Guild Wars 2

It was a very constructive and civil discussion. Everyone present felt we actually got a lot accomplished. As stated in the original thread, anyone who wanted to attend had the option to be there.

Guilds Present:
DnT
KING
LOD
rT
SC
vC

Approvers present:
Fennec
Ravi

Wethospu made it on for the tail end so we went over the changes with him.

Here’s the results: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k-0UGqmC6AVXgrCh0myB-dpLKVhbg9vGZz9Vfzi5qI0/edit?usp=sharing

I’m going to upload the audio too if anyone really wants to listen to the entire thing.

Edit: Link to the audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-TkcWZlDxo
(finally works)

One of the concerns was who should be having the decision power. I decided to move over that decision to the voteholders.

At the moment there is a vote on about the current voteholders at http://gw2dungeons.net/Voting.

In future, any guild can apply for the position and ask for a voteholder to make a proposition. Similarly voteholders can propose demotion of another voteholder, if case a guild turns inactive. Obviously I will try to filter any jokes/trolls.

maybe u should think about something as “votepower”, so more guilds can contribute, but for example SC would have 3 votes, while we would only have 1? just an idea.

I dont really think theres any merit to certain more established guilds have more vote power. Thats starting to get into some shady territory. The big guilds have more influence and that will influence the smaller guilds opinions to a certain degree. Theres no need to add extra vote power on top of that.

That said i might have to change my stance on that if we find ourselves in a situation where there is a huge amount of smaller guilds with vote privileges from only submitting one or two records and they completely outnumber the larger guilds that the votes would have more effect on.

So you’re allowed to immob Fimbul/Subject6 again, and not allowed to do the Molten Facility speed up trick?

Jerus.4350:

So you’re allowed to immob Fimbul/Subject6 again, and not allowed to do the Molten Facility speed up trick?

Yea

Fennec.2961:

Jerus.4350:

So you’re allowed to immob Fimbul/Subject6 again, and not allowed to do the Molten Facility speed up trick?

Yea

such a fickle community we have here

Glad it’s all figured out finally (right?).

@Jerus This Ruleset is not done for such issues, it’s done to have a clear point for every issue so there is a clear definition for out of bounds and for inactive bosses. With this ruleset you can prevent future issues or even issues coming up with hot.

The video you have requested is not available.

“(for whenever youtube finishes processing it).”

I was looking forward to listening to a bunch of nerds talk about rules for 3 hours :^(

Uh yeah so apparently Youtube didn’t accept the upload. I’ll try again and edit the link when I get it.

Jerus.4350:

Fennec.2961:

Jerus.4350:

So you’re allowed to immob Fimbul/Subject6 again, and not allowed to do the Molten Facility speed up trick?

Yea

such a fickle community we have here

Glad it’s all figured out finally (right?).

It’s not final yet. They didn’t have the majority of decision makers there.

BlackDragon.3752:

@Jerus This Ruleset is not done for such issues, it’s done to have a clear point for every issue so there is a clear definition for out of bounds and for inactive bosses. With this ruleset you can prevent future issues or even issues coming up with hot.

It was already clear. This was just some people spending some effort to get what they want (which is perfectly acceptable). No need to sugar coat it.

Rules look good. Changes to active voting (yes/no specific issues only not new rules) is really good.

As far as guilds who didn’t show up, were they not invited or did they just choose to not show up? I wasn’t there I have no idea. I assume qT was invited and chose not to show up.

Yes we were invited but we did not want to join.

youtube finally finished processing it. For some reason it wouldn’t accept just audio so had to just add in a blank screen.

After getting back from my holiday (reason i was unable to attend) and catching up on what i missed i would like to say the only reason HeX went silent was because we decided to wait for things to calm down before posting more records that could possibly get disapproved with votes and such now that things have passed and we have a set rule set we have re started our record attempts and such. also a large amount of our members are people who where involved in KING records back when we where in.

Wethospu.6437:

One of the concerns was who should be having the decision power. I decided to move over that decision to the voteholders.

At the moment there is a vote on about the current voteholders at http://gw2dungeons.net/Voting.

In future, any guild can apply for the position and a poll will be made about it. Similarly voteholders can propose demotion of another voteholder, if case a guild turns inactive. Obviously I will try to filter any jokes/trolls.

Weth, has everybody chimed in on this vote yet?

Wethospu.6437:

Jerus.4350:

Fennec.2961:

Jerus.4350:

So you’re allowed to immob Fimbul/Subject6 again, and not allowed to do the Molten Facility speed up trick?

Yea

such a fickle community we have here

Glad it’s all figured out finally (right?).

It’s not final yet. They didn’t have the majority of decision makers there.

BlackDragon.3752:

@Jerus This Ruleset is not done for such issues, it’s done to have a clear point for every issue so there is a clear definition for out of bounds and for inactive bosses. With this ruleset you can prevent future issues or even issues coming up with hot.

It was already clear. This was just some people spending some effort to get what they want (which is perfectly acceptable). No need to sugar coat it.

How was it clear when we had weekly voted about issues which couldn’t apparently be handled by the ruleset?

I have no idea what you are trying saying. If it’s the usual bullkitten crying I don’t have much patience left for it.

Enko.6123:

Wethospu.6437:

One of the concerns was who should be having the decision power. I decided to move over that decision to the voteholders.

At the moment there is a vote on about the current voteholders at http://gw2dungeons.net/Voting.

In future, any guild can apply for the position and a poll will be made about it. Similarly voteholders can propose demotion of another voteholder, if case a guild turns inactive. Obviously I will try to filter any jokes/trolls.

Weth, has everybody chimed in on this vote yet?

6 have voted so far.

We’re not going to vote, because we dont want to influence the outcome. As some ppl dont like “casual dungeonguilds” like us to vote we’re just gonna wait for the decisions of the record guilds.
Pretty much same reason why we didnt attend the rulemeeting.

Ashlee.8409:

We’re not going to vote, because we dont want to influence the outcome. As some ppl dont like “casual dungeonguilds” like us to vote we’re just gonna wait for the decisions of the record guilds.
Pretty much same reason why we didnt attend the rulemeeting.

I was actually wondering where you were since I thought you said you wanted to come. Didn’t see you online so couldn’t message you.

After our talk, which cleared a lot of misunderstandings, I asked my guild if anyone would like to come (before I saw no reason for that), but ppl couldnt or didnt want to join the meeting caused by the drama.
Personally i also couldnt make it, I’m sorry that I didnt express myself well.

Based on the last week’s vote, [HeX], [LOD], [qT], [vC], [SC], [DnT] and [rT] have a vote.

Which means the meeting had 5 of 7 guilds represented. I will make the required changes when I get home.

Edit: No [HeX]

Shouldn’t a guild have to get over 50% of votes in it’s favor to earn voting rights? After all in a poll of 6 voters getting a 3-3 split is most likely the result of a guild voting for itself and 2 out of the other 5 guilds doing the same, unless you’ve made people unable to vote for themselves and I’m not aware of it.

I don’t think you are the right person to talk about the fairness of voting.

I have added the proposed rules to http://gw2dungeons.net/Rules. Also other meeting decisions are now in effect, including the change of record vC-HotW-P3-3-59-Restricted to restricted. The site is middle of some major changes so I can’t yet update everything (like ruleset names).

Votes are no longer used for rule changes. Only to clarify things. I assume written rules will be only changed by meetings, is this correct?

Wethospu.6437:

I don’t think you are the right person to talk about the fairness of voting.

What did I do now? And it’s not a question of fairness, I don’t doubt your intentions or integrity it’s just my observer’s opinion of the matter.

And yes, we agreed on votes only being used to clarify/classify things as issues if they come up and not change existing rules or create new ones.

The results of the meeting seem to indicate that the only people who can approve records are the collection of all voting guild representatives, 1 per voting guild. Does that mean the rest of the approvers will have their rights revoked since they do not represent any current voting guilds?

As far as I can tell, this means our approver list should be:

spoj – [rT]
Saix – [DnT]
Deathly – [qT]
Jerem – [SC]

I do not believe anyone from [vC], [HeX], or [LOD] is a current approver, so they would need to find someone willing. Does that sound right to everyone?

Current list is:

Rising Dusk (Rising Dusk.2408) ????
Deathly (ShadowRX.9024)
Spoj (spoj.9672)
Jerem (jeremlloyd.6837)
Fennec (Fennec.2961)
Zui (Zui.9245)

Veckna.9621:

Wethospu.6437:

I don’t think you are the right person to talk about the fairness of voting.

What did I do now? And it’s not a question of fairness, I don’t doubt your intentions or integrity it’s just my observer’s opinion of the matter.

And yes, we agreed on votes only being used to clarify/classify things as issues if they come up and not change existing rules or create new ones.

I apologize if I have got this wrong. But I just find your comment bit weird when you personally had no issue with voting on behalf of a non-existing guild.

But yes, you are correct. I will remove [HeX] too.

Rising Dusk.2408:

I do not believe anyone from [vC], [HeX], or [LOD] is a current approver, so they would need to find someone willing. Does that sound right to everyone?

What I recall from that meeting is that they wanted a maximum of one approver per guild as a safety net, and not a static one per guild. Anyone can apply as long as it doesn’t break that rule and they meet Weth’s standards ofc.

doddbox.8153:

Rising Dusk.2408:

I do not believe anyone from [vC], [HeX], or [LOD] is a current approver, so they would need to find someone willing. Does that sound right to everyone?

What I recall from that meeting is that they wanted a maximum of one approver per guild as a safety net, and not a static one per guild. Anyone can apply as long as it doesn’t break that rule and they meet Weth’s standards ofc.

This is correct, the 1 approver per guild is a maximum limit to ensure fairness between competitors. Anyone who wishes to volunteer for the position can become an approver with Wethospu’s approval.

Okay that’s good clarification. I wasn’t quite sure from the GDoc outcomes what that exactly meant. That would mean that our current guild representatives are:

spoj – [rT]
Saix – [DnT]
Deathly – [qT]
Jerem – [SC]
Fennec – [vC]
Zui – [DnT]

…with two not belonging to or representing any of the voting guilds:

Rising Dusk
Wethospu

This means that either Zui or Saix will need to step down as an approver, seeing as that’s the only case where two or more of a given voting guild are listed as approvers. Also, it would still be cool to have someone from [LOD] approving… Enko?

Isnt Zui and Saix the same person?

Don’t think so, thought Saix was Ravi?

Either way, maybe I’m just not getting it, but what’s the problem with multiple approvers from the same guild? I see someone calling it a safety net… safety net for what? Isn’t it already understood you don’t approve your own guild’s records?

Meh yeah im getting them confused.

Jerus.4350:

Don’t think so, thought Saix was Ravi?

Either way, maybe I’m just not getting it, but what’s the problem with multiple approvers from the same guild? I see someone calling it a safety net… safety net for what? Isn’t it already understood you don’t approve your own guild’s records?

So when theres a debate between approvers one guild cant influence more than others due to having multiple approvers, pretty simple concept really.

Even though it became less important since approvers should now only deny records based on the defined rules, whereas before it was more up to interpretation, still a useful rule imo.

I don’t think approvers have made a single decision so far. Any issues have been voted on or dictated by me.

Aye, I guess I just imagine if I was an approver I would love the extra help and wouldn’t want what seems like outdated concerns preventing that. I mean look a while ago when the issues of Out of Bounds and Immobing bosses before they really activate came up. Approvers weren’t in full agreement, spoj even went as far as to approve one but then people complained and it was all handled not by the approvers decision. Seems enough reason to dismiss the concern of them influencing anything other than the amount of time it takes to get approved.

Ravi and I are not the same person. (I know, I know, shocking right?). Due to real life, Ravi felt he might not be able to dedicate enough time to approving records, and as such resigned since he didn’t want to neglect said duties. I took over (as of a few hours ago).

I don’t think too many approvers from the same guild is much of an issue based on this community and the structure of the records system, but I can understand the concern raised regarding influence. Better safe than sorry, I suppose.

Rising Dusk.2408:

Also, it would still be cool to have someone from [LOD] approving… Enko?

Uh sure. I’ll send Wethospu a message.

Enko.6123:

Uh sure. I’ll send Wethospu a message.

Only if you’re interested. I only mentioned your name because I figured you could ask someone from your guild if they were interested. There’s certainly no requirement for it.

Enko is usually looking at everyone’s records anyways, even correcting their listed time for them.

no Goku look at Solo/Duo ruleset, it’s not mentioned there.

Which traits cause skill cooldowns to reset?

this one can reset Guards F3 for a extra Aegis other than that all Elite Specializations will be able to completely reset elite spec Skills as you can see here , but i dont think this falls under the current Rule as you dont use a Skill twice in a row.

I would expect that elite spec thing to get fixed.

So how do we detect if a guardian uses an extra Aegis?

Absolute Resolution also resets the F2.

As for detection… You could do it if you had the Guardian’s POV, watched for trait swapping, and timed how much longer the cooldown on the F2/F3 ‘ought’ to be. But detecting it without the Guardian POV is unlikely to happen without applying some extremely serious (likely unrealistic) scrutiny to the boons of everyone in the party throughout the entire run duration (in the case of the F3), and even less likely in the case of the F2.

It would be very strange to reject a record because a Guardian did some trait swapping between bosses and used an F2 or F3 again a few seconds before they ‘ought’ to have been able to use it. Luckily, Mesmers are superior for records, so I doubt this will happen.

Based on current rules, even resetting the cooldown is banned.

So at the moment it’s an automatic rejection if:

• No guardian POV is provided.
• Trait Indomitable Courage is swapped while Virtue of Courage is on cooldown.
• Trait Absolute Resolution is swapped while Virtue of Resolve is on cooldown.

I guess you could watch the reset of Indomitable Courage (since Absolute Resolution doesn’t matter that much) by looking at the Guardian’s buffs bar, since if he/she uses it for Aegis/Stability losing the passive effect and then swaps it off, the “Virtue of Courage” passive buff will be reset and appear again.