PvXwiki
(needs a lot of work, but you get the idea)
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{proposed policy}}
 
{{proposed policy}}
  +
{{TOCright}}
 
 
This policy outlines the role and responsibilities of the '''Meta Caretakers'''.
 
This policy outlines the role and responsibilities of the '''Meta Caretakers'''.
   
 
MCs are users who have an understanding of high-end PvP (GvG and HA) that qualifies them to make calls on whether a given GvG/HA build is Meta, fringe, or non-viable in the current metagame.
 
MCs are users who have an understanding of high-end PvP (GvG and HA) that qualifies them to make calls on whether a given GvG/HA build is Meta, fringe, or non-viable in the current metagame.
  +
  +
PvE MCs are not being appointed, as the PvE metagame does not change frequently enough to need a special position to maintain the meta PvE sections. Community consensus will be relied upon for recognizing the PvE meta.
   
 
==Responsibilities==
 
==Responsibilities==

Revision as of 04:43, 20 August 2010

This policy outlines the role and responsibilities of the Meta Caretakers.

MCs are users who have an understanding of high-end PvP (GvG and HA) that qualifies them to make calls on whether a given GvG/HA build is Meta, fringe, or non-viable in the current metagame.

PvE MCs are not being appointed, as the PvE metagame does not change frequently enough to need a special position to maintain the meta PvE sections. Community consensus will be relied upon for recognizing the PvE meta.

Responsibilities

  • MCs can post HA/GvG builds straight into the Meta category.
  • MCs have the final say on whether a build is in the GvG or HA metagame.
  • If the metagame changes such that a build is no longer viable, they should archive the build as per PvX:VETTING.

Conduct

  • MCs are still expected to adhere to all other PvXwiki policies.
  • If a user and MC get into a conflict over the Meta status of a build, the MC's decision will be enforced by the Administrators.

Requests for Meta Caretaker

Current Meta Caretakers