ZB[]
you're a better man than me if you can fight for the zb build ;p — Skuld 21:42, 22 December 2006 (CST)
- Meh, the day I stop fighting it is the day I use CoP + Holy Veil. xD — Rapta
(talk|contribs) 21:46, 22 December 2006 (CST)
Sorry about that, I was looking at it, I forgot to revert it, terribly sorry. - Nex 23:43, 22 December 2006 (CST)
Rofl, as I look around build comments, you seem to be in almost every one of them. You love build bashing I must say. :) --Apathy 16:41, 23 December 2006 (CST)
Merry Christmas[]
or whatever holiday you celebrate. Just wanted to wish all the regular's i normally deal with here a happy holidays... --Midnight08 
00:01, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Still an hour away here. But Merry Christmas to you too! =) — Rapta
(talk|contribs) 00:03, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- East coast ftw=P hope ya have a good 1 man --Midnight08 00:03, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Aw damn. This clock is an hour off. xD Open those presents quickly! — Rapta (talk|contribs) 00:05, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- haha at 28 years old things have changed. ive already opened em all this mornin=P --Midnight08 00:07, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- haha at 28 years old things have changed. ive already opened em all this mornin=P --Midnight08
- Aw damn. This clock is an hour off. xD Open those presents quickly! — Rapta
- East coast ftw=P hope ya have a good 1 man --Midnight08
Merry Christmas! --Silk Weaker 00:11, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Hope you get a good haul on presents :p -Auron 00:12, 25 December 2006 (CST)
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you! You unfavoured my [Build: W/Mo Anti-Runner], and I was wondering if we could talk. It being my first build, I'd like to gather as much critisism as possible. I replied to your unfavour on the build's discussion, so could you maybe take a look? I'm new to Wiki, but it's been a while since I ve gotten any feedback about the build, so I'm kinda just waiting for some. >.<? --Mopants 01:54, 25 December 2006 (CST)
A Wintersday gift for you...[]
Happy Wintersday!
|
This users right to vote cannot be bound. |
— 
Azroth 
01:58, 25 December 2006 (CST)
In case you missed the memo[]
"I'll cover the first point first since it is easiest. The build vetting procedure states the following: "Voting after testing the build in game and leaving a detailed comment with the vote is prefered, but not needed to make the vote count."
My interpretation of this point is that testing and comments are a courtesy, not a requirement. A user can vote for or against a build for any reason. For this reason I don't think that Skuld or Auron are guilty of anything on this count; they don't like the build and they are entitled to leave a vote reflecting this for any reason, whether they have tested the build or not.", By LordBiro, an administrator NightAngel 17:32, 25 December 2006 (CST)
"Unfavored: (....) — Skuld 20:21, 24 December 2006 (CST)", That minus sign? That's a vote, by Skuld, another administrator. NightAngel 17:35, 25 December 2006 (CST)
Lastly, I tried to find your name on the administrator list, but apparently they forgot? You should get something done to correct it. NightAngel 17:36, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Why does everyone think I'm an admin? >.>
- I'd look closely at [[1]]. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:37, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- I never thought you were one, but you apparently think so? Anyway, I looked, and moving pages to unfavored, deleting builds or whatnot is vandalism. Voting unfavored because you don't like a build for whatever reason? Within the rules. YOU acted inappropriately crossing out a valid vote. NightAngel 17:40, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- I thought I'm an admin? Reword please =P
- Moving builds to unfavored and deleting them isn't vandalism. I don't delete builds, I just tag them. Builds with 3 more Unfavored than Favored are moved to unfavored. Not vandalism. =) — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Did you actually read what I posted? You..crossed..out... a..valid..vote. That was what you did wrong. Deleting/moving, etc was in reference to the arbitred case you mentioned, you know, the one you used to threaten me with banning for voting unfavored without explaining why :) NightAngel 17:45, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Hm? I don't remember threatening you. I merely stated that people have nearly been banned for making pointless votes with no support. We often welcome constructive criticism, but when a build is obviously bad, sometimes a different approach is taken, and more serious comments are made. As far as I know, crossing out votes with no support has been going on for a while as far as I'm aware of. Build policies are still undergoing review, so they aren't exactly reliable. The only things stable on the policy is the 3 votes up, 3 votes down procedure, and the GW:WBE and Style and Formatting guidelines that tell you what kind of build you should make. The vetting procedure has been disputed for a long time now, so I'm not too sure about that. I'm pretty sure special cases such as particularly bad builds are not a part of that though. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:53, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- So it's all "in dispute" and a "special case" is when it's convenient? Right. Ok then, just so we're clear. NightAngel 17:56, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Nope, Special Case = Extremely bad build. Examples include [Build:A/Mo Spirit-assin|this], [Build:Me/Mo Keystone Bonder|this], [Build:N/Mo Soul Sucker|this], and [Build:E/Me Immolate Spammer|this]. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:59, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- ANd who, pray tell, judges what is bad and good? You? On what authority? The "community'? How? Communal telepathic vote? Maybe there's a mystic sign there somewhere. Worked for Melonni on Nightfall....NightAngel 18:02, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- How do you judge what's black and what is white? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 18:03, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Leave Rapta alone. You're just sounding like a spiteful poor loser now. In the beginning it seemed like your points made some sense, but now I think you're just taking potshots at Rapta out of personal affront. 24.6.147.36 18:04, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Rapta seems to believe the world is black and white and he's capable of knowing what is good or bad. Am I the only one who thinks this is unhealthy? And what the heck do you mean by loser? I don't give a crap about my build being unfavored, lol. It wasn't that good (though good enough for tested imho) and it was derivative from the promise spiker, it wasn't really my idea to begin with, I just liked it. This whole talk is what really bothers me... NightAngel 18:09, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- While I do see where you're coming from, the builds section is largely divided from the whole of the Wiki. It requires more gameplay experience to tell a good build from the bad build, but seeing as you seem to be rather new to our builds section, I'm willing to answer any questions you have. But if you have problems regarding Skuld's votes, I'm not the one you should be coming to. I'm sure if he voted unfavored for a build, there is a particularly good reason for it. As I stated, the builds policy is very much up in the air right now, but if we don't try to maintain some sort of uniformality among voters (as in every unfavored vote supported by a reason), there would be no point of having a builds section at all. So if you have a question about an unsupported vote, please contact the person who made that vote in the first place, don't post it on my page. =P — Rapta (talk|contribs) 18:16, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- While I do see where you're coming from, the builds section is largely divided from the whole of the Wiki. It requires more gameplay experience to tell a good build from the bad build, but seeing as you seem to be rather new to our builds section, I'm willing to answer any questions you have. But if you have problems regarding Skuld's votes, I'm not the one you should be coming to. I'm sure if he voted unfavored for a build, there is a particularly good reason for it. As I stated, the builds policy is very much up in the air right now, but if we don't try to maintain some sort of uniformality among voters (as in every unfavored vote supported by a reason), there would be no point of having a builds section at all. So if you have a question about an unsupported vote, please contact the person who made that vote in the first place, don't post it on my page. =P — Rapta
- How do you judge what's black and what is white? — Rapta
- ANd who, pray tell, judges what is bad and good? You? On what authority? The "community'? How? Communal telepathic vote? Maybe there's a mystic sign there somewhere. Worked for Melonni on Nightfall....NightAngel 18:02, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Nope, Special Case = Extremely bad build. Examples include [Build:A/Mo Spirit-assin|this], [Build:Me/Mo Keystone Bonder|this], [Build:N/Mo Soul Sucker|this], and [Build:E/Me Immolate Spammer|this]. — Rapta
- So it's all "in dispute" and a "special case" is when it's convenient? Right. Ok then, just so we're clear. NightAngel 17:56, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Hm? I don't remember threatening you. I merely stated that people have nearly been banned for making pointless votes with no support. We often welcome constructive criticism, but when a build is obviously bad, sometimes a different approach is taken, and more serious comments are made. As far as I know, crossing out votes with no support has been going on for a while as far as I'm aware of. Build policies are still undergoing review, so they aren't exactly reliable. The only things stable on the policy is the 3 votes up, 3 votes down procedure, and the GW:WBE and Style and Formatting guidelines that tell you what kind of build you should make. The vetting procedure has been disputed for a long time now, so I'm not too sure about that. I'm pretty sure special cases such as particularly bad builds are not a part of that though. — Rapta
- Did you actually read what I posted? You..crossed..out... a..valid..vote. That was what you did wrong. Deleting/moving, etc was in reference to the arbitred case you mentioned, you know, the one you used to threaten me with banning for voting unfavored without explaining why :) NightAngel 17:45, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- I never thought you were one, but you apparently think so? Anyway, I looked, and moving pages to unfavored, deleting builds or whatnot is vandalism. Voting unfavored because you don't like a build for whatever reason? Within the rules. YOU acted inappropriately crossing out a valid vote. NightAngel 17:40, 25 December 2006 (CST)
New Line. Well, uh, seeing as I agree with most of Rapta's votes. I don't think that because he votes Unfavored a lot that means he is a B&W kind of person. And yeh, he's capable of making judgments on builds. So are you, so is anyone else. Anyone can vote Favored or Unfavored and they shouldn't have to receive any crap about it. What's wrong with the automatic assumption that you're knowledgable enough to vote? Unhealthy you say, well then most American voters are at Death's door already.
What the hell Two can play that game, heck do I mean? Well, if you truly didn't care about your build being unfavored, if you truly just lolled it away, you obviously wouldn't be making such a fuss on the talk pages of Rapta and Skuld.
Talk bothers you eh? Well you're the one that brought it up in the first place. Cheers 24.6.147.36 18:17, 25 December 2006 (CST)
To rapta: I obviously used Skuld's vote as an example. And to anonymous: the attitude is what bothers me, not the actual result. Unlike Machiavelli, I don't believe the ends justify the means. And you described the current policy, which I don't agree with, but abide by. Though I'm open to arguing, of course, see PvE Dom for an example NightAngel 18:27, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- I'm not Anonymous, see my userpage >< And from how I saw it, it seemed Rapta's attitude merely changed in response to yours, not the otherway around. Yes, I'm arguing with you in PvE Dom, that is good and healthy. /agree there. 24.6.147.36 18:31, 25 December 2006 (CST)
In reference to this[]
Not to discredit Rapta's contributions here in the wiki, but Rapta, PLEASE... STOP STRIKING OUT VOTES. This is not the first, fifth, or 20th time you have done this. I will be honest with you, sometimes you make worse votes than the ones you strike out. Sometimes you strike out votes (for or against) just to be able to move a build out of untested. This is ludicrous. You are undermining the very voting process that you want to protect. I thought I made this clear at one point, but let me state it here again: NO ONE is to strike out votes EXCEPT admins. I hope this is clear. This applies to Rapta or anyone else. If you feel a vote is corrupt or invalid, leave a note in an admin's talk page, preferably Skuld's as he is more involved with the builds section. But please, you have no more power to strike that user's vote than he has to strike out your vote. So, please, please, please, stop doing that. --Karlos 18:19, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- But isn't that contrary to the well-defended policy of GW:YOU? I mean, regarding in-game abilities, which is of direct relation to the Builds section, an Admin would have equal, if not even less insight on what is and is not a proper build, and votes a deemed invalid or valid based on the quality of the build, rather than the quality of the Writing. So specifically, all users would have equal control over the flow of votes, and something that's well-agreed upon by a general concensus, regardless of whether it be an Admin or not an Admin, would determine the validity of a vote. I am not discouraging your authority over this Wiki, but wouldn't a democratic voting system over votes run properly over equal power of users over votes, rather than a selected few who may not have been involved in the build section at all, to direct such votes? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 18:33, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- What the hell are you talking about? Removing someone else's vote is the opposite of GW:YOU. Bringing up consensus in a discussion about the build vetting procedure is laughable; a vote-based policy is about as far as you can get. I will reiterate: do not strike anyone's vote. I don't even care if someone puts "my favorite build, I run it all the time" in unfavored. Leave the guy a message and let him fix it himself. --Fyren 18:45, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- But regarding what Karlos said, shouldn't I come to you, or someone of administrative status? And stating it on the voter's talk page is not going to accomplish anything. And no, it is not directly opposite of GW:YOU, as it would give not just administrators, but also regular users control over voting, since Skuld is the only administrator who pays close attention to voting; a user may strike out votes with no valid support. Only then if it gets out of control would it makes sense to contact an admin. Many are crusading against an elitist attitude towards build control, so normal users can handle builds appropriately, but administrators are the only ones who decide whether a vote is proper or not? But I see where you're coming from, such a two-tiered vetting proces (one for votes, one for builds), is difficult to control. Perhaps that idea is difficult to maintain since so many think it's difficult to maintain the builds section with one tier as we speak, but just to bring up an interesting figure: Untested back down to 200. So perhaps it's no longer about the number of builds we unfavor, but about the quality of the builds: the said discussions that have been occuring in Guru that so many are coming here to campaign against. But I can see that my views aren't necessary being seen here. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 18:55, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- But regarding what Karlos said, shouldn't I come to you, or someone of administrative status? And stating it on the voter's talk page is not going to accomplish anything. And no, it is not directly opposite of GW:YOU, as it would give not just administrators, but also regular users control over voting, since Skuld is the only administrator who pays close attention to voting; a user may strike out votes with no valid support. Only then if it gets out of control would it makes sense to contact an admin. Many are crusading against an elitist attitude towards build control, so normal users can handle builds appropriately, but administrators are the only ones who decide whether a vote is proper or not? But I see where you're coming from, such a two-tiered vetting proces (one for votes, one for builds), is difficult to control. Perhaps that idea is difficult to maintain since so many think it's difficult to maintain the builds section with one tier as we speak, but just to bring up an interesting figure: Untested back down to 200. So perhaps it's no longer about the number of builds we unfavor, but about the quality of the builds: the said discussions that have been occuring in Guru that so many are coming here to campaign against. But I can see that my views aren't necessary being seen here. — Rapta
- It's a vote. There is no "control." There are no "improper" votes. The closest you get are people who cast multiple votes or maybe those who are attempting to disrupt process/procedure. Build content is irrelevant. Quality is irrelevant. Elitism is irrelevant. I don't care about the number of builds in categories. Don't touch another person's vote. --Fyren 19:11, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Of course, that's absurd. It's a builds section. Everything is and will be relevant. It's much like saying "what's the point of success in life? We're all going to die anyways. it's death. it's inevitable, and everything is irrelevant to change that". If you're not questioning things like that and declaring everything "irrelevant", it makes the whole purpose of voting redundant. Right now it's a battle of who brings up good points and how many people support them. Your "version" of the voting system is rather like a battle of how many people will bother to go straight to the discussion page and put four tildes. And yet, many debates over the builds don't even develop into what's on this page right now. Ironic. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 19:18, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Of course, that's absurd. It's a builds section. Everything is and will be relevant. It's much like saying "what's the point of success in life? We're all going to die anyways. it's death. it's inevitable, and everything is irrelevant to change that". If you're not questioning things like that and declaring everything "irrelevant", it makes the whole purpose of voting redundant. Right now it's a battle of who brings up good points and how many people support them. Your "version" of the voting system is rather like a battle of how many people will bother to go straight to the discussion page and put four tildes. And yet, many debates over the builds don't even develop into what's on this page right now. Ironic. — Rapta
- Then maybe what you want isn't a vote. --Fyren 19:20, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- On the rather personal attack towards me making votes (which is a very much incorrect comparison, because I vote more, does not mean I make bad votes), I wouldn't mind you doing a favor and listing them for me. I'd like to correct them, if given the list. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 18:42, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- None of these are personal attacks. I do not hope or wish to critique the way your vote, I am only pointing out the inherent contradiction in how you vote versus how you view other people's votes. --Karlos 19:29, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Yes, and it's that contradiction that maybe I wish to get through. Perhaps, that if I am given those votes, I can reword to something that makes sence, because as far as I know right now, all my votes have been made correctly and for a stated reason, since the referred incident, rather than some which state "not feeling it" (pulled word for word from a particular vote). While I have nothing against you, and know that you are an excellent administrator on the wiki, Karlos, and am fully aware that you were crusading for what I am right now in the last Arbitration Request, I think that you might be contradicting what you were going for in that incident yourself. Nevertheless, disregarding Fyren's rather corrupt and biased view on our voting system, I do believe that users should be able to remove highly useless votes, but it seems as though few administrators share my views. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 19:40, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Too easily abused. I'm just a whisper away ^^ — Skuld 19:41, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Yeah, but it's a conflict of interests since users like NightAngel regard you as corrupt. xD — Rapta (talk|contribs) 19:42, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- What the hell? Hell, here, not heck. I never said that. Do NOT put words in my mouth or presume to speak on my behalf. EVER. Ps: and yes. That's the problem (potential for abuse). Democracy sucks, but it's better than the alternative. NightAngel 19:48, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Yeah, but it's a conflict of interests since users like NightAngel regard you as corrupt. xD — Rapta
- Too easily abused. I'm just a whisper away ^^ — Skuld 19:41, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Yes, and it's that contradiction that maybe I wish to get through. Perhaps, that if I am given those votes, I can reword to something that makes sence, because as far as I know right now, all my votes have been made correctly and for a stated reason, since the referred incident, rather than some which state "not feeling it" (pulled word for word from a particular vote). While I have nothing against you, and know that you are an excellent administrator on the wiki, Karlos, and am fully aware that you were crusading for what I am right now in the last Arbitration Request, I think that you might be contradicting what you were going for in that incident yourself. Nevertheless, disregarding Fyren's rather corrupt and biased view on our voting system, I do believe that users should be able to remove highly useless votes, but it seems as though few administrators share my views. — Rapta
- Sorry, Rapta, but you are not making ANY sense. So, what is to prevent some other user from striking out a vote of yours cause (according to him) your vote makes no sense? And if he does that, what is the recourse? And how can you say you plan on "disregarding Fyren's corrupt view"? I would like to think Fyren's view on these things matter. If you really want me to dig up bad votes, I can go do that, but it will distract from the present issue. So, can I at least get a confirmation from you that you will NOT be striking out anymore votes? --Karlos 20:08, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Never mind that. That was before Skuld decided he would take the discussion on those type of votes. But on the confirmation, I will not be confirming anything; as far as I'm concerned, there was no policy changes and this discussion never took place. And the vote on the Domination build was one strike-out which was seen as offensive, though the original voter wasn't part of the discussion to me striking out his vote. Everything will carry on as usual, and I'll let user votes take its course. Not confirming anything though. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:17, 25 December 2006 (CST)
- Never mind that. That was before Skuld decided he would take the discussion on those type of votes. But on the confirmation, I will not be confirming anything; as far as I'm concerned, there was no policy changes and this discussion never took place. And the vote on the Domination build was one strike-out which was seen as offensive, though the original voter wasn't part of the discussion to me striking out his vote. Everything will carry on as usual, and I'll let user votes take its course. Not confirming anything though. — Rapta
That will not be enough[]
I just saw your response in the section that you archived. If you will not stop striking votes, I am putting you on notice that the next time you do this you will be banned for 3 days, and the next time more and so on. As far as you are concerned this may not have happened, but as far as I am concerned, you have been warned. Just want to make myself clear. I know you want to help and I know you like to play by the rules. I am just making the rules clear. Whether or not you believe in or agree to the rules is irrelevant in the fact that if you break them you will be punished. This is one way communication, you do not have to respond. --Karlos 03:55, 26 December 2006 (CST)
- While you're here, why not take a close look at that first unfavored vote on [Build:Me/any PvE Domination Mesmer]? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 12:26, 26 December 2006 (CST)
Rapta, I am as much against incoherent votes as you, but that does not give me the right to silence those whom I fail to understand. All I can do is request that they further explain themselves for my benefit. If they fail to do so, then all that has occured is my failure to understand what they were trying to accomplish. I can not take any type of repercuperative action based on my ignorance. To do so would be to insite an un-needed and pointless argument as no matter what the out-come of the argument, the vote is cast, the point (whether it was understood or not) was made and there is nothing you can do to change the other person's mind. To strike out their vote or move it is to say that you went into their head and changed their mind for them. And that my friend, is absolutely obsurd. Just do everyone on the wiki a favor and quit messing with the voting system and quit using the excuse of saying "There's no rule that says I can't." There's no rule that says you can't swear a Nun in public either, but will you do it? — Jyro X 
22:03, 28 December 2006 (CST)
- I don't know, is there a reason why you're continuing an argument that ended half a week ago? Do I need to define "conclusion"? Seriously, man, calm the hell down, it's over and done with. I haven't struck out any votes since me and Karlos' last discussion. I'm archiving this stuff to only reasonable debates regarding builds. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:09, 28 December 2006 (CST)