| abstract
| - Sorry for being so late, RL is really busy atm. I have a preliminary version running on the test server. Here are some details that can answer some of the above questions:
* Build Masters will form a new user group, just like admins or bcrats. Any user can be member of any group. Thus a user could be only admin, only BM, or both. Membership in any user group is granted and revoked by the bcrats.
* BMs will have the right to roll back votes and to revert rollbacks. Admins who are not BMs won't have that right any more. [can be changed]
* BM's votes will count 150% [can be changed] for determination of the overall rating. They don't count extra for determining the number of votes (and neither in the histograms shown on the rating page).
* The CheckUser right is granted to the CheckUser user group. Bcrats are free to add BMs to that group.
* BMs cannot delete pages, including build pages. However, a page tagged for deletion by a BM might be deleted by an admin with little further investigation. What needs to be decided before implementation is: how much weight should BM votes get, 150% or more? Who should be the initial BMs? – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 05:48, 6 January 2008 (EST) imho, Admins should still retain the right to rollback/revert votes. Admins have traditionally been the sort of "peace keepers" of the wiki, and I think that allowing them to have this right will allow for their position to remain clearly and visibly above that of a BM. I don't carry any opinion on the vote weighting, necessarily, though I do think that anything over 200% would be unfavorable, strongly. As for the initial BMs, I believe Skakid and Unexist might be the only quite unanimously chosen BMs who are both active and well-recognized by the community. Perhaps, for testing purposes, Wizardboy or some other glitchfinder might make a nice temporary to hound out problems. I'm not sure that'll be necessary, but it's a thought. Image:Cedave bad.png cedave (contributions_buildpage) 06:00, 6 January 2008 (EST) Yes, admins need to retain their current powers but admins should also be able to be Build Masters through the same process. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 21:50, 6 January 2008 (EST) Vote Weight needs to be at least 2 times. Would instantly make the BM's selection more exclusive, and there would be no potential for abuse of power, just like the nature of a RfA. Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 10:03, 6 January 2008 (EST) The vote weight should not be above 200%, at the very most, and 150% would be preferable. I like preventing non-BM admins from removing votes, as someone may be a very good admin, but not know anything about builds. Lord Belar 12:45, 6 January 2008 (EST) 200% is optimal imo. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 21:50, 6 January 2008 (EST) If admins won't be able to remove votes, then BMs should definitely be checkusers. Otherwise, admins could find socks but couldn't remove their votes and BMs could remove sock votes but couldn't confirm whether or not they're socks. So in the event that at some point we ended up without any admins who were also BMs, that wouldn't be ideal. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 14:33, 6 January 2008 (EST) I'll change the code such that all admins can remove votes. Making all BMs also checkusers is a good idea, but that doesn't require any coding, anybody can be given the checkuser right by the bcrats. We still need consensus about the BM's vote weighting! – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 15:50, 6 January 2008 (EST) 150% works, but if enough people want it higher, then change it to 200%. Lord Belar 15:51, 6 January 2008 (EST) People have opposed Vote Weight, but unless they wish to present a legit argument as to why 200% isn't in good taste, I'm inclined to say the silence means consent. I say 200%. Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 16:01, 6 January 2008 (EST) 200% is fine, but no higher. If the weighting gets too high, no one other than BM's need vote, as it won't matter. Lord Belar 16:05, 6 January 2008 (EST) 200%. -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 16:14, 6 January 2008 (EST) Ya I say start like a test run with it at 200% but if it seems to make things to unbalanced it should go to 150% but no lower XvivaX 19:30, 6 January 2008 (EST) Blech.. I'll consent. BMs are being put in place for a reason. Might as well make that reason damn clear. 200% agreed by me. Image:Cedave bad.png cedave (contributions_buildpage) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (EST) 150%. — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 17:29, 10 January 2008 (EST) Yeah, I agree with 150%. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (EST) So does that mean you support this policy/accept your nomination? Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 17:39, 10 January 2008 (EST) No and no. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (EST) Why not and crap. Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 17:49, 10 January 2008 (EST) Because I don't like weighted voting. But since this is going to be implemented, I prefer 150%. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 17:51, 10 January 2008 (EST) You know I'm obliged to ask why. Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (EST) Read the archives, his arguments on weighting were presented, and tbh are mostly crappy and have been refuted.Bob fregman 17:56, 10 January 2008 (EST) None were refuted outside of "BM's might wiki better". — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (EST) (EC)That was quite a while ago. Nevertheless, if he insists on maintaining them, I'd like to be able to debate about it. Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (EST) So can you offer a brief corrolary/essay? Just so we can start anew. Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (EST) Not really. People wanted to test this out, so I just said "sure, why not?" If the trial proves to be somewhat successful, then keep the policy. If there's no significant change or improvements, it should be scrapped. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (EST) Agreed. Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 18:04, 10 January 2008 (EST) I think in general BMship is a great idea. However, I think maybe BM's should be broken up into 2 sections, such as PvP and PvE. Some people (such as high up GvG players) will probably specialize in something. Having someone focus on one section can allow thorough and good monitering of builds. To an extent, even breaking it into categories such as Farming, AB, GvG, etc, could work. That's just my take, but whatever. I /support either way. --Image:GoD Sig3.jpgGuildofDeals 15:22, 12 January 2008 (EST) Generally speaking, we'd hope that BMs who didn't know about (for example) GvG, wouldn't remove votes on GvG builds (for anything other than the most obvious reasons). If BMs started doing so (it would become reasonably obvious since, in order for it to be a problem, we'd have to start seeing a bunch of improperly removed votes), we could demote them. Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:02, 12 January 2008 (EST) The more I think about this the more I compare it to admins having vote removal power. Although... vote weightings could be slightly problematic (you can't choose to not weight your own vote, and sometimes you want to vote on something that's out of your specific area of expertise). Perhaps a checkbox (checked by default) for whether or not to apply higher vote ranking? Is that possible at this point? -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 04:12, 13 January 2008 (EST) I guess that is kinda the unwritten law. If you are a great PvE player and become a Buildmaster, then you'll probably stick around the PvE section, unless someone says "this douche put a 0-0-0 on Cripshot" or something. --Image:GoD Sig3.jpgGuildofDeals 09:09, 13 January 2008 (EST) Weighted votes are lame, if you're gonna say certain people's votes mean more, just have them vote on everything. Then you don't have to worry about us lowly newbs ruining scores on your good builds. Moush 17:19, 13 January 2008 (EST) Bit late to the party. -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 20:37, 13 January 2008 (EST) @Armond: It's difficult. Technically, it's not the votes that are marked as special, but the users. Any vote made by a build master is scaled up in the calculation of the overall vote. Btw: This also means that promotion/demotion of a build master immediately changes the weighting of all his votes. If that's a problem we'll have to mark each individual vote as placed by a BM. But this would involve a change of the database structure, that is, more effort. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 17:33, 13 January 2008 (EST) Oh, yeah, that would take a lot of work to fix. -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 20:37, 13 January 2008 (EST) I like the idea, but many people will probably be argueing with BM votes if it changes the rating dramatically, even though the point is to moderate rating. I'm thinking if two BMs vote on a build, it would pretty much mkae a few other votes obselete, I'd prefer a limit of one BM per build.--Relyk 11:55, 16 January 2008 (EST) ...If people have a problem with people better than them voting, that's their problem, imo. Also, the archive got lost somewhere. -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 12:36, 16 January 2008 (EST) Wizardboy got it. When the proposal was renamed after having been implemented as a full-out policy, the "subst:" part of the archive changed accordingly, so Wiz just substituted the actual archived talk page. Image:Shogunshen Sig.jpg Shen(contribs) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (EST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)