I think the flaw in the wiki was the vetting system. It made things aggressive from the start. The metagame wasn't understood or developed during the inception of this site, so we kind of needed it, but if we could have always said "Go look on obs, if it is there, good, if not, GTFO" and made that the entire goal of the site, documentation, we could have avoided the whole creative beautiful butterfly syndrome. If we had made it, from the start, that this site was only for documenting the metagame with all beautiful snowflakes kept within user spaces, and some way of accessing builds within the user space reliably, I think the environment could have been friendlier. Unfortunately the PvE meta is harder to reference, but I would say the standard there would be go to the outpost, if there is a bunch of "lfg fagway"s, then it gets an article. RA should never have been documented and I still maintain that section of the site should be removed.

However, given a choice between PvXwiki and Gamependium, the people who built this site made the right fucking choice. It's not like GWW isn't a shithole that burns people out either. We just do it faster. I think if some of the better sysops had come at the same time instead of spread out just after one burnt out they could have gone on longer too. Misery 15:19, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also, making Tab an admin on the forum site was the worst call ever, but GCardinal nigger raged at the one thing that might have gotten most of the faggotry off of this site, so who cares? Misery 15:20, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, if the PvX admins of old had been allowed to simply exercise their right to ban whoever the fuck they wanted, PvX would be a much friendlier and generally much more intelligent place. Mostly because it probably would've kept those admins from getting so burnt out. I don't think you could ever have a friendly PvX, given its nature, but I'm sure it could've been better. Anything else I'd have to say would just be stating the obvious, or re-stating things that have been said a dozen times. Daññy 17:17, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. One thing we might want to do for the GW2 version of pvx would be to make a dedicated split from the beginning between theorycrafts and meta. Make separate categories in the build space for recording the metagame and a category for voting where people can create theorycrafts. I think that will let us be a friendlier community while still storing the best builds out there.--TahiriVeila 17:56, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
">>implying there will be a PvX2"
Wikia won't go out of their way to create the new extension required to create a PvX2 (given it's an extension only that wiki would benefit from) and I don't see anyone putting in their own time and money to develop and host a PvX2 on their own. ~ PheNaxKian talk 18:01, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully we can find someone to host it...not having a builds wiki for the new game would be bad :< --TahiriVeila 18:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
If gw2 isn't horrible and someone buys it for me, I could be willing to dedicate time/a little money. But that's two big "if"s. Plus, it wouldn't be in wiki format. It'd be Drupal-based. And there wouldn't be anonymous editing. And I probably wouldn't be willing to support a Theorycraft section. Daññy 02:19, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm an outsider who doesn't know hardly anything about this place other than what people say, so I don't know how accurate this opinion is, but here it is anyway. As there are no examples for the contrary, this is just conjecture, but I believe being a dick place is systemic to a site like PvX, because it's a "PvP" site. (Yes, there are builds for farming and shit, but no one really cares about those, or at least they don't provoke the same level of "drama". I think.) Compared to, say, GuildWiki or GWW, those sites are "PvE" sites - they stay the hell away from all things builds. Whenever there is some article that does deal with builds - for example, to kill Rotscale, or complete some quest - those sections are almost always contested. That's not to say that more inane things like timestamps and signatures are not also hot debate topics, stupid things which aren't worth arguing about -- but, my point is, I think having a focus on builds inherently leads to an elitist atmosphere that discourages familiarity and community closeness. Unless a builds site is solely devoted to "recording" builds, i.e. things that are actually in play, you can see it on obs, etc...in other words, if it becomes merely a documentation place of facts rather than a place to create new builds, vote on them, blah blah...it's going to end up like this place has.

See also Daññy's post above. If you're going to be an elitist place, then go for it wholeheartedly. Showing any weaknesses, pretending to be nice, trying to perhaps cater to and baby more sensitive people - that doesn't work. It causes problems because such things go against the innate grain of the site's culture. Those few beginning steps are crucially important and set the tone for how things will be forevermore, barring some great revolutions...because PvX started out elitist, it needed to stay that way. Such steps down another road needed to be done years ago if they were to have any meaningful effect. Places like GuildWiki, or even GWW, started out more friendly and so that's a big reason why they are the way they are today. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:02, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Danny was talking about banning the sensitive types, we pretty much do that on a whim anyway, I think he meant more banning the "fuck you because I am good at the game" types. They built the foundation of elitism on this site, but also trolled the fuck out of everyone. No one knows how that would have gone. Misery 07:42, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
that was kinda what i meant. except, to clarify, i'd mean anyone who wasn't clearly good at the game AND thought they were. this, of course, covers pretty much everyone that's contributed to PvX since it began, with a few very rare exceptions. and even the better minority of that group of shitters still made decent contributions, in some way or another, but i think things would've gone just as well or better without them. Daññy 22:17, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Phen's Wall of Text

this whole idea might have worked better as a blog post or something. In my opinion, there were (are?) a couple of issues. The main one that I see is what exactly PvX is meant to record. Most current users seem to think, like Misery said, that it's "meta". That we should store meta builds and everything else should be relegated to the userspace/somewhere less important (I believe we discussed a "Theorycraft" name space at one point). Me personally (I may be completely alone in this view now, but certainly a long time ago there were others who shared this view), I think we should store builds that work and do a reasonable job, and then sort those builds via the rating system, and allow the users to chose what build they want to do.

Let me give you an example. Lets say that we have some stupidly awesome Farming build (for sake of ease I'll just say the old Shadow form builds for this example, but it could be anything in any given area). Under the first view (Meta only), this would pretty much be the only farming build, and the only others would be ones that covered areas this one couldn't, or for whatever reason managed to do a certain area (or areas) better. However under the second view (It does an OK job), we might say "well this one is a different profession" or "requires less (title) grinding to use, so it's worth a small drop in efficiency". Obviously this doesn't translate so easily to the PvP aspect of the game where it's a bit more "X beats Y" and less "I'm using a worse build, but I have more skill to compensate" (at least it is now).

I think we've slowly moved towards that former view of "meta only" (see removing "other" builds and up-ing the rating requirements). I think it was DE who said "I vote thinking the build should be in trash/(other/)good/great so I rate so that it falls into that category". That to me seems like the more logical thing, where as now we see people who go "this build should be trashed, I'm not going to bother giving it an actual rating, I'll just 0-0 it into the ground" (or the opposite). People seem to be forgetting there is a middle ground (and removing the other section just reinforced that view in my eyes).

It would have been better to (as you said on the main page Auron) "lower the standard of quality a bit in order to foster a more friendly community". That to me doesn't say a change to the RV system (or at least it didn't, it would now =p), but instead peoples attitudes towards builds. I think there is of course a means in which we could incorporate the best of both worlds, which would have been this theorycraft namespace, and then having the build namespace specifically for builds which are meta, or builds from the theorycraft namespace that people have gone "yeh this build is awesome" (obviously there would still be some form of vetting in both namespaces so people can still go "this is better than that", but the point is there's a clear "these are builds everyone thinks are awesome and these are works in progress")

While the main issue to me is the vetting system, I do think it spreads slightly into the admin domain as well. Due to the nature of the vetting system, there will, obviously, be incorrect votes, and it's (or was) the job of the admins to correct this by removing them or informing the user their vote is wrong for XYZ. But the issue with that is, we're assuming we have half a clue about the game, and as such have the right to remove it. I know in the past, we did judge RfAs with how good a person is at the game in mind (with the odd exception (Hhhippo and Wiz. spring to mind mainly)), and that we even had the BM system in place. Again though, the Vetting system allows for such subjective views of a build, it makes it difficult for anybody (regardless of skill i'd argue) to say "This is a crap/bad/good/great build because of XYZ", there are too many things that you'd have to take into account. Yes we can say "it uses these skills, so the math tells us it pumps out 5 million doomages a second", but can you take into account every possible little thing you come up against? Opponents play styles and own builds in the case of PvP? What spawns you'll encounter, and how they'll move or react to various situations in PvE (I know you can to some extent, but I'm making a point =p)?

I could keep going, but I'm finding it hard to keep my train of thought any longer, i'll post again if anything springs to mind. /WoT ~ PheNaxKian talk 17:54, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I do kind of agree that the current voting system makes a lot of problems. People either 5-5-x or trash vote. I'd much rather have a 10 point rating system (so that there's more of a middle ground) or switch to a qualitative rating system where you vote a build either trash/other/good/great.--TahiriVeila 17:59, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
people would still trash/great the stuff. everyone tends to polarize. the biggest issue, imo, is that you can store "OK" builds, as long as those builds are still used. in pve, not everyone has an assassin to vaettir farm with (back in the day), so the e/me was just fine, too. it just has to come down to reason and the willingness to just ban people for being dumb. Daññy 02:24, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm an idiot

I would have to agree with Danny, in all honesty if the site attracted more actual good players and just told the idiots to fuck off it could have worked, but because PvX never really got the higher quality of players to contribute (only a very rare few), it was left with mostly bad players. Bad players vetting builds that good players run makes sense right?

Or of course the documentation way that Misery mentioned would have worked, but the great category was basically that + random Zurrie theorycrafts. Frosty 18:01, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Frostels admits csb. --Crow 21:56, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Very rare few! Crow so Rare! Frosty 22:33, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Builds on a wiki? No Thanks

Also: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

I'll give you my actual thoughts later (either here or via msn or something). Kinda running out the door with a bleeding lip at the moment.

-- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 20:07, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Time passes on...

Definately a statement of value worth some amounts of reflection on!

First of all, I hope everyone's doing well - it's been some time since I've popped on to see how things are here. It's great to see that this site still hasn't completely diminished in the past few years, and many familiar names are still contributing actively. That's great to see! While I have not (at all) been keeping up to date with the activities on here on the Wiki, I would just like to say, at least from a fresher perspective, that all the contributors have done a great job in maintaining the state of this site.

A lot has happened since I last logged onto GW; it is without say, that this Wiki continued to evolve, for better or for worse. I see that the BM policy has been retired - while it is not something that I had expected to be appropriate in the first place, I would like to thank all of those who put their time and effort to try and make the role work. Despite its pertained legacy as a "failed experiment", it was a definately a worthwhile experience for the Wiki's users, especially if one takes the perspective of looking past the flame wars that erupted as the result of the implementation of this policy.

Now, as someone who has been inactive quite some time now, I would just like to offer my own perspective on PvXWiki, looking back at all the strides that were made - not all giant leaps forward, but even some backwards, but strides nonetheless.

The goal of a BuildWiki is to document builds. Now, at this pivotal point, is where the general perspectives diverge. A new user looks for a build that suits their particular interest of GW comes pass PvXWiki, and notices that build in one of our monstrous categorization schemes we call "build vetting". Should they:

  1. Look upon that particular build for its exact crypto-template code to load it into their class of choice?
  2. Try to mix & match skills that fit familiar purposes and work onwards from this point?

Should they take the second step, we end up in a position where we obtain a possibly-functional build that may or may not vary from its original design. Therein develops the most fundamental conundrum that users/contributors faced during their time on this Wiki. During our time here, while everyone had differing (often polar) opinions on how to manage our build vetting process, it is within their advocacy for certain advances - whether it's user rights, or build effectiveness - that we have truly developed a sense of duty to push forward our beliefs.

The Wiki continues to strive, and perhaps try to find a "balance" (note that one's definition of balance, in this case, may be much more extreme than another's) between the two main factors of build rating/upheaval:

  1. Maintain a builds database that represents high quality, effective builds that promote good play and effectiveness
  2. Promote comprehensiveness in our build collection while promoting openness to all contributors

It is this balance that many of us try to find. Where does the line get drawn? While numerous policies have been drafted to try and dictate our exact position between these two central ideas, it would seem as if they've all failed.

But it is within these debates, if you look past the trolling, that one would find the particular instance of constructive developments. Past the tl;dr walls of text, and past the spammed lines of "anymore the eviscerate executioners strike spike dont work but its fairly effective very weak against any type of anti-melee and shock is a costly interrupt skill", there is the moment of objective criticism that pushes us towards finding that much-sought-after balance of quality and comprehensiveness.

In the end, it was the conflicting opinions of the active that kept this site alive. While it was this particular quality of the PvXWiki community base that have given the site the notorious reputation that it has within the community, I would no way regard this as a complete failure. Sure, there have been many flame-wars with "urbad" and "lolpvx", underneath that, there is always the intention and push towards greater understanding of the game as a whole.

Time passes on. The "metagame" changes. People whose build ideas that were once dismissed as a joke might suddenly surge into a playing standard. But our regular contributors shan't forget that their contributions, while it may be seen as ineffective or pointless by the many, will have users that take a second glance and try to improve on it.

Time passes on. Eventually, GW2 will come out, with some users leaving, some users returning, some users continuing on in this game. The game will change, and builds will fall our of favour. It is understandable that many will, and have been for a long time, place a personal connection with their work on this Wiki. It is not within the goals of the voters, nor the administrative staff to respect users' wishes of maintaining these builds in the database, but please, don't take it personally.

Time passes on. While many of us have grown away from this game, there are those that have a sense of purpose in keeping this site alive, and continue to try to improve it.

I would like to give my thanks to those that have tried to make this a site of ideas, a site of comprehension, a site of quality. While not all of these ideas are quite entirely fulfilled in the eyes of everyone (i.e., those who play on often will see the pitfalls in quality, and those newcomers will see the elitism), I would just like to commend all those who are continuing to put their time towards improving this site in their own way.

It is 4 in the morning, and I have exams to write. As such, I'm not going to take much time to read over this and make my wording less obscure.

Good luck to you all. And damn those 4v4 reaper rushers. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 08:11, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


I'll name two:

  • GW/GWW decribes the game; there are ownership issues, but they're more severe when you have people defending builds they came up with / are running themselves. Ownership = drama. Having no sense of ownership means a low level of identification with the wiki, so "we'll just do obs builds" means a less lively community.
  • Rating: have a look at how Slashdot rates comments, with more Karma for more "senior" people. Everyone gets a voice, but some people may matter more. Doing this for PvX2 means getting Wikia onboard (or utilizing its article rating system), or setting up a separate server.

--◄mendel► 19:16, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


I was working on some section here earlier but seemingly cba'd. I was going to make some obvious points about how we probably could've enforced NPA more and emphasized thorough reasoning and friendliness, along with a general agenda of "avoid confrontation". Then again I feel that if this was to be implemented from the start, we wouldn't have the vaguely sensible userbase we have right now who knows PvX consists of bad players, so over time we might've faced the problem of drastic decline in build quality. This method also pretty much requires infinite patience, but it might be possible to draft policies which punish stupidity and not listening to arguments etc, eg to zealously and biasedly enforce PvX:CHILL as a wild card for banning idiots who cause drama, all this for maintaining the facade of a friendly site. Then I also wonder if drama with new people could be avoided by not even trying to explain anything on the talk, but instead by subtly voting builds into trash with semi-good, maybe 3-3-X, votes saying "this just isn't good enough" in fine words that sound very convincing about the gametechnic attributes of said build.

It's 5am so I won't notice all unidiomatic errors etc, and I haven't bothered wording my thoughts properly, but I hope you all catch my drift. And yeah, organizing the site like this is something you could never have done without learning from these exact mistakes we've done in our past and I recognize how hypocritical and full of shit an illusionary carebear system like that would be. It would give me some twisted ironical satisfaction, though!

Also, good night. ---Chaos- (moo!) -- 02:21, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

You're last suggestions - ignoring idiots and just trashing builds, thereby allowing admins to delete them quickly - could still be applied. We just need to get rid of the 2-week grace period. Make it a "fire at will" or some such. Daññy 05:16, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
what about optimism?--Relyk talk 07:23, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
My point was to avoid conflict, not to maximize build deletion ;p ---Chaos- (moo!) -- 11:59, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

KJ's 2 Cents (that may be less due to the exchange rate)

I hate to add another section to this page, but I thought I'd just throw in my opinions, and after reading the page, I couldn't find an appropriate place. I'll keep this short.

In looking back at PvX; yes, we had problems. However, they were inevitable given our design. Elitism, drama, bandwaggoning, flamewars, etc. were all inherent to our circumstances. Like Mendel said, ownership is a big factor. Having your name on a build or being able to say, "Hey, I made that." gave people a huge epeen. And really, rating systems have always been subject to bandwaggoning and elitism. Some people's contributions are just more valuable in a rating system, simply because they know more.

In looking forward to PvX2 (if we decide to go that route); I think we have some big challenges and not a lot of solutions. Build concepts are rather dependent upon weapon types in GW2, and PvP is most likely going to take a backseat. Both of those factors suggest that a PvX2 might not make it. I think if we really seek to learn from our mistakes with PvX, then we'd need to have a process of build storage for common or meta builds, and a process for creativity for players to discuss build viability, be creative, and just goof around with builds in general. I think the former would have to be a wiki-like layout just for practicality, and the latter would need to be similar to a forum to foster community and communication. Both of these may actually be possible through some of the tools that wikia is moving toward, but may not be realistic on one site without a private host, but it's probably do-able.

I don't know what you guys think about this, but I don't see how a PvX2wiki could survive without creating separate build spaces for storage of common/meta builds and a space for creativity and community. And, honestly, that may not even be feasible. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 01:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

that's what i've been wanting to do with PvX for the last year or so =P --TahiriVeila 01:38, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
No one would let me do that QQ. Misery 08:30, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Tbh, I like the merged suggestion of mendel's and mine. If we only allowed certain people to edit the "meta space" and then had another space like a forum for creative build design, I think that would work best. Then again, it still invites trolling. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


You asked me to provide some input on this, so here goes.
PvX is inherently different from other wikis because of its concept and scope. Builds and their effectiveness vary wildly, both in game, from a player's point of view, what the opponent is running, and the map the build is running on. In essence, builds are a matter of opinion based on, I assume, careful thinking. Saying a build is bad is tantamount, to the average person, to calling the creator stupid. That's alright, though, because with careful manipulation of words, you can call someone stupid without insulting them.
If you can call out a bad build in a kind manner, why not do that every time? It takes additional thought and a tremendous amount of additional writing. It's true that there used to a frightening amount of horrible builds constantly being posted to this page, each posted by relatively novice build writers. Explaining Guild Wars to each and every single one would be incredibly difficult. The guides section was supposed to fix that, actually, but never got completed. Since builds failed on here so often and people get discouraged, the contributor turnover was staggering. Each new author would need to have Guild Wars explained to them. The closest analogy I can think of is pissing an ocean of piss.
Eventually, as PvX administrators and the few contributors that stuck around got better at the game and more frustrated with playing with poorer people ingame, that same attitude transferred itself onto the wiki. When I was an administrator, I was certainly guilty of this, as was every administrator I can think of. I don't know if it's something that can be fixed with any amount of reworking or elitism. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 13:56, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

^Grinch @ putting my thoughts in a better way. ---Chaos- (moo!) -- 17:51, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Elitism is kind of what defines pvp in GW, so I do not think it is that misplaced here. Personal attacks in teh internets, however, are always misplaced as you will rarely accomplish what you want to accomplish with it. -(Koda)- 09:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well if any whoru can comment...

Frankly - and I mean no disrespect - I kind of have to register my surprise at who this is coming from. While I'm surprised on a few levels, perhaps not giving you enough credit Auron, I certainly respect you more since reading that. Anyway, to business...

I don't agree that it's a fault of the rating system. If you want to have policies - and enforce them - you actually can. People, by and large, are capable of commenting on content and not contributor when they have to. And will you really miss those who are incapable of that? If the Sysops started warning - and banning - people because of inappropriate behaviour then all hell would break loose. For a while. Shit would hit the fan, in a big way.

But eventually - if the Sysops have enough nerve to stick it out - then the userbase will begin to adapt. People will see that a lot of people here have CheckUser, and there's always rangeblocks, as unwilling as people can rightfully be to use them. This Wiki - and this is some fucking hilarious irony - has perhaps more capabilities of fighting trolls and sock puppets than any other on Wikia, and likely any other of this size to be found anywhere. And yet, what is it? Not far from being filled with all the worst aspects of the internet.

Ban. Delete. CheckUser. The tools are there to turn this place around. Short-term this place would get worse. Long-term it would cease to be a joke. It's a practise run, now. It'll take months to change the userbase. If it comes to it, kill the Wiki. What matters is PvX2Wiki (if there'll be one) and how shit will go down there. If Administrators go there with the knowledge of what not to allow, it can be a bloody good Wiki. If it is PvX2Wiki in every form... GL with that, I for one won't be a part of it.

Auron it's a matter of how seriously Administrators take shit. And it's a matter of who you'll allow to be an Administrator in the first place. If I know you at all, you're not here to make friends, you're here to do what's right by the Wiki. You can lose friends, lose trolls, suck it up and do the right thing. Or you can sit back and watch them infest the place. I'm not a carebear, but this place is a fucking joke. I know you care about PvXWiki, so I don't like to say it to you, but it is. It's a fucking joke, and you know it.

You've shown you're aware the Wiki could be different. Nothing has to change. BuildMasters can stay, the current rating system can stay... everything. You just need to talk with your Sysops on MSN or whatever, tell them what you want to make unacceptable here, and take the flag right off whoever doesn't want to be a part of what you're turning the Wiki into. Ideally it all works and you see the Wiki you thought of grow into what it had the potential to be. Worst case scenario... you're better equipped for PvX2Wiki, if there'll be one.

Parts of this are likely to be inappropriate due to my assumption there'll be a PvX2Wiki despite the changes in skill choice. If there won't be one... well then the trolls won. The game is dead, it's soon to be replaced, and the work needed isn't worth it. My assumption that there'll be a PvX2Wiki is pretty odd - even I doubt there'd be one due to the lack of builds per se - but if there won't be one I don't understand the motive behind this page. One way or another, PvXWiki is running out of time. New builds won't be made when nobody plays Guild Wars (1) anymore. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 16:06, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

^ It would be sad not to be able to flame all the fuckfaces around here, but I think it would make PvX much more like how it should be. Plus, if we banned shitters like Enormous, then we probably wouldn't even need to flame people. I'd say it would be worth a try, as long as the admins were non-retarded enough to go along. -- Jai 16:24, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
what do you mean if we banned enormous =/? Check the block log he's getting banned about 3 times a day because he insists on evading his ban. ~ PheNaxKian talk 17:31, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
^ that. But also, if we trust our admins enough to issue long-term bans from the early stages of PvX2, then we'll be fine. Most of our admins are competent enough to know when long-term bans would be necessary, and willing to hand them out. We just need to know that going in.
Oh, and if it felt more like a community, we'd probably have a less shitastic group. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 19:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you're mistakenly assuming that the trolls aren't the ones that ruined PvX. If the trolls did anything, they kept it to a certain level of quality. Our admins never had the basis or testicles to ban people who just kept crying about their builds. They still don't. (No offense to you admins, but the Physway thing is all the proof I feel I need to say that.) If you want PvX to have greater quality - which it certainly needs and which it has the potential for - you need to encourage users but also maintain that admins reserve the right to tell anyone to fuck off at any given time for any reason. And you needs admins that don't feel like dealing with drama - unless it's with a banstick. Daññy 22:46, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Then you get dribblers like Juze crying to wikia. Frosty 22:51, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
We could spend hours discussing why the move to Wikia was horrible for PvX - beyond just the technical retardation - but we've all heard that same old song before. However, I don't think anyone can blame Gcard for his decision in the end. Daññy 22:53, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't blaming anyone for the wikia move, it was necessary because of financial situations. Was just saying if we take a heavy handed approach we could see people like Juze getting all butt hurt and taking it to wikia and shit. Frosty 22:58, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
i don't see how you justify logic like this. i think you're saying trolls helped because they would rid the site of users who got butthurt over builds. who cares about users who get butthurt over builds? rather have them around then have idiot trolls like you and thunda around. Gringo 23:59, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Phen, I meant that if admins more actively banned people that were obviously terrible or just trolling, then there would be a lot less to flame. And the less stuff to flame, (hopefully) the more civil people will be. Sure, enormous got banned, but only after a month or two of him being completely retarded. -- Jai 00:45, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Ugh...I've avoided commenting on this as long as possible, due to my troll-like nature. But I think I should put my two cents in. What Auron said is true. Admins like myself (and a few others) aren't very well-accepted by trolls such as yourself, Aidan. You mask your constant insults and incendiary comments with some truth, however. But the fact of the matter remains -- I'd rather have intelligent trolls than whiny retards crying about their builds. Look at my current talk, even. I don't want to start everyone to crying about me again, because frankly I don't give a fuck. I'm an awesome admin because I don't give a fuck about anyone's feelings, especially online. If we were to take a more aggressive approach to handling issues at a writers-level, I guarantee that this site would have attracted less shitters and (potentially) better players. It's said and done though, PvX is dead and there's no way of fixing it. Cry all you want about people and their ways of using PvX, but it's over and done. PvX is PvX (what we've come to accept it as) and there's no changing it. -- Big McStrongfist 00:57, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
You seem be operating under the misconceived assumption that you, Gringo, are not a troll. I'm actually not even sure how you were able to type that sentence out without laughing out loud at the obvious irony. Daññy 01:12, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
@danny so you just ignore what i ask and say lolirony? whats the point of a conversation if you just change the topic? @big youre a terrible admin. that is all. Gringo 01:35, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, you can't get my admin privileges revoked, and you can't get admin. Seems like you'd be even worse than me. Also you are a bad troll, and your style of arguing is very flawed and uninformed. For you to call others trolls is like me calling someone else out for being ethnic. Keep your arguing off of this page Aidan. Next smartass comment from you is getting you banned. :> -- Big McStrongfist 01:46, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
i'd love one place where i've said i'm not a troll. and all i've done here is give my opinion and you're threatening a ban, top notch admin ye. Gringo 01:48, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I'm totally not a troll all the rest of jackasses are lololol hurrrrrrr--TahiriVeila 02:24, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
can you guys stop pissing in each other's cornflakes -Auron 02:23, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
If you'd actually asked a non-rhetorical question, I would've answered it - but, seeing as you didn't, I didn't have anything to answer. Daññy 02:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Auron, you hve just made my day. on the other hand, if i say anything here, it would probably start a flame war with lots of bans.--Bluetapeboy 04:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
lol at afk trying to give his opinion, jai trying to respond, danny trying to argue with retards, gringo/big trolling, and auron bothering to tell everyone to shut up. that is all.--Relyk talk 07:14, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd say that whether or not Saint is an admin determines whether he knows if somebody is a good admin or not is fallacious! ^_____^ --Crow 01:20, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
The problem with controlling the trolls was that at any one time there was only one admin with the balls and the will to do it. As soon as they tried they got gangraped by the entire rest of the community. That is really, no fucking fun. Our admins burnt out really, really fast. When you are fresh faced and have to deal with the likes of Tab, Skakid and Rawr, you are way fucking outgunned. The "worst trolls" in the history of GWW are a joke. I think one thing people also fail to appreciate is just how much work it was to be an admin during PvX's heyday. You would come in the morning and check as much of RC as you could, then hit refresh. The entire page would be new. You check that all, deal with what you had to and hit refresh. A new page again. New shit cropped up literally as fast as you could deal with it. Even just casually observing interaction on this wiki felt real time. It is something I have never seen on any other wiki. Misery 09:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Also, the new trolls are actually really easy to deal with, we just can't be bothered any more. The old school PvX trolls were also the best contributors and could be subtle when they wanted to be. This habit of calling each other "autistic niggers" is actually relatively new and is a bastardisation created from a poor interpretation by outsiders of what was going on. Misery 09:04, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Nail on head. Frosty 09:12, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Misery is old school admin. i thought frosty started autistic nigger though--Relyk talk 09:18, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
How can you not know who started autistic nigger. Frosty 09:57, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
i don't care?--Relyk talk 10:40, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
We could simply just ban all trolls on sight, problem solved. 11:23, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
No, that would not solve the problem, mostly because the only people still on pvx after a mass troll ban would be phen and toraen. 2 man buildwiki would work really well. /sarcasm. Life Guardian 11:30, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
It would encourage new and old users to join/return, and forces trolls to behave in line with the site's policies and ideals. Things get worse before they get better. Naturally, I don't advocate to banning contributors who troll in the past; rather, if they get out of hand, ban them. 11:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Carebear wiki is not good for an elitist site. Frosty 11:56, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
thx for the shoutout bro Tab 12:14, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
i never trolled! Rawrawr Dinosaur 18:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Bad players are still bad and shouldn't return to bring down PVX. If good players want to return then there ego's should be in check. Question is why did they leave in the first place. 12:28, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, those days. I could literally hit refresh on the recent changes and another admin-worthy matter would pop up. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 03:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, we can get two things out of this: No one can agree on how to fix the wiki, and this is a really, really good example of indenting at work. -- Jai 15:41, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Jai, you forgot, i'm here. indenting cant be perfect--Bluetapeboy 16:28, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

tab 4 admin, tsc :} Frosty 21:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

select your editors

What Auron seems to be looking for is a way to make PvXwiki (2?) more like GWW or GW, and banning more users isn't it. (If somebody posted a logical argument how this extreme blocking would lead to a better community, I missed it; in my experience, blocking without a comprehensible rationale leads to more conflict, rather than less.)

From some other comments, a theory is that PvXwiki simply lacked good writers to explain the meta well; ideally, you want to get enough across so that the contributors don't suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect any more. Or you could simply select editors who know what they're doing, by a measure that is both easy to understand and allows everyone in who is good enough. Maybe allow only people to submit and edit builds who have reached a certain rank; for PvE, maybe Guardian? Technically, MediaWiki restricts edits to MediaWiki namespace to sysops only; it shouldn't be too hard to restrict editing Build: namespace to a selected usergroup if you have control over the server. You'd not be shoveling so much shit out, but rather preventing it (and the asscoiated conflicts) from getting in. --◄mendel► 21:52, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Then we get accused of more elitism, unless we build a separate space for creative build making. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You dumbass isn't that what we are trying to acheive...creative builds? 22:23, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no. We want effective builds. Daññy 23:04, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
creative/efficient tbh. Mostly all builds are effective one way or another. 10:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
TBH KJ, that's what i've been arguing for all along. Two separate buildspaces. One where we record the meta (and possibly only allow a select few to edit this buildspace) and a second buildspace for theorycrafts. It's the only way i can see to make pvx work, unless you're willing to just get rid of theorycrafts altogether.--TahiriVeila 22:31, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
The problem with PvE titles is they don't accurately reflect player skill, PvP is better if you want to use a standard for allowing edits. The wiki worked well in the beginning when there weren't cookie cutter builds and most build concepts were plausible. There wasn't a need for people to verify their knowledge to contribute a build. We did select editors in a way when BMs were established to police the builds later on, but it created more elitism. It's not that we lacked experienced writers either, it's that none of them could be bothered to explain the game for other people. There's a chronic shortage of experienced players who also create build articles.--Relyk talk 22:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
If you have any suggestions on helping people realize they're suffering from a cognitive bias, I'd love a link or an explanation. As far as I know, it generally takes a trained therapist. (Plus, there's the whole problem of having a skilled enough initial userbase to begin a selection process - a problem that remains evident in PvX today.) Daññy 23:04, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

"TBH KJ, that's what i've been arguing for all along. Two separate buildspaces. One where we record the meta (and possibly only allow a select few to edit this buildspace) and a second buildspace for theorycrafts. It's the only way i can see to make pvx work, unless you're willing to just get rid of theorycrafts altogether." i 100% support this idea. this is better than all other suggested ways so far because:

  • 1: only allowing people with certain Title's to edit is stupid. you have no way to make sure its them/their character, because they could just get a picture off of google or they can simple use some already-submitted PvX build to Roll through GW (discordway for example) and be able to edit.
  • 2: Only allowing Sysops to Edit is only retarded if there is only one buildspace. if there are two, i would understand only sysops being able to Edit the Meta/Vetted buildspace and any random person to edit the Theorycraft buildspace

Hope i helped, --Bluetapeboy 03:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

So basically, we want to eat our pie and still have it? Please buy another one, then. 07:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I kind of like this pie. Also, I don't think this is about PvX2 at all, I think Auron just wants to know if we went wrong. It's a discussion dudes. Misery 08:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
If we wanted to eat our pie and still hold it in our hands, then naturally we need 2 pies at the least. We either pick quality or quantity, trying to have both is just too taxing on everyone. Or have 2 separate places for both. 12:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring the previous comments, you could alternatively just eat it with your fucking hands. ---Chaos- (moo!) -- 13:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Did you even read what people have suggested? Misery 13:54, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did, I am not actually advocating 2 separate buildspaces; but rather, two separate sites. I think gamependium was somewhat good at allowing people to share their theorycrafts - sure, most of them are terrible, but that's the whole point, isn't it? Screw around with silly builds and have fun. We are not about to have good builds and a wonderful community at the same time because of the way humans on the internet work, and I believe PvX already separates meta/great builds as mainspace and theorycrafts as userspace. If that doesn't work, naturally, you aren't going to be able to eat one pie and still have it. 10:59, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
@Daññy, the cognitive bias comes about because the people know too little. The obvious remedy is to motivate them to learn more, or to teach them; preferably both.
@KJ, since the accusation of elitism is here now, that wouldn't change things much. However, a clear promise of "once you get to rank NNN we'll give you the right to edit" is like an N.C. at a university; it's a comprehensible criterium which allows anyone able enough to join the elite if they put the effort in. The entrance requirement needn't be so strict as to never allow clueless people in; it should be soft enough to allow most clueful people to edit. Preferably, find out what ranks the present good editors are at.
@Relyk, the PvE titles don't need to accurately reflect player skill; but I'd think that of the people who made Guardian, very few will be so clueless as to not be able to reason sensibly about builds. We're just looking for a criterium to weed out (most of) the newbs and eternally clueless, not one to find the perfect editor.
@Bluetape: If there's rampant screenshot abuse that can't be detected by a short google, you can always start vetting people in-game. But even if you don't, if somebody cheats their way into the right of editing, you'd know quickly if they're clueless and can investigate them and perma them if needed; if you don't notice, they're clueful enough and it's ok to have them. Also, I didn't say to make them sysops; MediaWiki allows you to create a new usergroup (you do have the "Buildmaster" user group you're not using, but it could of course have any name) and assign rights to it.
  • "Theorycrafting space" could be userspace, with each user policing their own, and people linking to good editors or pages to make them known. If it's any other namespace (and even if it is userspace), the admins still have to deal with conflicts, with a flood of useless posts, and chaos and drama. It might be better, it might just be the same old problem in a new package.
  • PvXwiki could be a website where people who can theorycraft well interact with others of a same mind and enjoy it, and where those who can't enjoy reading the writings of those that do. If it can't get there (and a free-for-all theorycrafting space likely won't), it won't be a site that's worth reading (for the theorycrafting). If you want to be a site that gets people cookie cutter builds, of course it doesn't need to be. Simply stick to documenting the meta then.
--◄mendel► 07:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Except reality states that PvE titles does absolutely nothing to indicate any sort of skill whatsoever. It's not even a rough indicator. 11:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
There are other ways to judge how good somebody is at PvE.--Oskar 11:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
What are those ways?The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
Checking somebodies contributions!--Oskar 12:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
"the cognitive bias comes about because the people know too little. The obvious remedy is to motivate them to learn more, or to teach them; preferably both."
If by "knowing too little" you mean "having had one's eyes opened", then I agree with you. This is beginning to sound like philosophical bullshit, but what I'm trying to say is that few people learn by themselves how the internet as a medium influences social interactions and individuality is lost in a group and lalalaa. I just even ran into some study about this, but I assume everybody here is smart enough to get it. We should totally make understanding this mandatory by policy! ..Imagine how much bullshit it would filter out if such an absurd thought would actually work :D Then again, I feel that not even the majority of our core editors seem to have internalized it, so lol. ---Chaos- (moo!) -- 12:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I menationed the Dunning-Kruger-Effect, and I assumed that was teh bias you were referring to. Apparently you were aiming for something more general (which is, unfortunately, unclear to me), so I'm sorry for having misunderstood you. --◄mendel► 15:35, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
If you'll read the post on your talk page i just made mendel, you'll see that titles in pvp are a really bad indicator of a player's skill/understanding of the game. They just indicate how much people play. There are so many r12+ HA players that just played sway/iway the whole way there or simply spent inordinate amounts of time getting carried by decent players( since no one who plays HA is actually good or they'd be playing GvG). In GvG, even moreso, rank means absolutely nothing since most of the r6/7+ champs playing still either bloodspiked it or synced it.--TahiriVeila 15:54, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
It's partially related/similar to Dunning-Kruger, but not exactly. And to be honest I actually ended up posting that just because #1 I really just didn't follow the discussion and 2# I like pointing out individual issues with argumenting --DANDY ^_^ -- 16:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


moved from User talk:M.mendel
The problem with ranks are that they aren't a good indicator of skill. After playing GvG the last year i realized I was completely off base thinking that I was any good at the game when I was a tombser. Even the r13-14 people who play HA are horrible at the game. And when it comes to GvG rank doesn't matter. Guild rating doesn't matter either once you're in the top 60 or so, since it just indicates the amount of ATs you play. The only real indicator of skill are how one's guild performs in automated tournaments and even then, there are plenty of awful players in great guilds who get carried. There's just no quantifiable means of deciding whether or not someone's a moron/bad at the game. They're all qualitative factors that contribute to a final decision as to whether or not someone sucks.--TahiriVeila 15:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Whoru says "^" -- Jai 16:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
As you can easily see I'm not a PvP player (I'm good at wikis, though); on the face of it, your statement seems to indicate that having r13-14 and playing HA is a good indicator of skill, i.e. the absence of it? If you wanted to get really scientific, you'd have a look at the atrocious clueless editors on PvX, find out their ranks; and the better editors, find out their ranks; and then see if there's a useful distinction.
Another idea might be to suggest to ANet some way of making titles that are, in fact, indicative of skill.
The core of my proposal is not to use a specific title; the core is to select editors by some obvious criterium that is comprehensible to all so you don't have to post-moderate all the crap away, but rather avoid much of it from the outset. If you tell me that my method of selection won't work, that doesn't necessarily mean that selection is impossible; it merely means that I'm too dumb to suggest a way that works. But hey, it's a wiki, I live in the hope that somebody else might come up with something. --◄mendel► 16:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Give everyone my MSN adress, I'll have a quick psychological discussion with them, then evaluate whether they have potential to learn or not! :>! Note that I'm too shitty at the game to tell who's good or not, though.
I also think that an individual rating system, or any other system that not only awards succeeding but punishes failing, would be much better than simply rank systems which tell how often you've succeeded, and not the ratio of success/loss, which would actually be useful info. Don't ask what this is related to. --DANDY ^_^ -- 16:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
it relates a lot to the defunct hero batles ladder, that worked that way: ur good, u win, ur bad, theres no one in ur team to carry u, no one to flame at, and if there is a noob, ure the noob...The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
Except half the games in HB were just /rockpaperscissors matches. It was crazy easy to just sync with a friend and have them throw matches until you get the title. -- Jai 17:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
That, but I was really more gonna point out how correlating a rating system to HB is like saying "HAHA ISN'T IT FUNNY THAT BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL ARE BOTH GAMES INVOLVING A BALL". Rather terrible analogue, but it should serve my purposes well. Oh, and also, I found a cock in my basement, and I don't need any more of them. Does someone want? It's erect! :> --DANDY ^_^ -- 17:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
As an r7 Commander, I fully support this awesome proposal of using HB ranks that we all totally fully earned legitimately and certainly not through RR-botting for days on end. Daññy 21:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

actually, i was referring to the way i played it, totally forgot those rock paper games, that and red resign day...

@mendel, I still like my idea best. Have a theorycraft buildspace where anything can be posted and voted on (reserve WELL for builds that have already been vetted). Then have a separate buildspace that records the metagame and select 10-15 people to maintain it. Choose who gets to maintain the metaspace by an RfA/RfBM system where you're judged based on how well you play on obs mode and your demonstrated knowledge of game mechanics.--TahiriVeila 18:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

But IMO, there still definitely has to be a rating system in place on the theorycraft section. Something like over 4.5 for Great, 3.5 or 3.75 for Good, and from there to like 2 or 1.5 would be in Other. Absolutely terrible builds would be deleted. -- Jai 18:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
If you need to delete terrible builds, then your system for finding good builds ought to be rethought. --◄mendel► 19:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure anyone can add a build any time they feel like. But I think Mendel means that we ought to just be moving those builds into userspaces. Daññy 21:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that with a rating system, users should be able to find highly rated builds easily. If they do, nobody will look seriously at the badly rated builds, so there's no need to expend the effort to delete them (and redelete them as somebody else adds them, etc.). If you think that builds with bad ratings will have an impact on your readers, the idea is to change the site so that these readers are guided to the better builds instead. --◄mendel► 23:19, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Then what's the point of keeping the bad builds if we guide everyone to the better builds? People will still make the bad builds since they won't be searching through the build archive to check if it's already been posted, or make the excuse that "it isn't exactly the same build." As is, the only builds we keep are the ones viable for play, that's how we guide people to better builds. The problem is people often think their own build is better, whether because the stigma toward wiki builds or dunning-kruger.
For titles, it would be asking a miracle for anet to take the time to craft titles that accurately reflect player skill if it were ever plausible; pvx has had to rely on judging people in a subjective manner through the merit of their contributions. I think it would be too much to ask for in-game titles that immediately gives merit to contributors of a wiki.--Relyk talk 23:54, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Keeping an article for a build that is commonly trashed for the purposes of WELLing any further instances of the build is a plausible idea though, since we can spend less time on future instances of it, and have some proof that new users can see instead of having to repost the same arguments again and again. It could be a specific category, something like 'Trash-Archive'. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2.png 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A trash archive is something that's been brought up before and i like the idea, but as I said, people won't look at trashed build or an archive of trashed builds. If it was just for welling builds, people would still argue that their build isn't the same. It would be an improvement over what we do now though, "reposting the same arguments again and again."--Relyk talk 00:12, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of keeping bad builds? -- deleting builds leads to drama and conflict, and the idea was to reduce these. --◄mendel► 00:17, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Leaving the builds on the wiki in a 'Trashed' state leads to drama as well, as users in the past have constantly tried to push their build through vetting as long as possible. Discussion (including over-the-top drama) usually doesn't stop when a trash tag is applied. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2.png 00:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Or we just delete them and tell people to fuck off. That would work, too. Daññy 07:52, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
^ deleting builds can actually be used to kill drama. That being said, I see no reason to police and enforce anything in a theorycrafting section at all. Let it be as shitty as Gamependium, it likely will be anyway. Just care about the meta section. Misery 08:37, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Or, imho, let people who want to theorycraft go to gamependium, and keep PvX as a wiki (if we can still call it that) - more or less dedicated to the meta. Until gamependium goes offline, there isn't much of a reason for us to concern ourselves with another section. We have userspaces if we want to post shitty builds. Daññy 20:49, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
all i have to say is, is that "taking builds off of PvX and using them to get high rank"=/="being skilled at making builds". basically, any random crap face can get good ranks, but not everyone can evaluate a build and see if its good/bad.--Bluetapeboy 21:15, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
@Toraen: Of course applying a trash tag leads to conflict, same as deletion. It tells somebody: you did all this work that you're proud of, but it sucks (and so do you). Dealing with drama is giving attention to bad behaviour. Read any book on parenting, it's just not a productive thing to do. Make your website give attention to "good behaviour", good builds, good theory articles, well-written explanations (ok, I'm firmly in fiction-land now, 'cause that's never going to happen); ignore the trolls as good as you can, block them when they bring drama on pages where it doesn't belong (because it's clearly offtopic); in short, deny them the audience. It's not going to be a cure-all, but it's certain to reduce the time you spend on drama and help the people who write good stuff enjoy the wiki more and stay longer. Make it so you don't have to tell every idiot that they suck. If this advice seems obvious to you in a "Counselor Troi" sort of way, that's because apply trash tag ⇒ drama seems equally obvious to me. --◄mendel► 21:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
But trolling trolls is half the fun, see. -- Jai 01:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
If they create drama about their build, they won't stay/last long anyways. The wiki needs people who are willing to stay objective about builds and not carebear. It's counterproductive to let people contribute who will refuse to act mature, present thoughtful arguments, and/or avoid drama because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings on the internet.--Relyk talk 02:15, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
It's all about learning. Crap builds are just that and being a wiki we must get the proper information out there. Let the other sites keep there theorycrafting.--XTREME 03:01, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
One problem with that analogy is that parents usually care about what happens to their offspring and can't just tell them to fuck off and die. Misery 07:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise fine, but this whole page is about getting a friendlier community. What he said is actually a major prob. in the Finnish school system - AND BITCHES SHALL KNOW THAT OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM IS FUCKING EPIX. --DANDY ^_^ -- 08:28, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I can't figure out what "What he said" is referring to. --◄mendel► 09:05, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to assume Dandy's implying Finnish parents either tell their kids to fuck off or eat them. I'd imagine he was tired and referring to something you said, but my interpretation is far more colorful. Daññy 10:40, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I can't figure out what "eat them" is referring to.XTREME 11:18, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
That's what she said. --◄mendel► 13:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
"eat them"
"That's what she said."
doublevagina? Daññy 19:18, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
So I heard you're a pussy so we put a pussy in your pussy so you can shave your pussy while you shave your pussy. Fuck this. Cocks. Bearforce 1. --DANDY ^_^ -- 19:53, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Was referring to the part about not encouraging positive behavior. And d, I wasn't tired, only in a hurry! --DANDY ^_^ -- 14:13, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
fukung.net --◄mendel► 20:33, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

teaching pigs to sing

In regards to trying to be more friendly to users and teach them to be better players. There's an old yankee saying that i keep telling myself whenever I see a shitter. Don't try to teach a fucking pig to sing. You won't succeed. Pigs can't sing. All you'll do is work yourself up for nothing and piss off a pig. It's worked pretty well.--TahiriVeila 04:49, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

they do know how to squeal...--Relyk talk 06:16, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
BEARFORCE 1 Daññy 10:15, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
It's about the motivation: pigs don't want to sing. --◄mendel► 07:49, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
So why make them try?--TahiriVeila 17:53, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Because I have this carrot they want, and it motivates them. --◄mendel► 20:52, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Behavior modification has been proven null time and time again on the internetz. Someone will always troll and refute the status quo. Regardless of what type of environment we were to set up, it would happen. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

u sir

Are an enormous faggot. Get over the fact that very FEW people like you, even fewer respect you. I had to stop myself from saying no one because that's just illogical. I'm sure 'someone likes you. Somewhere. 00:39, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't very nice at all, especially for someone not man enough to provide any contact information. Sounds like someone's suffering from microphallus. Daññy 02:15, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
You're wrong there, IMO. Most people don't really like Auron, but I think most people respect him. He does what he can to help the wiki, whether or not it really turns out to be what the wiki needs; it's usually with good intentions. I'd honestly say that he's one of the few people here that actually care about PvX, and is mainly disliked because he doesn't bother with the circlejerks that are so common here. You're probably just butthurt because he perma'd your ass or something, tbh. --Jai. - 02:31, October 1 2010 (UTC)
i honestly had to google microphallus and google happily provided unwated image, and now i feel sick Dr Rawr 02:33, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
Now you've made me curious. Dammit. Be right back... --Jai. - 02:39, October 1 2010 (UTC)
Poor bastards. --Jai. - 02:42, October 1 2010 (UTC)
This just ruined my day, you have my sympathies--Relyk talk 02:47, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
It's not that bad when you can look at it from an outside point of view. Obviously it might be more difficult to face for many other PvX'ers since it hits so close to home. --Jai. - 02:51, October 1 2010 (UTC)
He's actually pretty funny. He also has a pretty progressive taste of music, and he's not completely autistic. Ye and he's a bitch towards mostly everyone (but mostly everyone is stupid), so lol? --DANDY ^_^ -- 19:07, October 1, 2010 (UTC)