| abstract
| - This is a good start for a policy like this. The problem with the last "build wiki" was that it didn't have a standard for the quality of builds being submitted... which led to builds lacking an elite, or even a good attribute spread getting vetted. The problem with a policy like this is that this is very subjective in some cases where a voter may not understand why a particular build is inferior or better than other builds. IMO clearer guidelines needs to be made as to what is effective or not ie. a profession or even a job specific guideline as to what is effective or not. For example a Job subtype of a damage dealer fits in different categories such as pressure, spike, mixed etc, and a guideline should be setup as to determine if a build's Damage output is clearly inferior to other builds. But this is even subjective because just looking at the pure DPS won't tell the whole story. Is the DPS predictable or unpredictable? Is there a spike potentiol? Can it inflict debilitating conditions? Are the hexes effective for the role? etc etc. There are others for example in PvP, compare specific builds such as Flag runners, split builds, and builds designed only for the flag stand etc etc... Also for team builds something like this gets really complicated because it really depends on the people playing the team build, where a team maybe effective with one set of people, but a different set of people playing the same build may be ineffective or are better at playing a different build. Lania Elderfire 18:33, 23 April 2007 (CEST) Yeah, there's a lot of things considered in whether a build is effective or not, and having written this around midnight, I didn't think of them all. I'd love it if this talk page could be used to brainstorm ways to make this important policy clear, effective, and executable. Armond 19:40, 23 April 2007 (CEST) Let me start by saying that I don't think any policy could ever hope to address all of the possible ways in which a build could possibly be inferior to another. What I think works so well about this policy is that we now have an actual standard (albeit incomplete) that we can cite. Furthermore, I think that this policy, is going to rely on Admins picking apart the merits of individual builds. On the other hand, they would be forced to do that anyway, this just gives us something more concrete. On the one hand, you might say that this is restricting because it doesn't make all of those minutiae things to be considered, but we can easily get around that be merely saying that the list is incomplete. As things come up, we can add new criteria, but I tend to like the intent of the policy. I would even go so far as to say that this alone would be reasonable as policy, just that we would have to be liberal in thinking about the intent of the policy as opposed to the actual wording which as I say, is never going to be all inclusive. At the very least, this adds some structure to an already overwhelmingly subjective process. And, I think we can solve a lot of the problems that Lania mentioned by simply creating a solid vetting system that is able to account for the subjective nature of a build wiki. Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:33, 24 April 2007 (CEST) I agree with defiant that builds are subjective and its hard to define "better", but i thik this puts to much work on admins. I suggest changing "An admin will review the build in question as well as its talk page to see if it does indeed violate this policy. If it does, the build may be deleted immediately and without discussion." to "A vote will take place, or an admin will review the build in question as well as its talk page to see if it does indeed violate this policy. If it does, the build may be deleted immediately and without discussion.", and change "In this case, an admin will decide if the two builds are similar enough to be merged, if one is inferior to the other, or if the two are separate enough to be considered two different builds, and will take action accordingly." in the same way. i know this brings back voting, but it think merge votes always worked pretty well. admins are going to be VARY busy with the way the policy is now.--Coloneh 04:41, 24 April 2007 (CEST) I would agree. I don't think it is so much that it puts too much of a burden on Admins, merely that Merge Votes and Deletion Votes, when they are decisive, usually point the Admin in the right direction. Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:52, 24 April 2007 (CEST) I'll concur. I have bedstuffs soon, so if someone else has a moment, could they change it? And for the record, people on this wiki agree more often than my english class during a debate, and we get graded on the number of times we agree. Armond 07:12, 24 April 2007 (CEST) I agree with the comments above. We don't want to put too much responsibility on the admin to determine if the build is inferior to another build, as this contradicts our other policy that states that admins administrate users, not content. I think the proposed changes above would be better, but ultimately Defiant is right that an improved vetting system should make this issue less of a problem than it has in the past. I do think there should be some less subjective situations where an admin does have the authority to delete or merge a build, such as "No elite skill included", or "almost exact skillbar as another build". As far as similarity to other builds, it might be useful to set a hard threshold for when a build is considered too similar to another build, for example 6 skills the same or greater. What do you guys think of something like that? Bottom line is, I don't mind admins making this decision in some cases, and the power to do so will be useful to keep the site clean. For example, we should have some power to do some of the things that Skuld did in the past, but with much more specific guidelines to prevent arguments or flame wars over subjective decisions. -- BrianG 01:13, 25 April 2007 (CEST) I think even 5 similar skills excluding an elite is pushing it. A lot of times the change of the elite alone changes the whole build so it's hard to determine if something really is too similar or not. Ditto on the admins too. I trust the admins :-)Lania Elderfire 04:30, 25 April 2007 (CEST) At a certain point, any policy like this will still rely on an Admin's good judgment. In my opinion, a debate over whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever isn't really important to the policy itself. Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:33, 25 April 2007 (CEST) Well, I'm just suggesting that it would make things easier for the admins if there were some more specific criteria to determine a build's similarity. Obviously if the elite is different it wouldn't count. Beyond that, I don't think it much matters whether its 5 or 6 similar skills, as long as we pick a number and use it as a guideline. Part of the problem with using votes to determine mergers, is that you end up with different standards applied to different builds, based on the opinion of the voters at the time. So you may have builds with 7 matching skills but the voters decide not to merge, and ones with only 4 matching skills and they vote to merge. Having some specific guidelines would help us have some consistency in how we deal with similar builds. -- BrianG 07:54, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)