits, there's an important difference as only a fraction of traffic to the wiki actually bothers with editing things (which is partly why this whole builds debate is a storm in a teacup, Joe Punter neither knows nor cares about our agonising over vetting procedure, nor the dramas enacted on build talk pages). Based on the viewing traffic I feel confident in saying that the average user regularly visits the build section, and that if they knew that there was a danger of it being removed they would be quite vocal against it. It's only regular contributors like you and me who bother with things like this, it's in no way representative of visitors.
 * Now that page views have been disabled it would be very interesting to know how much traffic our tested builds get per day, as compared to other high profile pages on this site. Are the figures recorded anywhere? --NieA7 11:31, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Kill it, builds are temporary as a guild roster and mostly opinion. We have S&F for regular pages and you can't go wrong with those, its all fact so there isn't much dispute. We have S&F for the builds, but nothing to stop any gibbering idiot (not a jab at anyone ;)) posting a build, they're perfectly entitled to do so, no matter how ludicrous. I've done a couple of so-called crap purges, deleting dozens on abandoned/beyond repair pages at a time, this doesn't feel right at all and I get attacked by a small percentage of authors for doing so. Prehaps I shouldn't delete the beyond-hope crap, but prehaps the authors shouldn't post it? I'm pretty sure the whole thing would have fallen apart by now, and we would have had at least 10 times as much in stubs/untested. To stop this happening we really need some sort of check or standards of submission (see all the other failed policy proposals), but this is un-wiki-like aswell. I'm thinking maybe it would have been better just to leave the whole thing to rot so it would have been easier to remove, because at the moment it feels like dragging along a dead horse &mdash; Skuld 10:16, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * "I'm thinking maybe it would have been better just to leave the whole thing to rot so it would have been easier to remove, because at the moment it feels like dragging along a dead horse" - I completely agree with this comment. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 10:22, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Disagree with this policy
I agree with previous posters who said that the builds section is very useful and should not go. Not only does it help you get better at understanding how to make good builds, but it also fosters creativity, by having access to other people's brainstorming. Sometimes someone else's bad build contains an interesting skill combination that I hadn't thought of, and that idea can turn into a good build. I also have a friend who just started playing, and from reading the build section, he has a lot better of an understanding of good builds. Personally I think most of the problems relating to the builds section could be better resolved with a "Post No Flames" policy rather than a "Post No Builds" policy. Who cares if some bad builds get favored sometimes, or vice versa? As long as you take each build you look at with a grain of salt and evaluate it for yourself, its never bothered me that a build's community evaluation does not match my personal opinion. The only reason this causes a problem is when people allow their ego to get involved, take it personally, and take out their frustration on other users. I do agree with some of Skuld's statements, things were getting messy and it seems like the only way we could keep up with a lot of bad submissions was to bend the rules and allow him to make a lot of deletions. Personally though, I think this can be resolved by having a stricter submission policy of some kind. Its just too easy to submit a build right now, and considering all the red linked usernames and ip addresses submitting builds, it seems half of the submitters are just signing up for an account in order to submit their build. Since they are not really part of the community yet, they don't understand what standards are expected for builds, or what impact they have on the site by spamming poor builds onto it, and they are able to submit a build without having any interaction with other users. This could easily be addressed by changing the submission process. For example, you could require build submitters to have a userpage, and first create their build on their userpage, and request feedback from at least one other contributor. They would need a nomination from another user in order to move the build to the buildspace. This would force them to interact with other users, and give them a taste of what our expectations are, before they go and throw the first build they could think of onto the buildspace. I think there are a lot of ideas that can be explored before resorting to removing a very useful and popular section of the site, despite its problems. -- BrianG 11:14, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * There will never be requirements for editing like like that. --Fyren 11:21, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * As much of the unpleasantness that goes on in the builds section comes from voters rather than authors this policy is attacking a symptom rather than a cause (Sore toe? Hack your leg off!). The new templates that have recently been introduced should go some way towards clearing up the confusion that's been the cause of at least some of the disputes - any move to remove builds en masse before they've had a chance to bed in would be far too premature. Once the templates are up to speed the system can be further improved, one step at a time.
 * In general I don't think we should have requirements for submitting builds (policing them would take too much time and effort) - the current stub -> untested -> (un)favoured method goes a long way towards keeping Untested Builds clean. --NieA7 11:23, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * I see it more like a fleash eating bacteria and for that you have to take the leg off. Well I'm not touching it again people are way to protective of there stuff and think because theire group survive that make it a good build.  Well should go for great not good build.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  11:27, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * That's the kinda thing that should be thrashed out when the next round of policy talks comes about, rather than just a general throwing up of hands about the whole thing. It's impossible to be sure but I'm pretty certain that the average visitor to this site doesn't give a flying monkey about all the angst that goes on in the builds section, they just use tested as a highly useful resource. It'd be a real shame to get rid of it just because the 1% of contributors don't like it, rather than the 99% of visitors. --NieA7 11:31, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * Those numbers are kind of silly.. &mdash; Skuld 11:32, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * Because I made them up - is there any actual way to find out the relative proportions of visitors vs editors? --NieA7 11:33, 19 January 2007 (CST)

In response to Fyren, it was just an example. I'm not sure what your reasons are for being opposed to the idea but NieA7 is probably right that it would be tricky to enforce. I'm sure you can agree though, that the people who are posting most of the poor builds are ones who are brand new to the wiki and are just throwing things up because its easy. Therefore I think we should be trying to think of ways to slow down, or "snare" those users, and educate and involve them before they post the first thing they think of. I realize it is "un-wiki-like" to have requirements for editing, but the current method of "auto-crap-deletion" is also un-wiki-like, so I think its clear that in order to continue the builds section, we'll have to bend the rules on what is considered "wiki-like", and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. -- BrianG 11:48, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * That they have it on there page or in the categories untested is the same, we would have to have a cathegorie for them too even if they were on the userpage. People wont look on all the userpage to see if there is a build to test.  The untested categorie is there to make those connection with other users out there to help them do better build.  One more rant, a build that is made to patch up something really piss me off, all those think about ele who don't want to make a tank but want to deal melee dmg and those who say that a bonder can be made with only NF.  That make no sens, those shoudn't be alowed.  When I see a comment like well it's not as great as (insert original here) but if you only have (stuff here) it does the job ok.  end of ramdom rant.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  11:58, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * This isn't in response to Aratak, just a statement I want to make on the general discussion. I don't think it matters if the builds are good or crap or whatever, they just don't belong in the wiki. I really want someone to just make a website that is for creating builds and build discussion, even if it is associated with gwiki as a sister-site or whatever. The community does need somewhere to do this, but it shouldn't be here. :/ - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 12:10, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * Bexor, this suggestion has been made many times, and I'm not opposed to it, as long as we have a place to go. Unfortunately, every time its been suggested, nobody is able to come up with an actual plan to make this happen, so I don't know if its worth the time to continue to discuss it unless someone has a real proposal.  Personally I don't think the builds section is that bad of a fit for the wiki, I think its workable if people are willing to work together on a better policy. -- BrianG 12:23, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I think the builds sections provide newer players a place to see how builds work and how they should build one for themselves. This allows them to be more competitive in their play and thusly increase the spirit of competition of GW for everyone.


 * They should use forums and read guides for that sort of thing. We should be creating articles, not being a place where ppl can post a shoddy page and get it critisised :-/ &mdash; Skuld 17:34, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * True but since Arenanet doesn't give users even premade builds, at least there is something for them to look at. Maybe instead of having a builds page having a builds guide would be better suited.  Show new users the basics of good build making and what to look for when making a build.  Either way I think something on those lines would be appropriate, either keep builds coming in or change it to a "guide to better builds" or something along those lines.

PROPOSED REVISION:
No builds that aren't standard. Things like SF: Submit a build, people vote if it is STANDARD and should be documented. No more build namespace, either. Have mostly standard builds found often, or if you've convinced several people on your userpage you made an absolute gem, (no offense gem :)) &mdash;Blastedt&mdash; 18:47, 7 February 2007 (CST)


 * Can all these "make the build section vanish" proposals be put on hold for a while? All of them have been dead for weeks but keep coming back to life in fits and starts. Substantial changes are being made to the section with the creation of the new category system, and several further changes are being planned. Before we throw all our toys out of the pram can we give these new changes a chance to bed in and see if they improve matters, without being distracted by an ever-hanging sword of Damocles? --NieA7 18:53, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * 'No they shouldn' be put on hold for a while, they should either be implemented yesterday or the process sped up to end this idiocy.' Part of the definition of insanity involves someone doing something over and over again in a state of obvious and perpetual failure.  it's usually explained by the attempts to fulfill needs that are misplaced (generalizing).  This is exactly what the whole builds section in a Wiki is, insanity.  The reason it has fits and starts is because you get people like me who come in and contribute to find their work dismissed in a matter of a few minutes by the self appointed cadre of the untested build section.  As my head begins to slow down from spinning, I wonder what happenned.  I begin to investigate and at the end of following a web of talk pages, personal pages, policy pages,ad nauseum and come to the conclusion many old timers and Wiki-gurus seem to be banging their heads against a wall. This animal shouldn't even be in this  cage.  It can't and will not be contained, and the cage keepers fight endlessly to contain it.  The Wiki admin-wannabes are spending tons of editing time trying to contain a task that shouldn't even be in a Wiki.  They have perhaps the best interests of the Wiki as they zoom through the contributions chaperoning the articles along as the carrion of elitist voters swarm about it--meanhwile the carrion all know each other and the only scruples are dmonstrated on the vetting processes they themselves post.  That is the current condition of what you called the builds section here.  So then why does this area lay dormant for a period until another fit of activity?  Because eventually someone who cares and strives to overcome his own ignorance comes along and takes a poke--perhaps that occaisional person, like me, will come to the same conclusion or continue in the vain pursuit of self glory--to get something vetted into high visibility.  In a matter of one day or so I'm fully convinced that the builds section doesn't belong.  What--didn't anyone else watch Sesame Street and sing long to the "Which item here dosn't belong!?" song?  Cmon sing it!--Rafe Alexander 22:43, 14 February 2007 (CST)

I'd go a step further ythough and not allow more than one or two on any userpage. Get builds out of Guildwiki.--Rafe Alexander 23:12, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 * I wouldn't go that far, but the current voting/rating system is too ambiguous and open-ended. Everyone has different definitions of a good/bad build, and even more different definitions for conditions like viable, workable, effective, etc. The reason someone is posting a build is because they believe it's "the best build evar" (there's more nuisances, but that's besides the point). However, that sort of opinion should remain in the user space, where no one but the owner looks at. --8765 15:22, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Remove them ASAP.
I have glanced across "Build_talk" pages for a while, and have yet to see anything positive come out of it. I see terrible builds and a bunch of kiddies posting crap and generally being asses, i'm seeing numorous personal attacks and the most pathetic mock-sarcasm in a while. Its an unpatrolled wasteland of retardedness I'm tempted to do a blanket spam of No personal attacks, but I doubt it will make a difference, these users aren't here here to help; I can half-sympathise as sifting through the crap does wear you down and make you a jerk, but the way to deal with it is not to post mocking comments and bullshit, it is to step away.. The "build authors" I see do not care for the wiki, they do not wish to learn, they simply want "their build" "approved". The "voters" are substantially worse, however. I do not have the patience or energy to push any more, I want some long-standing contributors/admins to rip down this cesspool for the good of the wiki. Just take a look at 10 recent "Build_talk" pages, any will do. &mdash; Skuld 19:56, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Comment removed --SBR 20:05, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Personal biases should be left out of the discussion. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs)  20:18, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Agreed in all accounts, Skuld. --Dirigible 20:16, 4 March 2007 (CST)

I disagree. The Builds section is a useful resource for the community. Our vetting procedure could use a little revamping, but we should certainly keep the Builds section. Skuld, you may not "have the patience or energy to push any more," but I do, and a number of other users are still eager and willing to contribute. It's a shame that you have retired from the Builds section, because you generally seem to have got your head on straight, and people like that are exactly what we need in the Builds section. - Krowman (talk • contribs)  20:31, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * No it isn't. It's a playground for the eager newbie. I'd say it hurts more than it helps. The only decent stuff are the DoA guides etc and the cookie-cutters, the rest are well-meaning Good Ideas TM &mdash; Skuld 20:37, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * Well SBR has removed his comment, but I'll just say Skuld has been actively involved the builds section but more recently he's had plenty of time to think about the builds section from the sidelines, I'm certainly interested to hear his opinions.


 * The Gwiki has always been an incredibly idealistic endeavour and and ideally the builds section would both accurately document the popular PvP and PvE builds as well as being a great place to collaboratively create a build based on a good idea. This is happening to some extent, particularly in regards to the PvE side. You'll often see people referencing a team/solo farming build in all chat or if you stickybeak into the forums of other guilds, you'll see it there too, which is great. The PvP side I'm not so sure about, it causes lots of disharmony and I don't really think many people look at PvP builds anyway as a reference. For me, the question is not so much should we keep the builds section or not, the question is can we change it to work how it should? If it's not working but it can be fixed, then it should be kept.


 * I think the PvE section is good, it's a lot easier to test a build in an area vs testing a build for an arena. But should we change the PvP section so it is more documentation focused as opposed to submitting builds that you think might work? There's too many crap PvP builds at the moment and important builds which are in the metagame keep getting missed. If we change it to say only submit builds that you've seen a top 100 guild using/seen a group take the halls with then we may miss some builds that are being used, but not by the very top. But it's gotta be better than the current system and is a lot easier to verify. --Xasxas256 20:48, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * I'd say just the opposite: It helps more than it hurts. I'm not saying the problems you cite do not exist; certainly, they do. However, they are not so significant as to warrant getting rid of the entire Builds section. They can be worked around, and they have been for a long time now. You say that you've advocated this for many months now, yet the wiki has trudged on, in spite of all these problems. The benefits of providing a builds resource for the community certainly outweigh the downside of constantly having to shoot down bad builds. It really isn't that difficult or stressful to cast a vote anyways. To Xasxas, you've made some good points, though I think PvP builds are just as easy, if not easier, to verify than PvE builds. If you want solid proof of a build and how it performs, it can be as simple as looking for it on Observer Mode. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2007 (CST)