| abstract
| - This policy is meant to reduce 'trolling' and is likely to encourage new build writers. Also, it may improve overall quality of the builds. ~ ĐONT*TALK 21:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT) brilliant ~ Image:ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (EDT) 1.
* Comparing it to clearly superior and imbalanced builds 2.
* Decrying specific skills like "lol Healing Breeze" or "Decapitate is bad" I disagree with both of these. What is wrong with comparing a build to a superior build? (Baring in mind the site is meant to host the best builds, not inferior ones). Decrying skills is also fine, it shows general opinion to the author and lets you suggest replacements. —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 21:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT) (ec with rawr) Sort of a double-edged sword. On one hand, it brings forth the things you discussed before. On the other hand, it brings discussion closer to GWW discussion, slowing things from actually getting done (ie, Extend Enchantments is bad, there's no synergy, the concept is broken. trash). — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 21:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Rawr: If there is a better alternative for the skill then it's "Suggesting other skills". Rapta: votes are still valid, if the build is indeed bad, people will just look at the other votes and rate it down too. ~ ĐONT*TALK 21:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Sometimes you need to tell someone their build is just plain horrible. And it gets especially annoying to have to give the same explanations when a new locusts/VoS/Decap build is submitted every day. New users need to either be able to deal with being told their build is bad, or not submit builds until they've learned what a good build is.--Goldenstar 21:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT) I think if it is explained why the concept is bad, it will fall under constructive criticism. ~ ĐONT*TALK 21:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT) if you dont have the energy to post why its bad, then i'd say dont post at all golden. saying "this sucks" or "lol @ skill A" doesnt help users in trying to contribute. its more trolling then helpful by telling them ONLY that it sucks.Image:Saintsigpic.jpg Saint 22:03, 23 June 2008 (EDT) I agree with rawr. "Comparing it to clearly superior and imbalanced builds" What's wrong with this? see PvX:WELL "Decrying specific skills like "lol Healing Breeze" or "Decapitate is bad"" Some skills are just bad. Is there a point in explaining why (for example) amity sucks? –Ichigo724Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg 21:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Well, the point of the site is to help people out. Some people who need help have issues with basic concepts of the game. If somebody that inept comes along, shouldn't we point them in the right direction? ~ Image:ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Yes and no. This issue actually leaves a huge gap for trolling, in fact, since users can repeatedly cite this very policy and others' reasons repeatedly as being insufficient, and thus, nothing unfavorable (from the author's perspective) would happen to his/her build. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 21:54, 23 June 2008 (EDT) (dual EC) We are pointing them in the right direction by telling them the skill sucks. —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 21:55, 23 June 2008 (EDT) But what good does it do if they don't know why it sucks ~ Image:ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (EDT) If they ask that, they usually get an answer anyways, in which case, this policy isn't really needed. From the policy perspective: AGF, WELL, and the BM policy cover this, pretty much. From the "Ignore All Rules" perspective: This would get in the way of things actually being done. Just to show that this isn't really following the "policy-heavy GWW" path, or the "PvXwiki" path. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 21:58, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Good point. ~ Image:ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 22:00, 23 June 2008 (EDT) shouldnt just be considered in terms of build talk, votes are often un-constructive.Image:Saintsigpic.jpg Saint 22:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Votes are not supposed to be a discussion, but more an "objective judgment of the build's qualities", from the Real Vetting policy page. From the same page, "If a user feels that an unwarranted rating has been given to a build, he or she may contact the voter in question and ask them to explain or elaborate their rating on the build's discussion page.". In essence, what this policy is supposed to accomplish, we already have listed in the pre-existing policies. And again, from the perspective of Policy versus. Spirit of the Policy debate, this would not benefit the other side of the argument as well, because it hampers speedy vote removal. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT) i understand it shouldnt be a discussion, but i dont think im the only one that thinks that a votes reason should justify the vote, not just be a place to say "this is 1337"Image:Saintsigpic.jpg Saint 22:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT) In which case, it violates the Real Vetting voting policy and is removed anyways (we know enough not to let them stay). In other cases, where votes are obviously joking (like on some very much standard builds), sometimes a blind eye is turned, since it's pretty obvious for such builds to be given extremely high (or for very bad builds, extremely low) ratings. As long as the line is drawn between a small laugh and trolling, things are fine in my opinion (note those last 3 words). — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 22:15, 23 June 2008 (EDT) edit conflict ftl ^^. is there much action taken against people who consistantly give bad reasons while voting instead of just simple reasons. how hard is it to type that one sentance on why u voted that way. people take the time to vote but not to give a constructive reason why.Image:Saintsigpic.jpg Saint 22:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Because a vote is strictly based on what's given in the build and why it's bad. A vote does not have to be constructive. An important thing to distinguish between is a vote that's critical (but not constructive) and those one-line meaningless votes that you are talking about (the former being valid, while the latter should be removed). There's a difference between "Decapitate is bad" (usually valid) and "this build sucks" (usually invalid). — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT) i consider "decap is bad" constructive. it tells why u voted the way u did. thats the only point i wanted to make.--Image:Saintsigpic.jpg Saint 22:33, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Well, there you go then. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT) Not signed. For the average user, this seems like a great idea. For the users who are actually knowledgeable of Guild Wars, this gets annoying FAST. You spit out the same shit every single day to a bunch of 10-year-olds who just want "their build on wiki". They're not here to learn, they want popularity. — Skakid 18:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT) agreed. The only good points in this overlap with other policies (as rapta had to point out to me. lol lrn2policy) ~ Image:ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 18:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)