User talk:Krowman

From GuildWiki

User Page

Talk Page

GWW

PvX

GWG

Contributions

Sandbox

?

Contents 1 Responding as requested 2 Hehe 3 NICE PAGE 4 No problem 5 Hi 6 You have been Invited 7 Deep Wound RA Build 8 Kevin Ly 9 Builds wipe and by-nc-sa

[edit] Responding as requested

What do you have in mind? —Tanaric 19:41, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

What do you propose to do about the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license? It explicity states that we must give a User credit for his or her contributions to the wiki. (Section 4d) Deleting the entire Builds name space is not encompassed under Section 6's stipulations, so how do plan to properly attribute a user's contributions to him or her? If we cannot attribute users' work to them, we will be in direct violation of the A-NC-SA. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

That's a great point. We can delete builds without license issues, as we're completely removing the content. The only potential license violation is when a user copies the current text of a build to their namespace without attributing it. However, that license violation is by the user, not by the GuildWiki itself. To avoid copyvio situations, a user should attribute any text they copy properly, by at least mentioning all contributors in a section at the bottom of the build.

Legally speaking, that's the easiest stance for me to take. I'd like to avoid putting the onus of copyright on our users in this case, but I don't have much of a choice since copying builds into userspace isn't an "official" policy. However, if you can think of a better solution, I'm all ears. —Tanaric 20:00, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

With them copy-pasting existing builds to their user space, they will have violated the license as you said, but their userspace isn't an independent entity removed from gwiki. We should probably put up a note or banner somewhere on the wiki, if not in many places, to warn/advise users to properly attribute the work that they are copy-pasting. To 'save our own butts' and to operate within the terms of the license, though, someone, or a group of people, will have to go through all these "user buildspaces" and enforce proper attribution. This is an unsavory option if only because of the sheer amount of work it would entail.

Since it looks like the GW:NOB policy will likely be the one the buildspace reverts to, wouldn't it be easier to freeze the builds section as is, and to directly delete the builds we will be getting rid from there? The ones we keep will have their history preserved, therefore meeting the attribution criteria, and the ones we don't keep will be deleted and completely removed from the wiki. This would also mean less work when dealing with the builds in userspaces. Many users will abandon their own buildspace projects if the good builds on the wiki are preserved, or at the very least will only holding onto the builds we choose to delete. The documentation of Archived builds would be easier this way too.

I recognize that there are more bad builds than good ones here. However, if we delete a build, and post it later (once a policy is decided on), there would be a potential copyright infringement there. If we delete someone's contributions, and then re-use them again later on, we could have problems. I don't know that anyone has, but if they have documented (through a screen capture or any other means) that they made a contribution, we deleted it, then reused it later, we would definitely be in the wrong. It's unlikely, but why take the chance? - Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Freezing the section would remove the point. If we freeze the section, the style and formatting article for builds is essentially locked in place, because nobody will edit it based upon the amount of work that would be required to make the old builds fit the new style -- especially if that style is significantly different (say, no skill bars?). Similarly, any new builds policy suggestions are bound to the existing concept of what a build article is. This removes the viability of "guides, not builds" suggestions, or anything else that radically different than what we have.

I will add text to builds wipe describing that users are responsible for maintaining article contribution history. Allow me to state this bluntly: I would rather forbid copying builds to userspace than freeze the builds section.

Also, don't forget that we can revert all deletions, so the potential problems with this aren't too big of a deal. If an individual contributor discovers that his build is being used in an unattributed fashion, we can very easily check the contribution history. I don't mean to imply that I'll turn a blind eye to userspace copyvios -- I won't, and we need to attack this problem right now -- but no formal copyvio gestapo is needed beyond this. We can deal with reports of copyright violation on a case-by-case basis as they come up.

—Tanaric 20:43, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Ah, ok, I totally overlooked the S & F point. I didn't realize the way builds were presented was such a problem; I thought the major issue was content. The guides-over-builds idea is a fine one, though I personally think it will experience the same content-related issues as builds do. For the user buildspaces, how do you plan on enforcing proper attribution? - Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

I've found that S&F is intrinsically linked to what content is generated. If S&F requires a summary section, we'll get a summary. If it doesn't, people will just post random, unreadable crap. :)

As for user buildspaces, I (and hopefully other admins) will spotcheck copied builds to make sure the users are including historical information. This will likely dissuade build copying, which is a shame, since it was a decent solution to the wipes issue. That said, later on, anybody who needs to resurrect a build can always ask an admin to temporarily undelete, so this isn't a huge risk. Somebody could always just grab a list of all the build names they care about instead of the builds themselves.

—Tanaric 13:34, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Heh, see User:Auron of Neon/Archive effort. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:46, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Hehe

AoE damage, whats that? Everyone knows that flare is real pwnage. Combined with minions, you are unstoppable! Try it, and you'll see what I mean XD. Readem (talk*contribs) 21:46, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

AoE = Area of Effect, a skill such as Meteor Shower is an AoE skill ----InfestedHydralisk 13:37, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

*Insert sarcasm here* --SigmA 13:49, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Uhhh, I knew that >_> ----InfestedHydralisk 15:05, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] NICE PAGE

haha. just wanted to point that out. Giangn626 23:14, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, I appreciate it. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] No problem

Feel free to give me advice anytime :D. (Most of those build are unfinsihed anyway, cause Im just way too lazy ;p) Readem (talk*contribs) 15:42, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Hi

i saw your vote on Build: N/Me Death Farmer and was wondering if you could share that N/Mo solo build with me, or help me learn how to live with the existing build, i can't farm anything with the build + tactics given by the author. My IGN is Noodle Bury Pie, if you could get around to helping me. Thanks a lot! 76.19.223.231 20:52, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Sure. I deleted my necro a little while ago to remake him for Nightfall (he had strange Canthan hair). I still farmed with him after the AI nerf though. This works well, but kinda slowly, in the Troll cave (Talus Chute, just out of Drok's).

Protective Spirit

Healing Breeze

Shield of Absorption

Tainted Flesh

Well of Suffering

Necrotic Traversal

Essence Bond

Balthazar's Spirit

They don't recognize the well as AoE. My biggest beef with it is that it takes a while to degen something to death. Sometimes I'll trade a skill for something like Bitter Chill so I can deal damage faster, and create corpses. They never stop attacking, and don't get KD the way SoJ used to give them, so your energy is always coming in fast and steady. There is also a build here on the wiki that can be used to farm high-level places and critters like this.

Protective Spirit

Vigorous Spirit

Spoil Victor

Healing Breeze

Plague Touch

Essence Bond

Balthazar's Spirit

Mending

I would drop Mending and Vig Spirit here for SoA and a cover hex, respectively. Parasitic Bond most likely, some suggest Suffering. Vampiric Bite/Touch would also be useful for when their health is too low to trigger SV. The first build can farm many creatures at once, the second build is more for smaller groups. Hope this helps. P.S. In case you can't tell, these are both 55 builds. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:22, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks a lot, i'll have to try the tainted build, looks promising. my 55 build goes something like this: curses at 16, 9/9 in healing and protection prayers. the usual 5 enchants, guardian (troll interrupts), Suffering and Spiteful. I use this to farm wardens, dragon mosses, trolls (with body blocking trick), minos (same trick), tusked howlers+hunters, jade and prophecies titans. also, have you ever thought of using Shielding hands instead of SoA? i tend to choose it because with a 20% enchant mod, it has only 5 seconds of downtime, and it's harder to interrupt. just food for thought, and thanks again. 76.19.223.231 06:47, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

one last question: could you be so kind to share the attributes for your tainted build? i took a guess at 16 death (which may not be needed), 10 prot (SoA breaking point), 8 heal, 5 blood (for energy from offhand.) Thanks again, the build is really working for me! 76.19.223.231 15:13, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

WTF? just tried it and they're running from tainted! 76.19.223.231 20:27, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Couldn't tell ya what happened. Maybe give it another try. It seemed to be working for you there. There's no information about any recent updates changing the AI to recognize that. They usually will back away once they start infecting each other and all, but they shouldn't drop everything and run out of the well or disease range. Like I said, it's slow to degen something to death, but like we both know, you can do it. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:29, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] You have been Invited

Hello, you are cordially invited to participate and or contribute, to these pages.
Skill of the Week
User Box Museum

Readem (talk*contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Deep Wound RA Build

Haha, no worries, I was teasing you. You commented under a Favored vote of mine for a user's build that used a bad Elite for the Nog64 contest, saying that the Build would've somehow benefited from Deep Wound/holy sword combo in RA when it made no sense for to use Deep Wound for a Build whose objective is to simply make the Elite work properly. :P Regardless of whether or not it really would benefit, I was still teasing you. :) GrammarNazi 22:47, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Kevin Ly

it's about to be deleted, therefore it's temporary, and therefore Slander. we can change the tag, if you feel it really needs to be here perminatly. ;P --Honorable Sarah 19:48, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

LoL, I know m8, I was just having a bit of fun. Didn't tihnk it would matter much, since the page was about to be deleted. It's actually libel since it's defamation made in a fixed medium. "The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action." That's from the Slander article you linked to, btw. I wasn't trying to be a dick, just poking a bit of fun at it. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

I'd like to thank you both for giving me the most "legalese" type block reason I think I have ever used.  :) --Rainith 20:11, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Builds wipe and by-nc-sa

I trust you've properly attributed each of your archived builds. Without attribution, you can keep them on your HD forever, but you can't bring them back to the Wiki; if bringing them back is your eventual plan, you'll need to copy the histories of each build before they get wiped. Have fun :) -Auron 05:14, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Hell, by now there are dozens of people who have archived the exact same builds. Some of the articles (if not the builds) I've got are pretty bad, and could use some elaboration. I'll probably just store them on my hard drive, and write fresh ones from scratch, drawing on those articles for inspiration. It's a pity FunkyKing didn't have his script written and hosted at the time when I was sifting through the Buildspace; it's a nice bit of coding. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 April 2007 (CDT)